This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dilip rajeev just violated the 3RR rule
Dilip rajeev who has been editing on the Falun Gong article just violated the 3RR rule again. His 4th revert is at this time 19:47, 3 June 2006. If you are serious about enforcing the 3RR rule, you need to block him for 24 hours. Dilip has been warned many times and his recent edit was again done without a consensus. --Samuel Luo20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has been blocked for 12 hours. I would, however, like to point out that both you and User:Tomananda are already (if I counted correctly) at 3 reverts. Just because he technically violated the policy, it does not mean that your actions are any less destructive or obnoxious. Refrain from edit warring immediately, and try discussing changes before implementing or reverting. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on this page. I decided to go out and have a life today and was afraid this might happen. Feel free to stop by when you have time and count again - it wouldn't surprise me if somebody else violates 3RR today. CovenantD02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took so long; he had some puppet who kept removing the name from AIV, and finding log vandalism is a bit harder than standard edit vandalism. He's actually now been indef blocked as he's the same user as another obnoxious vandal by a similar name--I'm going to go post on AN/I to see if anyone has had similar problems with Stepp-Wolf vandals. Anyway, sorry it took so long, but I'm gladly we got him stopped for now. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZeebotheClown
I indef'd, the message "you don't think I have more screen names" and a fair number of the edits look like a sock, just thought you'd like to know -- Tawker02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I figured it must have been something along those lines, but the contribs I looked at seemed, well, not vandalism at least. Thanks for your note; probably should have spent more time looking at it. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VandalProof version 1.2.1
There seems to be a problem with VandalProof. Maybe it's only for me:
When I wish to add a vandalism warning to someone's talk page, I click on the {{subst:nn-warn}} button. but instead it gives me the {{drmspeedy}} coding.
You unfroze the Falun Gong page yesterday and an editor named Dilip Rajeev immediately started a series of edits, exceeding his 3RR limit. I blocked his reverts and exceeded my 3RR limit as well. You issued a warning to both Dilip and I. In response, I stopped doing all reverts or deletions, but if you check the history on the page you will see Dilip resumed several hours later. Check particularly his edit of 10:21 June in which he deleted an entire paragraph claiming it was unsourced. It is a pargraph we had discussed before and we had agreed not to discuss all source issues before making any deletions. If your words have any meaning at all, I ask that you block Dilip now. --Tomananda18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that he is well in excess of three reverts in one day, but unfortunately I wasn't around when he did, and it's now been eleven hours. Blocking is a preventitive rather than punitive measure, and so if he's refrained from edit warring in the last eleven hours, I don't really see a need to block. I'll be watching though, and thanks for your note. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you get the time and feel like it, could you do a revert count on the Falun Gong page again? I don't want anybody blocked, but a stern warning might be in order. :-) Samuel has one that I don't think should count, right after one of mine. I'll take his in exchange for mine, since his is the one I should have done. Thanks! CovenantD19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really on, but I'll just give you a quick response here: "Old revisions contain personal information about Katefan0 - deleteing and restoring only current version." Contact User:Raul654 if you think the deletion was unjustified, but I'm assuming he has his reasons. If you'd like me to take a screen shot of the history or e-mail you a certain revision, I'd be glad to do though. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's perfectly fine. Immediately after I blocked, I checked his contribs and decided indef was better--checked his blocklog and saw that you had already done it. No worries at all. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never insulted anyone. And what's wrong with superfluous? Just being 'superfluously' accurate.
