User talk:Alphachimp/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

== Help! ==

Someone please remind me of why I volunteer free time helping keep this site clean. I've been getting raked over the damned coals by two users who are screaming because I deleted their articles...which had no text. Just taxoboxes. One now has (drum roll, please) a single sentence. More time has been spent on my talk page by these two than on the articles. I made myself a promise: Add at least one new article a week, clean up at least one article per day. Been doing exactly that; I've had two "Did You Know?" mentions in the past week. Anyway, just venting. Might take another brief wikivacation soon. Quietly and with no drama.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, O Chimp. You are wise and I am just plain pooped. Pleased to say that one of the "taxoboxes" has returned as a nice short article. If I sign on tomorrow, I'll likely do some editing instead of NPP. 'Night! - Lucky 6.9 07:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing like being called "niggah" from the guy that invented the flux capacitor, eh?  :)) Another one tagged and bagged before shutdown! Woo-hoo! - Lucky 6.9 07:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Yes, we know we're doing our jobs when that happens! I look at it as a badge of honor, but you'd think the knuckle-dragging nimrod would have had the decency to spell my user name correctly! Thanks for watching my back. - Lucky 6.9 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Been meaning to do that...thanks for the tip! My pages look a little bit bland and that's a great way to stay off NPP. By the way, I just got another ration of you-know-what. Someone tagged it, I bagged it, I got screamed at by a user with three prior edits. Some fun! - Lucky 6.9 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was...? I must be losing my mind; I din't know I'd done any monobook edits beyond some I'd done at other wikis. Oy. - Lucky 6.9 07:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection to deletion - Jazz FM (website)

There is a potential problem here, jazzfm.com is not just a website but also a radio station which had a potential audience of 8 million people and a reach of hundreds of millions in Europe via satellite. If that isn't notable enough, then 80% of radio station articles on Wikipedia would also have to be deleted. There are thousands of radio stations in the UK which broadcast to a much lesser number of people are are nowhere near as notable. --tgheretford (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

belated response

On an AFD page, you said to me I'm really troubled by the idea of "documenting the nonsense". If the article is nonsense, as you suggest, wouldn't it be appropriate to just WP:CSD:G1 it and move on? I reply here, since that discussion is closed, and I didn't see it before.

We have no business judging what is nonsense. It's my opinion that the theory underlying the article was nonsense. That is no reason not to discuss neutrally the facts of the matter. A neutral discussion should let others, who may not be sure because of spotty information, see that it is nonsense as well. In that, it serves a useful purpose. In fact, I was in large part led to that opinion by reading the article, though I had heard mentions of the theory before.

An analogy if I may, it is my opinion that the claims of the Swift Vets regarding John Kerry's Bronze Star are also sheer nonsense. That's no reason to avoid an article on the topic, as it was notable. The relevant article neutrally lays out the claims and the evidence. I think it would lead any reasonable reader to their own conclusion that the Swift Vet claims were highly suspect in that matter. In that it serves a useful purpose, by providing a central and neutral repository of information.

The key question is whether a topic is notable. In my opinion the "controlled demolition" hypothesis is, in that a great many people seem to believe it as evidenced by the article sources.

Regards,

Derex 04:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If I felt the article was complete patent nonsense (CSD G1), I would have deleted it in the middle of the AfD and we would be rid of it. That statement was a bit of an exaggeration. As for the article, it's true that we have a place in documenting phenomena and widespread opinions, but this crackpot theory was not verifiable, not significant... (you can read the pages and pages of arguments in the AfD, I didn't particularly feel like involving myself then, and I don't feel like it now).

As for the Kerry article, if you feel it's nonsense or non-notable, get it deleted. alphaChimp(talk) 04:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care then or now about that article either. I only responded out of courtesy, since my position "troubled" you. You've either totally misunderstood or misrepresented my point. So, I'll keep it simple. AFD the one of these, your pick: Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent design, Big Bang, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apollo moon landing hoax. See how far you get with any of those. Note here that your expressed concern about my position was nonsense of the underlying theory, not on anything else. At any rate, I don't care to debate you. But, if you don't welcome a reply, and you seemed rather irritated by getting one, then don't comment on me in the first place. Derex 06:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Irritated"? I'm a bit troubled by your immediate assumption of my underlying emotions. I'll keep it simple: you did not link me to the relevant comment. You did not link me to the relevant debate (I could only assume). You've responded that you "don't care to debate me". OK, then why are you questioning my argument? If you wish to discuss something let's do it, but let's avoid questioning the intent of the other user. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

merge by month

Hi, I noticed you are changing the templates to by-date versions, I think it would be nice to integrate this directly into AWB, as these templates are very common, I have done this with the other by-date templates (part of the "auto tag" option), and it does stop the backlog building up quite well. Could you let me know what regexes you are using? thanks. Martin 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you received approval for this bot activity Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Alphachimpbot8. It would have been nice if you'd initiated a discussion at Template talk:Merge (a far more visible forum, and one in which this has general idea has been discussed in the past).

I don't object to the concept of tidying the categories, but established consensus strongly favors keeping these templates as small as possible. (Unlike cleanup tags, they aren't intended to imply that something is wrong with the article). There's no need to double the template's size by including the date there.

Also, some of the specific design elements warrant discussion. You really should have left the article title as the first parameter. Pushing it to the second position accomplishes nothing other than significantly increasing the likelihood of accidental misuse.

