User talk:Canderson7/Archive 3

This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to my talk page.

Patience

Yours is remarkable. Thanks for being that way. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly less patient in some cases. I think I'm feeling my leg getting pulled. -Willmcw 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Can the Article: Mysteries-Megasite be examined for errors ?Martial Law 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity ^(have you seen this?) 01:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You win

I wont recreate it.Livin' for WRESTLING! 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article....

The Article:Contact Consequences should be ready for reinstatement, if not, a trial run.Martial Law 23:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seen your message. Also got a really bizarre bug that could have me accused of being a sockpuppeteer or worse. I log in as persuant to Wikipedia regs, then the site acts like I have NOT done so. Not knowing this was going on, someone could accuse me of being a sockpuppeteer or worse. As to the message: How do I merge Contact Consequences w/ out damaging another article ?Martial Law 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classified Info.

How do I mention the use of information that may get Wikipedia overhauled in the merger of Contact Consequences w/ another article w/o being accused of "POV and/or using 'original research'"? Some sources are from current and/or ex-military sources. After all I'm a military brat.Martial Law 22:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the info. Did you know that the article Robertson Panel was a Classified CIA project intended to ridicule any and all who has had UFO/Alien encounters ? Someone used the FOIA to obtain this material and someone else placed the article on Wikipedia.Martial Law 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next step ? Had to take care of a new Wikipedian.Martial Law 07:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Was keeping a eye on a ill Admin.Martial Law 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC) He's got a cold or the flu.Martial Law 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase

Thought that roundabout would be a good way to solve the problem :) Sorry

141.151.180.158 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Vandalizing

This user added a message to my talk page:

This message is regarding the page Palindrome. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Canderson7 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not removing any content from this page. I was attempting to add another section, when I had a merge conflict with another user. Apologies if I mishandled this, but I am unaware of any content removed on my part. Happy Editing! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.187.252.82 (talk • contribs) 21:45, December 11, 2005

Vandalism

No problem. Happy to do cleanup. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small question

Hi there, I was just wondering, since you are an administrator, would I have your support if I was hypothetically nominated for a janitor post? Master Jay (talk • contribs) Thanks.--Jay (Reply) 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)(Please reply using the reply button.)[reply]

Protest Warrior again

The Protest Warrior article has a vandal on it again. As of now the edits have been reverted, but he shows no signs of stopping. I've given him the standard vandalism warnings already. I hate to drag you into this again, but you were the first admin to come to mind. Rogue 9 03:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

156.63.87.28 blocked indefinetly

You were among the people who this anon tried to change the password of. So you know, I've blocked the user permanently. I'll likely unblock the IP later, once I thing they're full discouraged. -- user:zanimum

Vandalism in progress

Hello Canderson7. I don't know what to do. User 67.107.166.138 (talk) continues to vandalise articles. This time it was Mark Antony. Can you do something about it, as you have in the past? Thanks! The Ogre 17:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Canderson7! See you around. The Ogre 23:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Hi, user 86.143.192.4 vandalized your user page despite being warned. I reverted the edits for you. CanDo 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

209.175.175.11

209.175.175.11 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - please block.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, already done. My cache was playing up. Ignore me...--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wong

Dear Canderson7, I was constructing a page about Brian Wong, a cult Sydney literature figure who I am interested in, but you have removed it. (The reason you supplied was that is was a nonsense bio, but it is not). Would you please put it back up, and if there is something wrong with my page (I am a first time user), could you tell me what that is, and I will ammend it, instead of deleting my project? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 145.18.144.175 (talk • contribs) 15:05, December 15, 2005

(re Brian Wong page) Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I will set abut making those changes now. Cheers! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 145.18.144.175 (talk • contribs) 15:14, December 15, 2005

Thank you, Canderson7, for restoring truth and honesty on the internet. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sophthepopstar (talk • contribs) 17:03, December 15, 2005

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my user page! Peace, delldot | talk 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP Tracking

Hi, since you're an administrator, I was wondering if you could tell me if it would be feasible to implement a program which could track dynamic IP's (to block vandals and give credentials to good annons). Also, is there a way to tell whether an annonymous user has a static or dynamic IP? It would save me a lot of time from posting warnings on their talk pages ;). Thanks for your help, CanDo 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks very much for your prompt and all-inclusive reply! CanDo 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Black List

As you are aware, we are all listed on the black list. Do you think that everyone who is listed on that list should be informed (in case they don't know) so that they can avoid giving out personal information? In fact, I find it most disturbing that he has taken my quotes out of context - elsewhere in the same comments, I am praising him for finding out who wrote that stuff about Seigenthaler. BTW what's he got against Gmail? I have one of their accounts. Izehar (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Thank you!