VandalProof source code
A couple of weeks ago you said you would give me the VandalProof source code. Any chance of this happening soon? Please be aware that my WIkipedia email is currently down (domain issues). WerdnaTc@bCmLt23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when your e-mail's back up, and I'll send it to you. Sorry that I spaced it. Oh, and please remember that I warned you about how ridiculously messy the code is--but it works! AmiDaniel (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a secondary email address from google's mail service with this username. You can send it there at the moment if you like. Werdna(talk)04:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paranoia understood. Let me package that up and send it out to you as soon as I can (may have to wait until tommorow night though). AmiDaniel (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you mentioned RSS feed, it brought another question to mind. Do you want my current "in-progress" source code, where I'm working on a lot of cool dealios with precaching rollbacks and filters, or do you want the source code for v1.2.1? The new stuff is even messier and is potentially quite buggy (though the old features still work just fine), but I find it a lot more impressive than my old code. Your call--or I could send you both. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've pretty much gotten used to using VandalProof (impressive software if I say so myself!) But sometimes when I rollback articles, a message will pop up saying "The previous edit to this page was by the same user. Do you want to view all edits made by this user before rolling back?" Then you either have to click "Yes" or "No". I'm not sure what to do when this happens. Can you help me out? Thanks! --Tuspm23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you click "yes" it will load the diff between the last edit made by the current user and the last edit made by the previous user. If you click "no" it will simply revert one edit. It's probably best to review all edits by the on-top user as there may well be more vandalism by that user that you didn't notice in the current diff. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bypassing Cross-Namespace Redirects
Yeah, I forgot to remove it during that run. My bad. (Totally scared me when I saw it on the greylist in #vandalism-en-wp, though, because I had completely forgotten it was running at all... nearly gave me a heart attack :o) --Rory09603:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the Request for Page Protection (Manitoba disambiguation) for me. My wireless network is acting up and I incorrectly stripped content when I tried to paste. Hu Gadarn04:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
protecting Manoitoba disambiguation page
... and thanks for the very fast response to my request for protection. You're page says that you're sleeping so you must be able to respond even more quickly when awake :) Thanks for using your powers for good instead of evil. Hu Gadarn04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd, I always forget to change that--who knows how long I've been "sleeping" this time. No problem at all, and please feel free to let me know if you need help with anything else. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about vandalism, simply that you are both almost in violation of the three-revert rule, though I am looking into the situation with User:PatCheng as I'm finding him popping up left and right with edit wars and other questionable behaviors. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72.65.77.79 (talk·contribs) and YINever (talk·contribs) are merely the sockpuppets of TJive (talk·contribs), created recently for the sole purpose of evading 3RR. This person has a habit of problemic edits, that adds right-wing POV into articles, including phrases such as "regime" [2], and "bloody repression", [3], and outright refuses to discuss his edits. I reverts all of his problemic changes to elaborated versions until further disputes are solved--PatCheng11:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your sure/swift block of 3RR violator
The Editor's Barnstar
I just noticed your swift action in blocking a senior editor who indulged in 3RR in Muhammad. I have to admit such courage is rare these days in a world of cabals. Keep it up, admin! I completely trust your integrity now. Anwar18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Status?
Hey, I noticed you had your status listed to the right of your user name. Wondering how that one works…? Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Use Edit Summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.
Thanks for your understanding. Just ignore this edit; I'm a reasonably experienced Wikipedia editor but a newbie on VandalProof, and sometimes my tests with the software go in the wrong places :-). Andrew00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's quite fine--I've become used to it =D. I'd much rather that my talk page get experimented upon than, say, Jimbo's or Tawkerbot2's, so it's really no problem at all. Plus, we can all use a friendly reminder from time to time to use more descriptive edit summaries. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking perhaps it's time I thought about my own RfA...
Hey Daniel. If you don't mind I would appreciate your advice (assuming you have a spare mo). Just recently hit 6 months on wiki and as such started thinking about what I'd need to work on for a successful run for sysop. If you don't mind being brutally honest with me, do you
Think it's a suitable time for me, and if not suggestions would be appreciated
See anything regardless of the answer to the above that I should specifically be concentration on or improving?
so why are people constantly vandalising our article/page?
we are new to wikipedia but we are entitled to post one page informing the public of our legally registered and fully traceable UK company.
We have no desire to take action but people who vandalise our page by directing it to a competitor business against whom we have a court order protecting us are in breech of that court order so should refrain from their actions.