I understand the logic behind pushing the "discuss" parameter to the third position (given the fact that it's optional, much newer, and used much less commonly), but a more practical option is to add the date link to the existing templates as an optional named parameter ("date"). This would allow people to continue using the same templates with the same syntax (with the addition of the "date" parameter if/when they become familiar with it). Your bot could then append the date when it isn't manually inserted. —David Levy 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the {{merge}}, {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates to incorporate an optional date parameter. Please update your bot to simply append |date=September 2006 instead of switching to separate templates. Please also update the pages that your bot already has edited (and continues to edit). Thank you! —David Levy 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I started off very slowly, posted in all the obvious forums I knew for feedback, and received nothing other than strong support. I queried everyone that I knew had an interest and stopped the process frequently. That said, I've stopped my bot, and am waiting more comments.

I'll change the templates, but only after significant discussion and consensus occurs. I'm not going to do another huge bot run and have more people getting all pissed off at me. alphaChimp^(talk) 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and I realize that you've acted in good faith. The one thing that you neglected to do was to solicit feedback at Template talk:Merge—the talk page of the three templates that you intended to deprecate. That's where these discussions normally occur, and various people who have helped to develop the merger tag system (including me) watch the page.

Feel free to wait for comments on my setup, but I don't see why anyone would object (given the fact that it provides identical functionality while maintaining the existing templates and syntax in a backwardly compatible manner). In fact, if the entire concept were to be rejected by the community, the templates could be reverted without even re-editing the articles. The "date" parameter would simply do nothing.

FYI, I typed the above reply before reading the one below. —David Levy 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer you respond on my talk page. As I said before, I really did everything in my power to attempt to generate discussion before making the edits. My new templates were patterned directly off of {{Cleanup-date}}, which we use in the cleanup category. It seemed only reasonable to extend the same logic to the merge templates. You've got to realize that I'm only trying to help out here. It's a bit frustrating to receive such a negative response when I'm doing something that's obviously in good faith.

Again, I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. You had a good idea, but there's a better way to implement it.

In general, it's vastly preferable to maintain long-standing template syntax. ({{Cleanup-date}} was designed in such a manner that using it in the same fashion as {{cleanup}} still mostly worked.) The merger tags have been around for years, so changing the syntax in a manner that breaks the old format is not the wisest course of action.

Incidentally, the "date" functionality has been integrated into {{cleanup}} as an optional parameter, and {{cleanup-date}} is to be deprecated whenever someone gets around to it.

It should be noted that in over 8500 edits with the bot, yours was the only negative comment I received. Everyone else was either ambivalent or appreciative. I was somewhat surprised to receive that response. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you interpreted my response as hostile. I'm simply providing a more logical implementation of your idea. —David Levy 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just tell me when you want the bot to go through and change everything. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now is fine by me. As I said, there's no possible harm. (Even if the entire idea were to be rejected by the community, all of the changes could be instantly undone by simply reverting the templates. You wouldn't need to deploy the bot again, as it won't be changing anything that affects the existing functionality.)

To be clear, this is the appropriate syntax: {{merge|Other article|date=September 2006}}

If the "discuss" parameter is present, it should look like this: {{merge|Other article|Talk:Discussion location|date=September 2006}}

No matter what, the bot simply needs to append |date=September 2006 immediately before the closing curly brackets. And of course, this will work with {{merge}}, {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}.

Thanks again! —David Levy 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

When do you intend to activate the bot? —David Levy 19:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Very soon. I was going to trial my edits tonight, but Wikipedia was having some issues. I'll have to hold off until tomorrow. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the site's been a bit glitchy tonight. Thanks for the update! —David Levy 06:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got the regex and I'm starting the work. Let me know if anything appears to be amiss. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

24.75.180.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi AlphaChimp ... you recently gave 24.75.180.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a 31h block for vandalism, so I thought you should know he's back at it again, abusing WP:AFC in an attempt to trick editors into creating attack pages for him. (I've blanked the content of his "request" per WP:AFC rules, but I'll dig it out and email it to you if you'd like; trust me, it was a full-blown attack.) I'm going to slap another warning tag on his user talk page, but you may want to consider further blocks. Thanks, --Aaron 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stevend06

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this user? His entire edit history, going back about a week, is made up of posting linkspam (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Stevend06). I have just spent the last little while reverting or removing all of his edits, but he needs a very serious warning or block to discourage a repeat of this. A fellow editor, named WesleyDodds, had to revert his edits four times over the course of 3 or 4 days, as Steven kept reinserting the deleted spam in the same article. He is, simply put, a menace. Thanks, as always, for your time and attention. ---Charles 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've posted a warning on his talk. It wouldn't be fair for me to block him, given that nobody has formally warned him. In the future, once you've discovered a pattern such as this, warn the user (I find {{spam}} -> {{spam4}} helpful). If the pattern persists after the warnings, just post on WP:AIV. Let me know (or AIV) if you have any further problems with the user. Regards, alphaChimp^(talk) 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action on this. I agree that a block would be unfair at this point. I wish someone had caught him a few days ago, but it is a moot point now. ---Charles 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Comment

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll do it that way next time. Cardamon 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fleshlight page edit

