User talk:Antonrojo/Archive 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Antonrojo! Thanks for the contributions over on the Enron Corporation article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Antonrojo, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

168.184.220.4 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) blocked for one week. Thanks for reporting. Your friendly admin, ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for blocking :) Antonrojo 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for doing the right thing on the Reed College talk page. Gnetwerker had been removing my comments from the main talk page and "archiving them" with astonishing and aggravating regularity. I guess I annoyed him by pointing out that he was a trustee of Reed (and by trying to roll back some of his Reed-boostering edits). Even after I took him to arbcom, he continued to muddle and remove my comments not only from the Reed talk page, but from the arbcom evidence page as well! Anyway, I'm hoping he and I won't be engaging again anytime soon, but I very much appreciate your wading in. It makes me feel just a leetle less crazy for objecting to being bullied. Cheers. IronDuke 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFI archives

Thanks for helping out over there! To respond to your edit summary "if these belong in a special archive let me know" there is an archive kept by month (Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives). Generally speaking archive reports that either ended with a specific action (like the user being blocked), or where no action was taken but the report might still need to be referred to in future. For example if a user seems to have stopped for now, so no action was taken- but they might return in future so it would be useful to be able to look up the report.

Hope that helps. Petros471 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. WP:RFI is not the same thing as WP:AN. Petros471 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. After looking into it I did realize that the WP:RFI posting I made probably only belonged at WP:AN (I assume that's what you were referring to). Antonrojo 17:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to this message (btw, Rankovic was the subject of the RFI, I normally don't leave a note on the page of the subject saying an RFI has been closed- just give them whatever warnings/blocks are appropriate, if any). Petros471 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

202.156.6.54 (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure if anything can be done against the IP specifically as it obviously shared by many users. If possible it would good to check the contribs to see if anything more needs reverting, but a short block would only be possible if it is engaging in serious vandalism right now- in which case see WP:AIV. Cheers, Petros471 14:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the short run, I agree that there's often not much that can be done with shared IPs that occasionally vandalize. The Blocking Policy Proposal has some good suggestions including your own although I think wikipedians need to tread lightly when we start to add barriers to joining the community--especially since the most determined vandals and POV warriors will find a way around them while 'experimenters' seem to eventually grow out of the phase and find more profitable outlets for their creative energies. Antonrojo 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Study of wikipedia

Thanks - I'll be sure to read it soon. Are you still studying Wiki?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's an interesting topic. My pursuit of the almightly dollar has deferred my academic efforts for now. Antonrojo 17:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Actually check the edits in future before claiming somebody is "vandalising", your personal attack will be deleted. - Deathrocker 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the specific edits that I think qualify as vandalism. I don't pretend to be an expert on wiki policy, specifically because they remove what looks to be significant content and then mark that as minor which conflicts with Wikipedia:Minor_edit. After 'checking the messages' I don't think I've changed my mind--I'd be interested in seeing specific reasons from yourself or others who might want know policy better than I do.

1. [1]
2. [2]

Privacy Breach Name Removed

I have heard you have made vandal badness towards people i greatly appreciate your efforts thanks 144.138.87.101 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (making vandal badness is a good thing right?). You might look into WP:RCP if you've edited for a while if you're interested. Antonrojo 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Name

Sorry about that on 211.27.149.19's talk page, but a certian student that I know the name of keeps blackmailing me and vandalising one my articles I have created. I attempted to name him to stop him from doing so. JRA WestyQld2 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test1a

I am so sorry. I had no intentions of editing that template at all. Note to self: edit on enough sleep. moink 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It took me way too long to figure out I wasn't using the wrong syntax :) Antonrojo 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe article

Thanks for your interest in the absinthe article, you have helped bring to light some issues that need clarification. However I would recommend reading the entire article fully as well as top external links before making changes as many additions are already covered and your sources appear to be from articles that aren't always accurate. Perhaps more discussion on the talk page first would be best. -- Ari 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I'm new to the subject and a few fine points escaped me (such as the connotations of the alternate spelling of the drink) and I have read through several sources on the subject. Since my current comments are over half of the talk page, I probably should let others add their share.