Canderson7, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Exam:

Can the Article: Alien and Paranormal Creatures be examined for any problems ?Martial Law 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rearrange the creature listings ? Martial Law 08:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am expecting two revert wars. Martial Law 08:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Martial Law 20:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC):)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Canderson7 A well deserved subst:pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a bulk revert

Hey, thanks for the revert on Vasco de Gama. I was in the process of doing that "by hand." I must be missing something - how did you do it so quickly? John 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my user page. --StuffOfInterest 18:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefront II

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism. It's much appreciated. Kafziel 21:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Canderson7 ^(talk) 04:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Do you think that anon deserves a short block? SWD316 ^talk to m^e 02:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. Wow, Im this popular with the vandals and I'm not even an admin yet, lol. SWD316 ^talk to m^e 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help again? SWD316 ^talk to m^e 16:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you know, I might have to upgrade you from Wiki-associate to Friend. SWD316 ^talk to m^e 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to interupt you again but could you take a look at User talk:165.247.83.151. SWD316 ^talk to m^e 22:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection. Darn, what a day! Can't we all just get along? :-C SWD316 ^talk to m^e 00:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Does Not Trust Jimbo

To be honest, I don't care about the template much either way, I recreated it because it was inappropriately speedied by Tony Sidaway instead of being sent to WP:TFD. I believe this one was part of the "attack template" package on tfd a week or so ago, so we're all clear now. Karmafist 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well. Even on something that may be potentially offensive (I think Jimbo's a good guy, but not infallible), not following proper procedure is far more destructive than any offensiveness a thing on here might have. I say that because if people preemptively IAR, it causes a slippery slope and then they IAR on everything, causing edit wars, wheel wars, massive incivility and shouting matches, as recently see at Kelly Martin's RFC. It's my belief that the procedures of this place are largely broken because they're fragile enough to be circumvented so often, causing what I said above, but we might as well defend what we have left while the community slowly realizes that things as usual aren't working. Karmafist 19:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up for another task?

Could you watch 134.161.137.162 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for me? SWD316 ^talk to m^e 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

For taking the time to revert vandalism to my userpage :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Canderson7 ^(talk) 05:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistant vandal

Could semi-protect the page of User talk:68.78.121.5. It's a persistant blocked vandal who keeps blanking his talk page and adding personal attacks. SWD316 ^talk to m^e 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh.. 68.110.9.62, could you revert him and protect his talk page. Although, all he wants his unblock template on his talk page, I would normally allow that. But he keeps reverting it and deleting other users messages and making personal attacks. Moe ε 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm evil, don't you know? 68.110.9.62 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission accomplished.

Thank you for implementing the rollback to my user page; the action you took to resolve the issue is sufficient. Cheers. Folajimi 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Could you please repeat the procedure to my user page? I would greatly appreciate your help. Cheers. Folajimi 18:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your expediency; it is greatly appreciated. Mind if I call you "The Lifesaver"? Cheers. Folajimi 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for fulfilling my request. Much easier to relax now.Bjones 04:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. Canderson7 ^(talk) 12:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop supporting pedophiles

please, we need to shame them to stop slanting wikipedia articles so they can lure children into their homes. please dont stop me from my quest to rid wikipedia of pedophiles. 137.186.145.102 21:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My final good-byes

Hello Canderson7. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. Moe ε 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant strikes again