Hi AlphaChimp, I couldnt figure out what you changed on the Fleshlight page. Thanks for your contribution :) FleshJoe 05:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was fixing some formatting. I'll check it out again soon. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, note I moved it from FleshLight to Fleshlight (no capital L in the middle).FleshJoe 05:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Been a while

Hey AC, been a while. I just sent you an email. Catcha later... JungleCat talk/contrib 05:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just got it and responded. Sorry for the wait. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre

'01:40, 1 October 2006 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre" (WP:CSD A7: "article is about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or historical significance of its subject")'

For you put Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre for deletion. Of course the article needed a brushing up which I don't disagree, it didn't cite its sources and it did not not have enough information. I am a begginer as a wikipedia user and I would just like to ask if you could put the article just the way it was so I can edit some things and not some but major stuff. Also this school is a real school. I have no doubt about that and it is not about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content. It is not about web content and nowhere close. It is a real school commencing on the weekend and also I do agree that the article did not assert the importance or historical significance of its subject but all that will be changed. I hope it is possible for you to do that. Also how come it has been deleted so quickly in less than five days? Thanks for reading my comment and I hope all goes well. --Pendotigers 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The 5 day deletion only applies to the "prod" tag. Admins can delete on site articles that fail the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for quick response. --Dweller 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, my pleasure. alphaChimp^(talk) 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, User:208.100.1.143 seems to be the IP address for that vandal. They've been warned by a bot for vandalism to Silly and China. --Dweller 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, blocked. alphaChimp^(talk) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

81.223.23.159

• Why did you remove 81.223.23.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from WP:AIV without action? He's deliberately adding false information (fake statistics) and has already gotten a final warning. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything particularly over the top. I know it might sound crazy, but some of his edits didn't actually seem to be vandalism. Further, none of them were recent. Blocking (at least in this scenario) is a tool for stopping a vandal in progress, not for preventing something that could come. Hope that helps. alphaChimp^(talk) 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Seeing as you seem a helpful sort, I wondered what you thought of this [1]? Take a look at pretty much any of those articles. Is that useful content? --Dweller 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They're redirects. I see no issue in allowing them to remain, but I'd like to allow the community to discuss it before he continues. I've placed a request on his talk page that he stop, and he appears to have done so. alphaChimp^(talk) 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which pages are you talking about? The redirects to state highway articles? Those are mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways)#Creation of redirects. --NE2 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the timestamp, I think he might have been referring to the disambiguation pages I created earlier. I finished with those several hours ago, and posted a response on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --NE2 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think creating a bot account, and then waiting a week for it to be approved, just to make redirects manually, is a good use of my time. --NE2 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a blimp for you! Blimps somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --TBCΦtalk? 01:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Get it? A blimp for Alphachimp? Anyhow keep up the good work, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia! :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by TBCΦtalk?)

Haha! Thanks so much for the blimp! :) alphaChimp^(talk) 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of 216.226.108.200

Regarding this 48 hour block. I'm curious what it takes to get a permanent block. This IP consistently vandalizes pages, wasting the time of others. The sheer volume of vandalism incidents on the talk page plus a quick review of "contributions" shows constant vandalism. Thanks. *Sparkhead 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, there has been a ton of vandalism. Indefinitely blocking an IP address requires serious consideration of the possible impact and ramifications of such a decision. We've got to worry about collateral damage, whether the IP is shared, or static, etc. It's probably not a decision we would make (off the top of my head I only know of 3 IPs that are blocked indef for vandalism). Generally we increment blocks. 24 hours was the first. Expect the next to be 1 week, then a month, then 6 months, and so on and so forth. Just keep reporting the user. Alphachimp 15:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal removal

Just wondering why you didn't block Jackyriv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I reported, which you removed with the summary "no recent vandalism".--Andeh 18:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because his last contribution was on 16:19, June 7, 2006. alphaChimp^(talk) 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, he's never been warned. alphaChimp^(talk) 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What if I mentioned the user is probaly Industry guitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and all their edits have been vandalism?--Andeh 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that all the edits are vandalism. Trouble is, it was some time ago. I don't think it's productive to go around blocking users as a purely preventative measures. Honestly, though, a lot of admins would probably disagree. I wouldn't have a problem if you went to another. alphaChimp^(talk) 03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So if I added stuff like that to someones user page and it wasn't spotted until a week later you wouldn't block me? Didn't know a vandal accounts vandal edits expired.--Andeh 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Todays case with Janmohamed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an example of why blocking these types of accounts is a good idea.--Andeh 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea why you keep coming at me for this. He has never been warned, and there is no recent vandalism. Blocking is not here for to prevent possible vandalism. It's here to stop vandalism in progress. Alphachimp 23:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLOCK it is a preventative measure, and may be used even if the user hasn't vandalised recently.--Andeh 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"According to WP:BLOCK you are wrong.--Andeh 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)" (this post was removed, but this is the version I am responding to)

"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" I guess I technically am. Congratulations. You've just proved that I can make mistakes. Asking an admin to block an unwarned account whose only edits were several months ago seems somewhat unreasonable. I will not block that account. You still haven't warned it.... I'd like to encourage editors to contribute to Wikipedia, not limit our potential for future contributors. Alphachimp 17:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Greatdragon8

He's recreated his article several times in different names now, just FYI. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was busy responding to a PR inquiry. It appears that he has been indefinitely blocked. Regards, Alphachimp 05:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Move?