Regarding the FAQ that you list as the definative source for absinthe info, my main concern is that it makes several unsupported statements about the lack of negative effects (e.g. that the fact the ingredients are natural) and positive effects. Here's an example for the positive effects:

"Not all people claim to experience these effects, but those who do say that absinthe produces a markedly clear-headed drunkenness. It has to be experienced to be understood. It's subtle; it's NOT like being hit by lightning or anything. Other people say absinthe enhances their dreams. Many absinthe drinkers report no effects other than those you’d expect from any high proof liquor." Antonrojo 18:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments are just fine and can be helpful (if you want to see a much larger of disordered talk page, view the talk-page archive's history and look at most recent additions before refactoring). The most recent comments have made me think that maybe information about fake vintage absinthe (that the 'buyersguide' refers to) should be added.

Although it isn't sourced it can be seen when reading the feeverte forums (although the effects of absinthe have been beaten to death so much it's generally frowned upon as a current discussion). As the FAQ states it is all claimed, as so far there have been no double blind tests on the actual additional effects of absinthe. -- Ari 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I suspect that the medical studies aren't out there (it's just not a high enough priority). So my point with the request for references on these studies is just to tone down the certainty on the lack of negative effect, stating that absinthe is assumed safe by many people with the notable exception of the US government. More detail on the FDA's reasoning for banning the drink would be a good way to round out the article. Also, I'll be adding something like a paraphrase of your last sentence above to better express the lack of medical research on the subject. Antonrojo 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-level lists of subjects

[3]Swahili does seem like a rare language for a qualification but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that there is one. The problem is that there's no one way to verify this, so it might be a good idea if we were to have every single subject sourced to an appropriate examination board to avoid potential trouble and any unsourced ones we can remove. Skinnyweed 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San ramon edit

Yeah sorry, I actually wrote that bit a while ago, but seeing as the school year is over, it was highly irrelivant. I'll add a note next time, it's just that I'm one of the very few San ramon residents who work on the article. :) --Rake 10:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol for changing category names

The proper course of action would be to wait a week for the discussion of the cfr to run its course and a consensus to be determined before making any changes. You don't actually have to do anything since at the end of the process admins will do all the work. --JeffW 04:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, thats basically what I replied with on my talk page Antonrojo. Syrthiss 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFD#Category:Cult_leaders

See related CfD: WP:CFD#Category:Cult_leaders nominated by me for similar reasons as WP:CFD#Category:Cults. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I made it a cross-link.--Antonrojo 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but next time use the move button

Thanks for creating the article list of cult and new religious movement researchers, instead of list of cult researchers. Could you please next time use the move technique instead of copy paste? In this case it does not matter so much, but using the move button is the right button because it also moves the history and the talk page contents. Andries 19:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Antonrojo 19:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tyson

He clearly doesn't weigh 262 lbs. Because of that, it isn't vandalism.--MP123 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to tell whether a change, especially a removal, is a good faith edit without comments. A quick search provided some evidence for your claim although it only mentions his fighting weight was a high of 239 lbs [4]. I wouldn't be that suprised if he gained 20 pounds between fights though clearly the infobox is meant to report his fighting weight. Antonrojo 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFK assassination

Thanks. I always enjoy being compared to a Holocaust denier. Gamaliel 14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to like to use hyperbole in arguments. In this case it looks like I invoked Godwin's Law and apparently implied a connection between you and apologists for genocide which wasn't my intention. Antonrojo 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs David G. Bromley Benjamin Zablocki Kenneth Copeland Recovery from Cults (book) Jerome Clark Escalation Religious intolerance Cults Cult fiction Jon Frum Abortion Law Reform Association Christian cults Cult mind control Snapping Self-deception Anson Shupe International Cultic Studies Association Divine United Organization Cults and governments

Cleanup École Secondaire Catholique Garneau Cult classic Ted Patrick Merge Coercive persuasion Exit counseling Transgenic plants Add Sources Opposition to Opus Dei Religious fanaticism Kerry Kennedy Wikify Something Left Behind Cooperators of Opus Dei Persuasion and attitude change Expand Religious persecution Parochial school College application

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Davidian

Cult category. I'm looking for your explanation, but I don't see it. In general, I recommend explaining (or proposing) edits in the talk page before making them in the article. At any rate, I think you're going to have a hard time justifying the removal of "cult" as a category. Rklawton 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a more specific link would be helpful and here is the comment I was referring to: [5].

