|
User talk:AmiDaniel/Archive11
== seeVote == seeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC) your current info for seeVote is wrong.... its misleading .. and will continue to confuse a very confusing subject to begin with.. please take the time to understand that seeVote is a theory .. nothing to sell ... by reverting to the erranous definition... you are doing a disservice to people trying to understand how important seeVote is to restoring democracy in USA. ... PLEASE NOTCE THE REVERTED WRONG definition links to the same website at I am quoting. Pleaes fix .. i am done trying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.60.155 (talk • contribs) .
Either take off the link or correct the definition please. I am only attempting to prevent your wiki from broadcasting OBVIOSLY wrong and misleading inforamtion about my invention. you suggest I write seeVote in my own words. now what? It IS IS IS in my own words ... I invented seeVote. thanks for taking the time to understand the situation. If I could describe seeVote in other words .. then I'd use those words for the website too. PS ..seeVote.com is not copyrighted. Your are too quick to judge! Where does it say it has a copyright? Maybe I should make the seeVote website wrong .. so that you will accept the correct definition .. then Ill revert the website back.. but that seems silly. I thank you for your time, seeVoteDan
Also, from your own Manual of Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style : "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting." I am sure somewhere it says CORRECT information is more important than ERRORS too.. please take the seeVote entry off your site .. if you refuse to correct it.thank you. Please goto seeVote.com contact page and ask them what they should do... then you'll be talking to me.. and we can resolve this. thanks. you're the greatest!!
seeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) David Underdown said: "Perhaps your website is not as clear to others as you think? " Perhaps, the need for clarification! ...ie my article update. get it? have you made my point for me? I agree with you about the copyright issue. I, as sole holder of its copyright agrees to you publishing correct information about my self-copyrighted invention/theory. I do not grant you permission to broadcast wrong information about seeVote.. Certainly you may not link your wrong article to seeVote.com either.. only link the proper description .. found at the website. Please help me. Your current wiki description states: seeVote... "produces two ballots (one for voter to keep; the other for a locked ballot box)" This is misleading since seeVote keeps both ballots locked in two differnet places, counted by two different efforts (a precincts traditional counting system and the seeVote system of verification on the internet) ..etc.. Funny, I got a google alert today telling me how eBay now has seeVote in its wiki.. it came from your wrong article that I am desperately trying to change: http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/SeeVote.html get it? this is very painfull to all our effort of people here helping me with seeVote. "Reasonably accurate to you" is exactly why I need to have this corrected. I hope my explaination of the issue is as important to me as it is to you. I respect your time on this last issue ..and will accept a final careful judgement from your thoughts after a more careful reading of the wrong wiki article Vs. the correct definition on the seeVote website, which, by the way, should at least prove that your wrong article should STOP linking seeVote.com. thank you. I'd rather you link your article to Diebold. sheesh.
seeVote 12:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I finally read "The five pillars of Wikipedia" and I appreciate your efforts here much much more. I will be brief: I am attempting to write an objective article for your wiki.. it will be interesting for me to rethink seeVote in a more objective perspective. See how I do. until then, can we please fix the wrong article? thank you
VP going interwikiAlthough it's hardly the most active for vandalism, I'd be happy to run VandalProof on MetaWiki, if you need someone. Let me know if you do, thanks. --Xyrael T 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
UserboxenI've restored the histories of the userboxes; however, I would think it better to move them rather that cnp-move. Do you mind if I migrate these to your userspace for you? AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was a bigger bitch than I thought it would be =D. You can check my move log if you have any question about where they wound up, though I kept the namings all as logical as possible. Let me know if I missed anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of dholbajjaA user User:Holywarrior is behind defaming the upper castes of northern India and he has been continuously editing this article on a nonexistent but derogatory word Dholbajja. This is NOT a subcaste of Bhumihar. Go to the Bhumihar page and find out if it mentions this word. This word is a form of abuse/slur and it has been intentionally associated with Bhumihar. This article claims that Bhumihars are Dom that is the lowermost caste of India and they are also 'untouchables'. This article should be deleted and I am fed up of fighting with you administrative people. With my efforts, a similar article Domkatar by the same user has been deleted. Please get this false article dholbajja deleted ASAP. Please reply on your own page only. I will read it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.43.73 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
The AOL vandalNow they're going around inserting "ts" into articles, should the range be blocked again? (see my contributions) —Khoikhoi 09:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Missing a limbIf you cut of your right foot, and act fast enough, you can get it reattached. "An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up going blind." -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking for a certain pageThere used to be a page where I could see all current AfD discussions in a table with percentages etc. It seems to have gone, could you reply to me with a link? Figured the vandalism specialist would be a good one to contact here! --Matt 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
New UsernameHey Daniel, I should have thought to tell you beforehand but I've changed my username from User:Stollery to User:GIen (note that's G capital "i" en the "l" was taken) - could you please enable my mod access as soon as able as the requests line is backing up! Thanks :) - Glen 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Mod resetI need you to reset the mods again, type 13 mismatch. Prodego talk 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be good now, sorry for the delay. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
VandalProof version 1.3When will this version (1.3) be avaliable to us for download? Booksworm Talk to me! 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Porting VandalProof to LinuxHi AmiDaniel, what language is VandalProof currently written in? I'm interested in porting it to Linux in a few months time during my spare time (if I graduate on time!). I'm currently doing all my counter-vandalism using Lupin's scripts, but having more firepower would be nice = ) Netsnipe 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Userpage editsI took the liberty of fixing your Userpage, more specifically your userboxes. I hope this is OK with you, as it was annoying to me. Here is what it looked like to me (sorry about the large file size). It may have been Firefox's fault, but everything is better now. --yaninass2 | talk 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
URGENT problem with VPUser_talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs#URGENT_PROBLEM_-_Watchlist --mboverload@ 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 19th.