Sorry about that. I guess I should read up more on this kind of thing. I'm sure you will understand that I was trying to make my article has correct as I possibly could. I originally named the page "Zhou Tong (Shaolin Abbot)", but I've only find one source that says he was an abbot. The other 99% states he was just a monk. I therefore totally rewrote the article and changed its heading. What is the proper way of "renaming" or "moving" a page? Next time I will know how to do it the correct way. Please post the info on my user page. Thanks again and sorry for the trouble. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 06:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Nevermind. I found the "move" tab at the top like you said. I never really noticed that there. I've got what I need now. Thanks anyway. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Untitled Comment

Hi,

Firstly, thanks for being there.

Second, I'm a little confused. I couldn't find out how to create a new article so I tried going down the route of getting Wiki to create one for me by giving it a Search it couldn't find 'Cordwangler' presuming that I'd be able to change the articles name once created.

Mistake! Sorry! Seems my error was deleted csd a7 so you must have dealt with idiots like me before.

I then create a correctly named article through Wiki's How to Create an Article and pasted and save my article in it. All went well briefly then it was deleted csd g11. SPAM!!! I hate the stuff - waste precious hours ridding my poor computer of it so I'm dreadfully sorry if that's what it looked as if I was doing.

My article is genuine. Poor guy suffers from a very common name but is very real - he's spent 30 years making music mainly for kids has recorded over 30 albums with 3 Gold and one Platinum Disk to his name.

I just did a recreate and it seems the article is back.

If not would you please have a look at it and tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Regards mjwombat Mjwombat 06:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, now that I read it, it seems that he (you?) has a shard of notability. I'll just leave the article alone. In the future, however, if an admin deletes your page, do not immediately recreate it. Alphachimp 06:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Jackson

)

It is 'he' and yup he's done some amazing things - I tried to tone it down - didn't want it to sound like an advert. He's been central to much that is children's music in Australia (including help pave the way for the Wiggles) for a very long time. Currently he has a Ukulele Tutor on sale through Mel Bay in the USA and about to be translated into French and German.

Incidentally, I'm sure you don't need to be told but Wiki is wicked!! Thanks again for being there.

Regards The Chief Wombat Mjwombat 07:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wombat again

So sorry,

do I have to save the article again or will you reset it from your end?

Mjwombat 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wombats

Sorry to be a pain but it nearly 6pm and I have a kangaroo dodging 4 hour drive ahead of me so I'm desperate to leave.

The joys of living in the land of Oz. Just need to know if I should resave that article please (don't want to lose it I can help it

Mjwombat 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Temp Block of 151.204.180.62

I read your discussion above about needing to seriously consider things before doing a perm block on an IP, but is there anything between the 48 hour block and a perm block? I mean, this person attacked the admin who blocked him after his previous block was lifted. Stoneice02 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At least for me, there's a lot between a 48 hour and an indefinite. It's quite possible that blocking an IP address will cause a large amount of collateral damage. We generally increment the blocks steadily, but never actually permanently block. I realize that's not what you want to hear, but it's pretty much laid out in WP:BLOCK. Regards, Alphachimp 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 12.172.68.114

Hi there! I've noticed you just blocked this user temporarily... I don't suppose a more permanent measure may be in order, considering his precedents? I'm worried about the very subtle nature of some of his edits; they may go unnoticed easily, and have in the past... --Nehwyn 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he has been blocked should be in some way indicative of the potential quality of his edits. Blocking is not a preventative measure, it's a way of protecting our encyclopedia from damage in progress. True, we increment the blocks, but it's not appropriate to indef an IP in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. Hope that helps. Alphachimp 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: why is aeropatica reporting someone?

It appears the user was reported to aeropatica instead. :-) theProject 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Alphachimp 16:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV reporting

Hello! In answer to your question, I reported the IP vandal at WP:AIV because of this exchange on my Talk page. I could see that the vandal hadn't vandalised since the last warning, so I placed the alert on the page in case they chose to do so whilst my attention was elsewhere and another admin could deal with them. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I was worried for a second that you'd been desysoped for some reason. :) I blocked him, btw. Alphachimp 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:MrDarcy

Good grief, that was quick! Thanks for your help. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. Enjoy editing your userpage. Alphachimp 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

bot, merge by month

Regarding the bot's moving things to Category:Articles to be merged since September 2006, note it's possible to get the date when the merge tag was first added by fetching the cl_timestamp value using query.php. Also note that moving things out of the category without recording the original timestamp does destroy this information, and it's possible others are/would have been using it (eg. I used to use it when the toolserver was up). --Interiot 09:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I don't have the capability to sort into the actual month of tagging. The intention in sorting into cleanup-by-month september was that anyone who wanted to could sort them in later on. I realize it's not a perfect solution, but it's putting everything there for anyone with the technical ability to set it up. Alphachimp 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But removing the category deletes the cl_timestamp data, making it harder for software to determine when the category was added. It makes it easier for humans to use, so I'm not necessarily saying to change what you're doing. Just be aware that data is being lost/obscured.