The edit you asked about is part of a larger process of cleaning up Category:Cults which had basically no standards for defining cults making it a 'kitchen sink category' lumping together anti-cult researchers with various groups that the person who applied the tag thought of as a cult. Lists of particular cults are in the process of being moved to List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults which has defined rules for inclusion based on some long-term attempts to reach consensus. Antonrojo 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal makes no snese to me, and I don't se where anyone agrees with you. -Will Beback 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, see my response at Category_talk:Cults. Antonrojo 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Texas

I am too lazy to read that huge WP: for disambiguation :) sorry. Please someone help me to do it right. Mr. Texas

Thank you for Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.10.89.3 (talk • contribs)

I also didn't want to read all that and followed my best guess with the page. You might want to thank Jimbo, if anyone, for Wikipedia and I suspect he would say that it couldn't exist without many editors, including yourself...so pat yourself on the back. Antonrojo 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Firstly please review Wikipedia:Proposed deletion - all anybody has to do to contest deletion is remove the tag. They should note it in the edit summary but since the tagging wasn't noted in the edit summary either - hardly correctly nominated.

Secondly note my comments on the talk page had already addressed the prod [6] --Golden Wattle ^talk 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states "Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary." That the tag was removed by a anon user with a fair amount of recent vandalism raised the red flag for me and since the user left no comments in the summary, talk page or deletion discussion there's no way for me to tell if this is vandalism. If you're suggesting that a 'rv' of what otherwise appears to be clear vandalism would also require reading all other users related comments, I think that would grind WP:RC to a halt. Antonrojo 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta

I know it's software but how do you address it when if causes a problem?--Bhires 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhires, I'm not clear on your question. This is beta software which means that people who use it can expect some level of bugs. The solution is to use a 'stable' version of Firefox or in my case IE. Antonrojo 12:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology as a cult

You may have missed that Talk:Scientology is coincidentally in the midst of a debate about this and I doubt the participants will welcome an imposed change. With no explanation given about your cleaning up of the Cult Category, you will be reverted. --Hartley Patterson 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup. I'll add a link to the category cults section. As it stands, Scientology is the only cult listed in that category since it is now a metacategory. Antonrojo 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Anson Shupe Client cult Divine United Organization American Academy of Religion R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto Self-deception David G. Bromley Tilman Hausherr Cults Christian cults Andreas Heldal-Lund WCWM Recovery from Cults (book) Benjamin Zablocki Information technology management International Cultic Studies Association Sonny Moore Michael H. Hart Cult fiction

Cleanup Ted Patrick Hate crime Roch Theriault Merge Cult checklist Alembic Public morality Add Sources Opposition to Opus Dei Teabagging The Da Vinci Code (film) Wikify Deceptikonz Mexican Revolution Talent manager Expand Religious persecution Dora the Explorer Coming of age

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For all your help Wififying Yenta Claus.--Bhires 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up....

As a matter of fact, the person blanked the page to only a little after I stopped editing yesterday, so I didn't even notice. I'll roll it back and go from there. MSJapan 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from Ellen Page's hometown?

Hey, I saw your recent report for one of the Halifax, Nova Scotia IP vandals. What exactly did he/she vandalize? Was actress Ellen Page at the keyboard by any chance? :-P Just curious...

Probably not unless she writes like a leetspeak teen [7] Antonrojo 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the disturbing and unfair comments I posted on Jimbo Wales' talk page as per the template at the top of same page. That is understandable but don't you think the author should be cautioned accordingly? --209.115.235.79 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to Straw Poll

Hi, we are having a straw poll in order to save the "9/11 Conspiracies" page from generalized disorganization. Could you please help us out by casting your vote [here]? Thanks --146.115.123.152 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]