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. Message delivered by Ralbot 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the parts were content dispute-ish, but the anon kept removing the main image w/o any explanation, it's that vandalism? —Khoikhoi 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nizami unlockAgreements were made about the [Nizami] article. So I am requesting unlock. --Ali doostzadeh 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Protected Elvis pageUnfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See [2]. Onefortyone 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
CommentLet me know if my revert of you was a mistake. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Get on IRC - mboverload —The preceding unsigned comment was added by mboverload (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
Image Tagging for Image:Patashnik.jpegThanks for uploading Image:Patashnik.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandal-fighting
Nornnahello AmiDaniel, can you redirect the Nornna article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#YouTube_stars Mateus Zica 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
VP question (and extremely minor bug)How did you block version 1.2 by placing "DONOTALLOW V1_0_0"? Wouldn't that block 1.0.0? Second the bug, when you use the mod tools to welcome new users, the cancel button does not change to done when you are finished if you welcomed more then 1 user. Prodego talk 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
WelcomeBotHi AmiDaniel: I recently proposed the idea of a WelcomeBot at Wikipedia:Bot requests and Template talk:Welcome and found that it was written off by Wikipedians almost immediately. After searching the 'pedia, I found that you've been kicking around this idea, too. Personally, I don't really understand the objection that this would "depersonalize" the Welcome process. Veteran users would continue to greet newbies: they'd just use a "Hi, I'm ABC!" instead of the rather impersonal {{subst:Welcome4}}. Anyways, I noticed that you said you could probably make such a bot. I have absolutely no programming experience but am interested in the idea of a pursuing this project. Would you want to bring a WelcomeBot to life? --Alex S 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
SitenoticeThe id used to be in there... I'm not sure when it was removed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 07:23
Re: Your UBX on RegistrationHi AmiDaniel. I was just looking over the userboxes on your main page, and I notice you have one which says you wish people would register with Wikipedia, but do not believe it should be required for them to edit a page. As an RC Patroller myself, and a member of the CVU, I have encountered numerous difficulties when it comes to dealing with Vandals who simply login thru an IP Address, rather than a username, which is easier to block and keep track of. I would like to ask you why you object to people having to register in order to edit a page, since this would make both mine and your jobs a heck of a lot easier. Your may either reply here, as I will mark the page to my watchlist, or you may pin a message to my Large Hairy Icelandic Yak and I will collect it when I come on next. Thanks for your time. Thor Malmjursson 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
From CVPJThanks for the courteous reply on Ajit Someshwar. I looked at WP Auto and I assure you this is a bio, not an autobio, and I am not the subject, I am not Indian, I have very little contact with Indo-Canadians, though through a colleague, I do know Ajit and I thought he would make a worthwhile bio. Better if his book were done of course. You could probably guess at my own background by looking at some of the other things I've chosen to 'volunteer' for Wikipedia, and they have nothing to do with India or Indians. I think Wikipedia is a fantastic enterprise, but it needs to be wary about its occidental biases (and I'm occidental myself). I've already made the point about 14,000 'American bios' by W search, 6,000 German, 4,000 French, 2,000 Indian (these are rough figures, you must have better ones). A search for 'Indo-Canadian bios' kicks out some five people, two of them the director and the Indo-Polish star of the film Water. By adding Ajit, the overall Indo-Canadian category was at least boosted a little - there are about three million South Asians in North America, a small nation if you like and they include 45,000 doctors in their own US association. However, I don't really want to ask for a deletion review - the tone of some of your reviewers ('Who is this guy', etc) suggests that's it better not to be in Wikipedia at all than to be rejected by it. The current Google search for Ajit kicks out the Wikipedia deletion as if he were rejected or outed for some crime - it has to be quite humiliating for him, and I don't even know how to broach that. In some areas of my journalism career, that 'publication' of what should perhaps be internal Wikipedia documents could even be construed as repeating a libellous or at least slanderous statement, and the US first amendment doesn't protect Wiki or Google in many countries (try defending a claim for lible in the UK). So there are a lot of issues still to be discussed in all of this. However in the end I bow to your own W wisdom in deciding what is notable enough. But perhaps in your 'internal' discussions you need to find a way to be more discreet in how you do a deletion. I know that may do some damage to the open source idea, and to the freedom of 'insider' debates. I am all for open sourcing, it's the whole point of Wikidom. Finally I can tell you I was considering putting some others I know (not Indian) who have authored books or have some notability and might be worthy of a place, but I'm not going to risk it for their sakes. As an author of no importance myself, my own bio won't go in unless someone I don't know does it (and I'd probably be the first to call for a deletion). Many thanksCvpj 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)cvpj