Also, if/when bug#5561 gets implemented, we wouldn't want to do category sorting-by-month anymore, since people may prefer to preserve the cl_timestamp data. --Interiot 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The three "merge-date" templates

Now that these have been orphaned, do you consent to their deletion? Having extra templates with different syntax floating around can lead to a bit of confusion. —David Levy 17:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've been meaning to do it myself. As an added not, my bot still has to run a couple thousand articles in articles to be merged, but the job looks to be about done. Thanks for bearing with me (and sorry for the incivility/snappiness before). Alphachimp 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks very much for getting all of this done.  :-) —David Levy 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for adminship help

I need your help. Is it possible to change your stance on wp if you want to run again for adminship? I am outraged by the number of vandalized pages that are on wp. Please do not hesitate to write me back. Thanks. Brandon 22:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You've made less than 8 contributions since your last RfA. I'd really encourage you to involve yourself more before posting another RfA. I don't mean to be discouraging, but there's really no way the RfA will be successful. Sorry :( Alphachimp 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA. I really appreciate it. I think I shall devote my initial use of the tools to new page patrol per your kind invitation. I had a question about it though. What is in greater need in NPP--quick un-tagged deletion of obvious CSD violators, or closing the backlog of other speedy-tagged articles? Thanks for your input, Irongargoyle 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer quick untagged deletion. Two reasons: You don't have to check the page history (although it helps to check what links here) and you don't get any frivilous requests. It's usually very easy to spot the vanity, nonsense, and spam. You make a few enemies, but you're less likely to make disastrous errors. Honestly, you'd be shocked by the number of articles our New Page Patrollers miss on a daily basis. Anyway, that's my opinion. I'd encourage you to copy VoA's admin monobook (it's my monobook actually). It might help a bit. Congrats! Alphachimp 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Why are you deleting this page?

Sorry, to be more precise. Why have you deleted the page for Kid Power-DC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxskol (talk • contribs)

Check out Criteria for Speedy Deletion Article 7 (vanity articles) and G11 (spam). Alphachimp 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous messages are from maxskol. I apologize for not following protocol. New to the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxskol (talk • contribs)

Deletions of new articles

I've been browsing the "newly created articles" page, and I must say... damn, you're quick. Keep up the good work! JPG-GR 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much! The sysop bit tends to help with this type of stuff. :) Alphachimp 05:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

blucr0n

Ta muchly, don't particularly like huge penises on my talkpage, especially when I'm sitting in a crowded university library ::blushes:: — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 05:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Argh! Thanks so much. Thank God for popups, these willies keep freakin' me out. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 05:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. If he does it again, I'll let you know. Cheers again, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 05:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm reconsidering your offer. But this appears to reveal my ignorance about the blocking policy – you blocked his IP, so how can he create a new account and edit? — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 06:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Requesting semi-protection. Getting bored now. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 06:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Semi-protection – a new chapter in my Wikicareer. Oh, I was so proud the first time my userpage was vandalised... *banjo strikes up* — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Userpage

Can you please unblock my userpage? Thanks. Bearly541 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

done. enjoy! Alphachimp 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but now can you please "re-block" my userpage? Thanks. Bearly541 08:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather not, given that we've blocked the user who was vandalizing it. Shoot me a line if he does come back, but I have my doubts. Alphachimp 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Self Reverting

Several times in the last hour User:128.206.204.26 has vandalized pages and then reverted them. Don't know what it means and I don't know what, if anything, to say on user's talk. Dan D. Ric 09:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got templates for that too :). Check out WP:TT. The ones in question are {{Test-self}} and {{Test-self-n}}. Hope that helps! Alphachimp 15:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)`

HRD motorcycles

Existing article HRD_Motorcycles has yr cleanup notice, but could be copyvio. My interest comes from articlesUser:Seasalt/HRDMotors which is (,4 me,) part of User:Seasalt/Vincent (The existing Vincent_Motorcycles article was cut back due to copyvio.)

So I've got two prospective replacements, merges, whatever..(or have I not? Are they good enough? I may not be the best judge of that.) I've corresponded with "author" on talk page, but doesn't seem to be corresponding back anymore. Also placed message on talk page of copyvio issuer for Vincent article, but note he is slow to reply ....

How long should I wait, or should I be doing something else? Are there protocols on this?Seasalt 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and change it. Nobody owns a wikipedia article. Although you ought to generate comments before making a significant change, I'd suggest just being bold and doing it. Alphachimp 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Comment

Hi--I received a note about editing/vandalising the American Civil War page. Iad never even visited that page, let alone edited or vandalised it. I take the accuracy and reputation of Wikipedia very seriously, so the kind of juvenile editing done on that page offends me. However, it was not me. Please check your sources again. Thanks!

cureholder

I just noticed that the edit incorrectly blamed on me to the American Civil War page was dated July 27, 2006. This is actually impossible. I killed my PowerBook (by spilling a glass of water on it) on April 25, 2006, and it sat dead and unused on a shelf until September 2006 (when I could spare the $1,346 to get it fixed). It wasn't even functioning on the date in question, so obviously it was not used to edit wikipedia.

Cureholder 165.124.165.163

It was likely someone else using Wikipedia from the same IP address. Some IPs are shared between multiple users. Don't worry too much about it. Alphachimp 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Republican Party (United States)

Hi Alphachimp, would you please restore the Semi-protection to Republican Party (United States) that someone just took off.Nikpapag 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Normal users cannot take protection off. I've restored the tag. Alphachimp 18:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

New subway table

I have a brand new proposal for a new subway table that I would like for you to see. You can go to my sandbox subpage or the WP:NYCS talk page to get a view of it. I know you said that we shouldn't savishly imitate the MTA's table, but I made a lot of changes and it is already getting support from Pacific Coast Highway and the late Marc Shepherd. I hope you will like it, and if you would like to implement any ideas on it, let me know and I will take some thought into seeing how it will benefit before I add it on. I hope you like it, and maybe we can all agree on it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the WP:NYCS page. Thanks for asking. Alphachimp 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am all clear with copyright regarding images. That said, let's proceed into discussion on the table. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I really need to make sure I don't get copyright tags and licenses mixed up. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am glad that we are making some progress here; with an editor gone, WP:NYCS is going to need all the help it can get.