This did not take long. Please go to Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. You will see that User: Chadbryant has deleted relevant information on the main page with his last edit. He hates anything to do with the South, so he deleted mention of the Tennessee-based wrestling organization, TNA. He also warned of a personal attack on the talk page by User: TruthCrusader when there was none. Please document this along with the arena deletions he's made and take the appropriate action. Thank you. WillC 02:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WillC

There is no "dispute" as much as there is a case of a misguided editor who needs to be put in check.. He was asked not to insert incorrect information into the article for rec.sport.pro-wrestling, and his recent edit history showed large amounts of edits to add non-notable and non-encyclopedic (i.e. style, grammar, punctuation, etc.) content, mostly on articles for sporting venues. Two other admins saw fit to block him for his behaviour and conduct in response to having his edits questioned and/or fixed. - Chadbryant 02:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just have to butt in here. There is a dispute because TNA is as valid of a listing in the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry as all of the others mentioned. The accusation of Chadbryant hating the South is correct and the history speaks for itself in his deletion of the listing of TNA. Chad is also not one to be able to try to question a person's edit history; his own shows gallons of edits given "vandalism" as an excuse when none existed (rather, it was his attempt to avoid a violation of the 3RR rule in various edit wars). Chad has also been blocked in the past due to his questionable edits. This is ridiculous; I suggest you take what he says with a grain of salt, if his remarks are even worth that. --Eat At Joes 15:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There need not be any accusations. The question is a simple one: Is TNA a combat sport covered by rec.sport.pro-wrestling or isn't it? Are there any sources that indicate that it is? Chad does need to be more discerning when it comes to labelling edits vandalism and should never revert as a minor edit without an edit summary. That being said, his comments are very valuable and I hope that he continues to make them. Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I laugh at Chadbryant spelling GRAMMAR wrong and urge him to find instances where my grammar, spelling, or punctuation was wrong. Furthermore, considering that we are editing sites related to professional wrestling, the definition of encyclopedic is open to interpretation. My goal is to document those arenas who have held major wrestling ppvs, especially repeat venues, as it has become an honor and tradition to host them. WillC 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour above is what led to a 48-hour block for violating WP:NPA. - Chadbryant 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how anything above is in any way a personal attack. If you are going to accuse someone of poor writing skills, than you should demonstrate you are the superior linguist. Again, I ask you for proof of poor edits on my part. Furthermore, your reverting of edits without explanation or merit is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please, ADMIN, I ask you to provide a solution to this senselessness I have had to deal with this week because of this Wikipedian. WillC 02:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Chadbryant, are you accusing WillC of editing in bad faith? If so you will need evidence of this, if not, you should probably alter the way in which you interact with him. The very nature of a dispute is that each party believes the other to be misguided. Fortunately, most disputes can be worked out calmly on Wikipedia talk pages. There is no need to continue to blindly revert the edits of other users (that goes for both of you). If the other party is wrong, cite sources that prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. Statements that cannot be substantiated in any way don't belong in a Wikipedia article. I can see why it can easily be disputed whether some facts are worthy of inclusion in an article, but as long as they're verifiable, the matter should be decided on the talk page of the relevant article with input from all concerned users. If fears of sockpuppetry persist, a checkuser request might be in order, but I believe that this can be worked out more easily than that. Canderson7 ^(talk) 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets at Macedonia (region)

There has been abusive sockpuppets at the article mentioned above. He has been making personal attacks, racial remarks and being uncivil towards anyone with a differant viewpoint than himself.

• Andropolus (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Macedonian876 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Andropolus even admitted to being Macedonian876 cited here This is also one of his many offensive remarks he has made. Can you please rid us of these socks? Moe ε 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Of RSPW

User: Master Of RSPW, an obvious sock of User: Chadbryant, has reverted all the work I've done tonight. He has vandalized the same sites of mine that Chad usually does and has also vandalized the about page of User: Linden Arden. WillC 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARVA

User:FARVA is also a sock. The account should be deleted. It is User: Chadbryant posing as an enemy of his. WillC 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup taskforce

I've added Foundry model to your desk. Currently, there's 2 editors on it, but it's a hard task. Computerjoe 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand it much either. The majority of the edits I've changed are just the style. Computerjoe 21:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Digest.Com

Can you examine this article for any errors ? Martial Law 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

The article is UFOdigest.Com Martial Law 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

It is supposed to be similar to The Readers Digest, only it is about UFOs, aliens and other paranormal matters, such as ghosts. Martial Law 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Liar

I did not make that article, and I was hacked. —This unsigned comment was added by VidGameFreak (talk • contribs) 02:08, March 18, 2006.