please lets stop before this gets out of handpolitakis
You can consider this your final warning. If you again threaten myself or any other contributor with legal action, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing per Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. As for EasyPizza, the AfD discussion allowed the article to remain on Wikipedia provided the article be completely rewritten to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, and the editors you refer to as having vandlized "your" article have quite to the contrary taken an article that began an advertisement and converted it into an encyclopedia article that is unbiased, verifiable, and well-sourced. In any case, you have already been blocked for violating WP:3RR on that article, and your first action after the block expired was to revert the article back to an advertisement yet again. Stop reverting immediately; your actions are highly counterproductive and disruptive. Instead consider using the talk page to discuss why you disagree with the changes being made to the article, and the same goes for the proposed merger--repeatedly reverting the article will get you no where; you have to discuss the article with its other contributors if you would like to see any of your changes implemented. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not paying a lot of attention to this. It's been reverted again since your comment. I was just a passer-by who got caught up in the dispute by accident, but it seems to need some administrative attention at this point. The lad's persistent, if nothing else. Cheers. Tony Fox15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, you got any recommendations on this one? I've been tracing this since its AfD, which confused me due to another company (now at EasyPizza (easyGroup)) having a bunch of results on google, but none on this one in particular that I could find worthwhile(besides forum posts). Helped end the AfD by withdrawl to try to salvage the page to be about a corp. that seemed to fit WP:CORP. lowercase is pretty much in the sample pickle as he withdrew the AfD for it to try to fix it. I'm now 'involved' through the subject of lots of contact with the first author of the page. Though now that the page can't as easily be confused with an article about this company, is it even right for me relist it on AfD? Kevin_b_er01:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This whole situation is an absolute mess. I'm trying to sort out everything that's going on with it--this article EasyPizza (easyGroup) was cpmvd from the EasyPizza article, and I'm trying to calm down my obsessive-compulsive urge to merge the histories as I think it's relevant to keep the histories intact locally. The user also forked the article at Easypizza, but this was quickly fixed by User:RHaworth--I've now got all three watchlisted and am monitoring the user's contribs quite closely. I would personally recommend that you wait and see how the proposed merger from EasyPizza (easyGroup) into EasyGroup goes, as I think the previous AfD demonstrated that the community quite strongly believed the article on the chain to be nothing more than, as lowercase stated, an SEO article that is unverifiable and non-notable. (God, am I sick of dealing with users whose only concerns are SEO.) However, I have the feeling that regardless of any overwhelming consensus, Politakis will consider his unbased reversions of any article until he gets his way. I'm not sure that an AfD on the matter would really accomplish anything, as the consensus has been clear since the very start--it's only Politarkis who stands adamently opposed. Lowercase suggested going through dispute resolution, namely mediation, and I think that may well be the best approach--that or a user RfC. In any case, I'm monitoring Politarkis quite closely as I certainly don't believe he is done with his disruption, and I will do my best to prevent any future forking of the article. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel quite guilty for getting that AfD stopped. I worry what's spreading, like Ambassador Cars and Minicab links on all several UK articles and new articles created to forward or otherwise enhance credibility to other sites he runs like www.eminicabs.co.uk and www.etaxicabs.co.uk, all with minor edits. Worries me a lot. Kevin_b_er02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rule question
Hey, how's it going? Anyway, there's this one user that I ran into: Acethebunny. On his talk page, he recently got a vandalism warning from Tawkerbot2 because he vandalised MySpace by writing "Myspace.com sucks" or something like that. He keeps removing the warning even though he just got it like 2 days ago. I put it back once, but I don't want to get into a revert war. So I guess my question is this: Is it actually against Wikipedia rules to delete vandalism warnings from a talk page? If it isn't, I think someone should definitely propose it. It makes it a ton easier for me to be able to go to someone's talk page and see what sort of trouble they've gotten into in the past. Thanks, WIKIPEEDIO02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "rules" on this are so ambiguous at this point; the only thing that can be agreed upon is that it is disruptive and should not be prohibited. I posted a {{wr2}} warning and will keep an eye on him. A short block for disruption may be in order. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake and undid redid it while you also fixed it.
Also While i cicked edit a responce was instad of being saved moved to my edit in prgress and when i casled it was never saved.
You may want to re add the resonce to my unprotecion if you were the one who make it. (It is not visable in the hisory as of the last time i cheked but i deifitly saw the comment saying someting about)
I have not used this page befoe so i am unfarliar as to how it works. It may be my page Cache but there was a respoce to my reqest that is not visble anymore.