About the Template Substitution

Hi there. I just have a question. Everytime I send a user a warning (eg. for vandals) I find a BOT substituting it. So I'm not sure whether I'm doing the wrong thing or what. Need your help :) Thanx. --TheEgyptian 03:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just check out WP:SUBST. Prepend "subst:" to all your warnings...that's it. Alphachimp 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation.

You seem to have an ax to grind, my friend. I updated a page, and you accuse me of vandalism, then threaten to block my access as an editor. Unless you can point to any problem with the recent changes i've made, rekindly cease from interfering in my editing.

Uh, ok. Alphachimp 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting merge drop

The user who has reuqested the merge, NewYorkMan 2210 has not carried out the merge and has not contributed the Wikipedia in the last two months. The user has also had a few violations when it came to merging. I'm reguesting that the Frisch's article merger proposal be dropped. I'm also acknowledging that in the Talk:Big Boy (restaurant) someone argees with me on the Frisch's merger issue itself. Spongefan, 15:37 October 8, 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the template yourself if you disagree with it. Alphachimp 19:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will I be penalized or be given a warning for dropping the request for spilt it by another adminstrator? Spongefan, 19:45 October 8, 2006 (UTC)

No I doubt that. Alphachimp 23:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR Peroxisome

Peroxisome has engaged in more multiple reverts at John Brignell and is also trolling vigorously at Steven Milloy. JQ 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?

Bunkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishBunkey (talk • contribs)

Please stop harrassing me. TrishBunkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishBunkey (talk • contribs)

I'm cleaning up my own talk page. I'm not doing anything wrong. I cant keep track of half the stuff on it. I assume no good faith when you constantly threaten to ban me for no good reason. I'm filing another wiki complaint. Trishbunkey

You're absolutely welcome to do so. Alphachimp 00:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Northcentral University

I have been revisiting some of the AfD debates I participated in, and noticed some apparent inconsistently. The article above should have been kept per the debate which you concluded as admin, but somehow the article is no longer there. I have checked the deletion review logs and there doesn't seem to be any vote to overturn. Any ideas what happened? Ohconfucius 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No idea. That doesn't make much sense, does it? Take it to deletion review. Alphachimp 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness unprotected

McGuinness' page was unprotected, though I don't understand why beyond that it's been protected for a while. The dispute still has not been resolved and both sides have neither come to a compromise nor agreement. In additon there's never been a binding judgment on the situation. Should the page be reprotected because as of right now there is no real binding reason to not post the name as a content dispute, due to lack of judgment. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. All I've seen in this one is a couple of users throwing their weight around. I'm just so irritated at dealing with it. I'd rather not say any more. Alphachimp 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, about my new table...

I've got to get my head in the game.

I didn't license the image, I added the {{PD-ineligible}} tag to it. I am all clear with copyrighting as I recently uploaded fair use images before.

That said, I am all clear with the copyright of the images. Now we can probaby proceed on with the table. I would love to see the table having a home on the subway service pages. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, good. I'll check it out later. Alphachimp 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Entity Paradigm page

Hey man,

I was just curious as to why the "Entity Paradigm" page was deleted and subsequently protected.

Thanks, Danish1 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Danish

It was recreated over and over and over. It fails WP:CSD A7 in that it lacks specific statements evincing the notability of the group. Let me know if you want to recreate it. Alphachimp 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

???

I was blocked from editing a page, that i didnot edit, this page was Snezinsk (sp) so I assume the IP adress was incorrect. 64.12.116.139 20:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Bryan Barnes

If you can edit this page, you are not blocked. The page was likely semi-protected. Alphachimp 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Muggle1982 Block

You recently blocked Muggle1982 for blanking the talk page on Udit Raj. I don't disagree with the block, but I thought I'd point out that Muggle1982's problems started when User:Hkelkar apparently reverted Muggle1982's comments on the talk page([2]). shotwell 04:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already been contacted by the user explaining the situation. I understand (that's why the block is fairly short). Alphachimp 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Traffic control

Actually, this merge thing has been hanging around since May this year. Since nothing has happened except me, and there is no-one in favour, I formally propose that the merge tags be removed. Gordon | Talk, 11 October 2006 @11:09 UTC

Feel free to remove the tag, then. You don't have to ask an admin first. Regards, Alphachimp 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brian anderson skateboarder

Hullo spunky monkey,
I reckon "profesional skateboarder" is a claim to notability, and quoting the speedy deletion criterion by code is sub-optimal. But that's just me, feel free to ignore.
brenneman ^{L} 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a little more hazy on that call. Feel free to restore and prod it if you want. Alphachimp 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now at Brian Anderson (skateboarder). Thanks mate. - brenneman ^{L} 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Munna shukla

ideas? - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I almost speedied it when I first saw it, but it was too vague to really match the criteria. I suspect it's a copyvio, but I can't find it in a search. I dunno bud. I might just prod it as "vague assertion of notability without sourcing" and see what happens from there. Alphachimp 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Moore