VandalProofThere is a problem with my VandalProof. All the links are followed by a link with ? and then the name, for instance:
Error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "User:Booksworm/monobook.js (Diff: 0, 0)". This might be because no page has yet been created with this name, in which case you can start it by clicking the "edit this page" link. If it is a recently changed page, trying again in a minute or two will usually work. Alternatively, you may have followed an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. Revisions that contain personal information disclosed without permission, may have been permanently removed. If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this using the procedure given at Wikipedia:Bug reports, making note of the URL. Retrieved from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Booksworm/monobook.js%E2%80%8E"
copyvio?Hi, I know you specialize in anti-vandalism, but it seems you know something about copyvio issues as well. If you have the time and inclination, would you take a quick look at DeVotchKa Lyrics? 99% of the article's content is the lyrics, and they seem to have been reproduced in their entirety. I get the impression that this is not strictly kosher but I lack the wiki-experience to be certain. If you do get a chance to look at it could you also post your opinion here? If I'm wrong I don't want to waste anyone else's time with similar issues. Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work; WP could use more like you :) Doc Tropics 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
SitenoticeWhat you're looking for is /* REMOVE THAT UGLY SITENOTICE*/
#siteNotice {
display: none;
}
There already is an id with the "N" capitalized. --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandals and Spammers and Newbs OH MY!Hi Ami! I am stuck between a rulebook, everyone telling me "No no no, never edit war", and seeing many blatant advertisers for porn or insignificant bands, etc. It is my humble opinion that the docs actually lead to edit wars. If anyone had any sense at all, they would insist that the 3RR be read first before giving out a username. Situations occur at random, and Wiki is VERY inviting and helpful as you know. "EDIT ME" it says, and that is encouraged. A newbie really has no idea what the difference is between a vandal or an editor that simply blanks out what they wrote. And when that occurs, the editor will cite WP:VER. Reading that educates some about the edit and leads to the vandalism pages on which the VERY FIRST listing of a vandalism act is blanking out what a user has done. Having no idea about revert rules, or one-word clauses, or the difference between an edit, a change, or anything else, the user is instructed to bring it to the discussion, and that new user is CONVINCED that they are in the right. You know what happened to me, and now I read on your site to go and hunt vandals! I'D LOVE TO, well, NO, well, yes, I am still confused, when I ask a question like "What is the appropriate first step when one sees what "may" be advertising, what "might not" be, on good faith?" and everyone ignores me. I go to the WP:AIV screen and it reads, "if this is not an act of vandalism . . ." and so the porn and spam prevail. Then I hear, "Oh, no, it's okay, because you are carrying out "policy"". I propose, therefore, to the WikiDevGods and Gurus, that a template be made that puts an article into a Category "Blatant Advertisers", and that when that occurs, an alarm bell is rung somewhere on somebody's desk who the user knows will at LEAST get around to it sometime. I'd be more than happy to report every vandal, spammer, and advertiser with a template that would keep me, the newbie, out of the picture, AT LEAST to the degree that when it came time, I would be advised of what actions occurred. Call it training if you will, but I think new users would be a lot more productive if they were able to see by example what they should have done, without having to go through it themselves. Thanks! And I hope you're feeling better soon. :) Ste4k 10:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Health issuesI can't find a nice image, so I'll do it in words: Get Well Soon AmiDaniel —Xyrael / 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed this article with a typo in the title. Still pretty new here, and don't know how to get this corrected. Could you help, please? regards. --MichaelMaggs 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Gilwell CampsiteI removed the stub and merge tags as I merged the article into the Scout Association of Hong Kong Article. Please delete it as the article has been merged. hongkongtechkid 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
More Mieciu problemsIf you go on kosovo war you will find links that proove my point on June 11th and we need to change casualty list since it is not neutral. Remove protection and post version before mieciu vandalized it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.168 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC).
User:AimcoolThanks for the temporary block, however I recommend this user be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account and sockpuppet - the same as the other socks vandalizing this article. See this link: [3] The socks have been used for the last 7 days to commit the exact same vandalism to both the Ronnie Coleman and buttocks articles. Thanks again. Yankees76 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