Oh, okay. Sorry about blocking it. You may want to make that a bit more clear on the userpage as I simply assumed it was an imposter or someone using TB2's code without permission--didn't want to take any chances. Also, the bot's name makes it sound like a fake, no offense. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, an anon, 202.156.6.54, keeps vandalizing pages; one of his recent vandalizing initiatives was renaming an episode of an anime television series, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, from Asahina Mikuru's Adventure - Episode 00 to Asahina Mikuru's Breastventure - Episode 00. I recall this anon was temporarily blocked by yourself a few days ago, and given a last warning - but he/she has vandalized yet again. If you would like to, can you take the necessary action? - 'Ganryuu09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's a shared proxy, through which everyone in Singapore connects to the internet. Odds are that it's been completely different people each time--this is a situation similar to that of AOL. Not much I or anyone can do about it unfortunately, at least until some action is taken by the devs to begin requiring all shared IP anons to connect through the https server--that may well be a while though. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably post vandalism alerts at WP:AIV where they're much likelier to get a prompt response. I might also note that the above IP is also used by potentially every inhabitant of Singapore and blocking it causes quite a bit of collateral damage. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock}}
Hi, i'm Ruthlyn. I was just blocked and this is the message I recieved.
Your IP address, which is 64.12.116.139
The name of the blocking admin, which is AmiDaniel
The reason you were blocked, which is:
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Urbanshocker". The reason given for Urbanshocker's block is: "3RR on Manitoba (disambiguation)".
In your archives you have this page User_talk:AmiDaniel/JLK_Archive. However, an IP has contacted me telling me that Wikimedia assured them references to John would be removed. [4]
You can just blank it, and leave the history. That should be sufficient for archiving purposes, while satisfying Mr. <name removed>. Prodegotalk21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it for now. We can discuss whether it has a place on Wikipedia and then AmiDaniel can restore it if he thinks that it does. --Tony Sidaway21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, my bad--I thought I had already blanked that. Thanks for taking care of it for me. Let me go check to see if there was anything else regarding this that I need to deal with. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please ban a banned users sockpuppet
KnoThangs who was posting a illegal pic of JP Holding and was banned for doing so is now posting under the username "Kno_Thanqs".
Alright, I indef blocked the account as he was using it in discussions in which the other account had participated as well. Likely an impersonator rather than a sockpuppet, but all the same it should be blocked. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal Proof Login
Hi Daniel,
I just installed VandalProof and ran the 121.exe - however, despite entering my correct username in VP and logging into Wikipedia through the VP browser, I couldn't get on. Being as you added me to the list, I hope that you can help. Thanks, TewfikTalk06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things. 1) Are you using the monobook skin? 2) Check your cookie setttings in IE, be sure that they are enabled and that nothing's set strangely. 3) Be sure to click "Remember me" when you log in. Let me know if you get it. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, and thanks for your timely response. I was able to log on after following your advice. While IE cookie protection was only medium, I selected the minimum. I believe that the problem may have been that I wasn't "remembered" in login though - perhaps that should be noted on the instructions page. Thanks for your help, TewfikTalk02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THX
Hi ! I want to thank you a lot for unblocking my userpage. Cheers ! Arthur 8 June 2005
You previously gave this user a last warning. This user has continued to make bad edits with their user account (User:Alm93, I'll get to why I know that 70.81.117.175 and Alm93 are the same person), for example this one combining Scandinavian ethnicities, adding them up, and then of course adding a few extra percent to make the number bigger for no good reason. The reason I believe that User:Alm93 is the same person as User:70.81.117.175 (other than the fact that all their edits concern Scandinavia) is that Alm93 created the (now deleted) category Scandinavian Canadians and then populated it (for example see this edit) and then 70.81.117.175 made this edit to the user page of the person who put the category up for deletion in which they refered to the category as "my page". Qutezuce05:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for protecting the page Babur. I just wanted to report that there is currently a mistake in the article. Certain parts of the following paragraph:
Hence Babur, though nominally a Mongol (or Mughal in Persian), drew much of his support from the Turkic and Iranian peoples of Central Asia, and his army was diverse in its ethnic makeup, including Persians (Tajiks or Sarts, as they were called by Babur)[2], Pashtuns, and Arabs as well as Barlas and Chaghatayid Turco-Mongols from Central Asia [3]. Babur's army also included Kizilbash fighters, a militant religious order of Shia Sufis from Persia who later became one of the most influential groups in the Mughal court.