Sorry I guess I jumped the gun there. Gdo01 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

r

Fine, but it's only for fun and doesn't do anyone harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooksit420 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Alphachimp 00:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Is the deletion of articles reserved for admin? If not, then how do you do it? Diez2—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diez2 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you have to be an admin to delete an article. Alphachimp 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Section

hello my name is jacob. the creator of that one lab coat man page Im not having hard feloings but id just like to hear why u deleted it int ur own words not all that article :wrhgtd 234 stuff

--Thejakob103 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)siserly the jakob103

I deleted it because it was obvious nonsense and personal vanity. Read the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. We're trying to keep this a serious encyclopedia. Sorry. Alphachimp 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

site

How much time do you spend per day, on average, on Wikipedia? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooksit420 (talk • contribs)

I don't know. It varies from day to day depending on my other work. I do have a life (and this is not it.) Alphachimp 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Camden School for Girls

Hello.

I'm writing on behalf of Camden School for Girls, London. I have recently been notified of some vandalism to the schools entry on this website. We are now concerned that this may have been done internally (perhaps one of our students). Is there any way of finding out who did it (i.e. user name and/or IP address) - The IP address may give us a clue since our school only uses one external address. Also is there a way of making the schools entry as permanently protected so that these things don't happen again? Many thanks for your time.

Stephen Greenway
ICT Technical Support
Camden School for Girls
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ringo0800 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you'd have to do that from your end. I can't. I'd suggest reverting the vandalism. If it persists, report it to WP:AIV or pursue internal discipline. What's your IP? Alphachimp 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazism semi-protection

Hi, please have another look at the history of Nazism - as it said within the "SP text" at the top "why protected: because of constant vandalism by anonymous people writing nonsense like "Hitler is gay", "Nazism sucks" and other vandalism". Please re-SP the page, which, considering its title, should stay protected from anonymous users indefinetively. Thanks Flammingo^Parliament 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already be reprotected. In the future, instead of contacting me, just post on WP:RFPP. I do routine unprotection sweeps. Regards, Alphachimp 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY LAB CAOT MAN WAS DELETED

hello my name is jacob. the creator of that one lab coat man page Im not having hard fellings or anything, but id just like to hear why u deleted it,like in ur own words not all that article :wrhgtd 234 stuf --Thejakob103 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)the jacon103

I mentioned it directly above. Just look up the page. Alphachimp 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

lab coat man is a credibal super hero not nonsense. all super heros are fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejakob103 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments and stop creating new titles for every single line of text. It's nonsense because you just made it up. Honestly, think about it. We're a serious encyclopedia, not a repository of every thing people make up in grade school. Alphachimp 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hey alpha if i improve the site and get a picture and a link to the lab coat man series then would u allow it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejakob103 (talk • contribs)

Have you read the WP:CSD? If your article is nonsense, it's going to get deleted. Even if I created a nonsense article, it would be deleted. Alphachimp 01:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

how do u define something as nosens ifd it is real and there is information that a person might want to know about a, what might seem stupid character or idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejakob103 (talk • contribs)

It's a nonsensical article. it's something you just made up. period. Find a reliable source citing "Lab Coat Man" and then we can talk. That said, please sign your comments (type ~~~~)). Please also stop creating a new section for everything you say. One section is enough. Thanks. Alphachimp 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure 2 Battle

Hi Alphachimp,

The page Sonic Adventure 2 Battle should be turned into a redirect page to Sonic Adventure 2. The reason is that the former page's information already exists on the latter page. The user UnDeRsCoRe has tried to do just this, but he was foiled by Alphachimpbot. Please help. Paul Haymon 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. It looks like the page was redirected after alphachimpbot updated the merge tag. Alphachimp 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose the issue is resolved. Thank you. Paul Haymon 01:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Western Thrace

The article Turkish Republic of Western Thrace is merged with the article Republic of Gumuljina by user tekleni who is supported by user hectorian without building any consensus on the talk/discussion page. These greek nationalist (can be realized from their contributions history) are now trying to delete the article. If you investigate their contributions history, you'll immediately discover that these users are trying to dispute everything related with turks/turkey related subjects. Wikipedia should not be a propaganda or advertisement service for turkish hostility. E104421 06:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You really should be posting this on ANI. I'd suggest either that or trying some sort of Dispute Resolution. Alphachimp 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

Sorry you didn't get it this time buddy. You were really a great candidate. Alphachimp 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Buildings and Structures

Hello again, many thanks, again for your bots superb addition of the {{Architecture}} tag to all the architects. Would it be possible to do it for all the Category:Buildings and structures articles and subcat - subcat - subcat - subcat (however many there are?). Enormous thanks once again. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Lemme take a look. Hopefully it won't take a month this time. Alphachimp 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Invaluable aid

I just want to say thanks for the table with all the Wikipedia links that you added to my talk page on the 21st of September. Over the last few weeks I have returned to it time and again when I have wanted a quick reference. Thanks LittleOldMe 14:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That makes my day. I'm glad you're enjoying Wikipedia. Alphachimp 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:64.19.146.170