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! :) Hbackman 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Canderson7 ^(talk) 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Taskforce

The article Atul Chitnis has been added to your desk because it inbvolves a person in the technical field. Please examine the project and accept or pass (or let me know and I'll reassign it). Thank you. RJFJR 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help for Atul Chitnis article

Hi,

I can provide references for the cleanup of Atul Chitnis. If you need any help with the same, I can provide necessary information. Do let me know and I can also help with the editing.

Thanks Sid Sid Carter 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Against UFO Secrecy

Can you have the article Citizens Against UFO Secrecy analyzed for any errors and/or problems. This is a Internet article stub as well. It was headed by a Peter A. Gersten who was allegedly known as "The UFO Lawyer". Martial Law 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

The CAUS article is that it discribes a website that is to a organization that was ran by Peter A. Gersten, who has repeatedly sued the U.S. Government to get it to release UFO and/or alien related info., only to, most of the time, get denied due to national security protocol concerns. He or another may have sued the CIA to get the info. seen in the Robertson Panel article under the FOIA. Martial Law 01:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

This was promoted by Peter Gersten on the radio show Coast To Coast AM everytime he was on the show. Martial Law 03:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and a few queries :)

Hi,

Made a few changes to the Atul Chitnis article and a few changes to the Bangalore Linux User Group article too. In the 3 para, I mention that the present status is not known. But, this page [1] mentions that the BLUG is not registered anymore. Does putting a statement saying that it was deregistered giving that link as reference constitute a POV ?

On a slightly related note, what is the position on users who intimidate or threaten on wikipedia ? And any policy to deal with such users, if any ?

Thanks much. Sid 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the user Achitnis is trying to intimidate people (ref [2]). The user seems to believe that this is part of a campaign. I could be wrong though.
• I had modified Bangalore Linux User Group and inserted the third para with citations. The same was deleted by the above mentioned user(ref [3]).
• A query - If something is a fact, but no verifiable source is there, can it still be put in the wiki ?
• Can I link to wikipedia pages themselves (including user pages), when editing any article ?

Thanks Much. Sid 09:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification. If there is anything else I may need, I will let you know. Thanks much. Sid 14:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack against another editor

Please don't refer to information you don't immmediately understand as nonsense. Please assume good faith. Please avoid expressing your point of view when editing articles. Wikipedia is called a "database" by the worlds longest-standing publisher of encylopedias. The fact that you prefer a different nomenclature does not justify your insulting edit summary. My edit made sense to the worlds' most reputable encylopedia publisher. Your job is not to reply with insulting barbs, but to find evidence -- consistent with Wikipedia standards -- to support your claim that reputable publishers consider Wikipedia an encylopedia.Tiyuiyutn

For your citations to have authority, they must be enumerated, and must originate from a reputable peer-reviewed source. That Seigenthaler was quoted in USA Today repeating popular slang does not comprise citation of peer reviewed literature about what is an encylopedia. This is not about what I think about this project, but about what reputable publishers with expertise in the field have defined as an encyclopedia.

Further, your claim that my reference to Wikipedia as a database -- based on a reputable published source AND on common sense -- is nonsense comprises a personal attack. I correctly responded to you for your malicious posting that demeaned my good faith in support of your point of view. Your allusion to "it is considered vandalism" uses an unattributed source (who considers it) to advance your personal opinion of vandalism in what comprises a personal attack against me. The rest of your statements comprise wikipedia bullying in an effort on your part to avoid the matter at hand - which may be discussed dispassionately and as a purely technical matter -- what peer reviewed sources support the publisher's promotional claim that this database comprises an encyclopedia? Tiyuiyutn 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Paranormal Watchers

I see you've taken some interest in the paranormal, so here's an official invitation to Wikipedia: Paranormal WatchersMahogany-wanna chat?