... were lost in the edit-war, due to this edit of User:Johnstevens5. Right now, the paragraph goes:
Hence Babur drew much of his support from the Turkic and to a lesser degree Iranian peoples of Central Asia, and his army was diverse in its ethnic makeup, including Tajiks or Sarts, as they were called by Babur)[4], Pashtuns, and Arabs as well as Barlas and Chaghatayid Turco-Mongols from Central Asia [5]. Babur's army also included Kizilbash fighters, a militant religious order of Shia Sufis from Persia who later became one of the most influential groups in the Mughal court.
... containing stylistic and spelling mistakes. So, this is not a question of contents, but one of spelling mistakes and "lost words". Please correct the paragraph by restoring the original version (of User:Sikandarji who is an academic at Oxford University). Thanks.
Ah, herrlich, ein Wikipedianer mit Deutsch-Kenntnissen ;) Ich wollte dich nochmals bitten, einen Blick in den Babur-Artikel zu werfen und den oben angesprochen Fehler zu korrigieren. Momentan sieht der Artikel aufgrund des Fehlers (und der komischen Klammerhälfte) eher schäbig aus. Danke schonmal im Vorraus. Tajik13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zarqawi image
No, they're pretty clearly the same image. If you look carefully, one of them has just made a goof and flipped it. The thing is, we have to remember that neither the AP nor the FBI produced this image, nor own the copyright to it (it's probably from some Jordanian source). Just because it's on the FBI website doesn't make it a work of the U.S. federal government (and hence PD); indeed unless some wacky conspiracy has hidden Zarqawi's time in FBI custody there is absolutely no chance this photo could have been taken by a U.S. federal government employee.--Pharos11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes, I'm aware of the AP's copyfraud =D. But then, who owns that image? I'm thinking there must be some image somewhere--from one of his videos or something--that's PD. I'll keep looking... AmiDaniel (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, legally, he owns (or owned) the copyright to those videos. We could of course just say, hey, they're al-Qaeda, who cares about their copyright? But where do you draw the line?--Pharos11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi creep! Guess who's back? oooooooooooo I loved doing your nan anal Daniel. She still loves to go on top, despite the obvious setback of being dead. I also gave your mum breakfast in bed when I shot my load over her face. She enjoyed every minute.
Good bye, and enjoy the erection you'll get from blocking this account. But just think, couldn't you be doing something more useful than contributing to an encyclopedia for free, while Jimbo Wales indirectly gets paid for hosting the site? Wait you didn't know about that? You must read the Meta more often. Gotmeta11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh!!
sorry you had to revert my edit to the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi page... no idea what happened there, i can only assume i had a cached version of the page cuz what i was trying to revert was all the 'British empire' nonsense... anyway, just to let you know i wasn't trying to vandalise. cheers W guice11:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I figured it was something along those lines, and reverting wasn't particualrly difficult (gotta love rollback!). AmiDaniel (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, Banes, am honored to award AmiDaniel this "Current Events Barnstar" for his great work in updating the Al-Zarqawi article. Congratulations. :) -- Banes11:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well shoot... I was going to humbly share my barnstar with you, but Banes went and beat me to it... here's a anyway... gratz... - Adolphus7901:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AmiDaniel, the article is disputed indeed on many issues, but not regarding the word wrongfully, that's a clearcut place: 5 users and an admin (you reverted him here) concur, only Failsal doesn't. Please check the corresponding thread. It's short and concise, so it's reasonable to ask you to evaluate the claims. The word is POV - and you don't need to be an expert on the subject to evaluate that. --tickleme22:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently there is some dispute about the use of the word--I'd rather see changes other than minimal copyediting not be implemented until the article is unprotected. I did not revert because I disagreed with you about the word, but rather because I disagreed with making disputed changes to the article while it is protected. Although I do agree that there seems to be consensus on the matter, I'd much rather you wait for it to be unprotected to implement, otherwise I think it could easily be seen as admins excercising their "powers" to win the dispute. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to request protection for the Brazil National Team page. I listed it on WP:RPP as well. Thanks, --Palffy23:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