Chimp! this dude wasn't warned at all - I was about to warn him and had an edit conflict with your block! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh you can unblock if you want. Typically for one of these pattern vandals I just block no questions asked. He's been blocked tons of times before. Alphachimp 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But how do you know the IP represents the same person over time? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from other admins in the block log. Alphachimp 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Flava Flav

Please visit the Flavor Flav discussion page. The vandals have returned and are trying to rationalize that they should be alllowed to spam the Flavor Flav wikipedia page with a Counter-Strike section. I need someone to explain Wikipedia Poloicy to them. Thanks Gamer83 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of 3RR page

Did you archive unresolved cases on purpose? --Dijxtra 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If they haven't been dealt with for 5 days, odds are that they never will be.... Alphachimp 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, you archived a complaint I filed yesterday. I suggest you revert your move, thank you in advance. --Dijxtra 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I can see things that you have not bolded. If you had placed your report in the proper location, perhaps it would not have been archived. I suggest you go into the archive, cut out your report, and paste it to the bottom of AN3. Problem solved, thank you in advance. Alphachimp 23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I do that? How can I know you won't archive it again? I pasted it to the bottom here, and in version of the page just before you archived it my report was 6th from the bottom. I seem to be a bit disabled today since I just don't understand what was wrong with location of my report, and I don't want you to just archive it again if I "misplace" it again. So, please, please, tell me, what did I do wrong here? --Dijxtra 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I contacted User:William M. Connolley who said that I put the request in the right place. Therefore, please take care next time you are archiving. Thanks for being such a nice guy to talk to. --Dijxtra 10:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ok. Have you moved it from the archive yet? Alphachimp 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, and please leave it there now since it's been a few days since the incident so I don't really think there's a reason to bother with it anymore. --Dijxtra 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hey Alphachimp! I was wondering if you might start personalising your edit summaries a bit when protecting and unprotecting pages to various degrees. I saw that you protected Cory Lidle from being moved, but I couldn't initially tell what was being protected and I actually went to put the semi-protection template on the page before I saw what was being protected. A lot of admins don't use descriptive edit summaries, and I actually unprotected the move function that you reprotected because I misunderstood another admin's edit summary. It might actually just be me being a newish admin, but it seems a bit confusing when the thing that's being protected isn't specifically mentioned. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem at all. Many of the times, "heavy vandalism from multiple sources" works (this is the default in VoA's JS), but in the cases of articles like that (linked to from main, so I used move protection) I should probably be more descriptive. Hope that helps, I'll try a little bit harder in the future with that. Alphachimp 19:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, mate! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

African American template

can you semi-protect this template {{African American topics sidebar}}? an anon IP address keeps vandalzing the template and it's causing problem on pages that use the template. Ccson 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't, at least at this juncture. It's not a "high use" template, so it does not qualify for our default full protect, and there has not been sufficient multi-source vandalism (not just one IP) vandalism to justify the protect. I'd suggest watchlisting and reverting for the time being. Feel free to come back to me later if the issue persists (you can always go to WP:RFPP if I'm not online). Alphachimp 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Googie.com

Um, someone re-created the article on Googie.com. Please look at this. I understand you releted it before.-- ¢² Connor K.   21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been deleted again. In the future, you can just tag it as CSD A7 (non notable website). Regards, Alphachimp 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Flavor Flav

Thanks for the update. I have watchlisted that article now.

Hope things are going well for you -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proxy found

think that just about prooves it's a proxy!--Andeh 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. My organization's proxy was blocking the proxy listing site, but I've blocked it (I blocked it earlier for trolling, but I changed it to indef after). That's a pretty sweet way of proving it's an open proxy :). I also listed it on the open proxy project. Alphachimp 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG STICK music duo

The BIG STICK music duo is certainly "notable" enough to be included in the Big Stick Wikipedia. Hits, charting records in the United Kingdom and Europe, along with substantial success in the United States warrants the recognition and acknowledgment. I request that you rethink your position on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisbadd (talk • contribs) 2:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BIG STICK music duo revised

The BIG STICK music duo is certainly "notable" enough to be included in the Big Stick Wikipedia. Hits, charting records in the United Kingdom and Europe, along with substantial success in the United States warrants the recognition and acknowledgment. Plus the duo was included in the late John Peel's record box that was recognized by the U.K. Music Hall of Fame. I respectfully request that you rethink your position on the matter. Thanks . Boris nitronavigator@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisbadd (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future

Hello -- I would like to post an article about the IBHF, but have had my text deleted and protected. I have permission from the IBHF to post their information online. How can I make this premission known to wikipedia? Also, I've tried to remove or cite any possibly copyrighted information for my next post. Please let me know what I can do to get this article in the encyclopedia. Thanks for your assistnace ---- Jonathan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonrhodes18 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Smile!

Andeh has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks so much buddy! Alphachimp 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REPLY AND EXPLAIN YOUR SELF

Dear Alpahachimp,

The suppression of truth and the knowledge it provides cheats and defeats the purpose of Wikipedia.. Your removal of my external links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrology is unwarranted and totally lacks merit because you did not read all the external links. Fact my website www.bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com/index.php possess one commercial to an electrolysis manufacturer. However the sites listed below possess many commercials and HairFacts - electrolysis medical data and the Electrolysis discussion group is nothing less than over commercialized Google Ad Sense Blogs. At best the knowledge on some of these links are second rate in addition to the fact that 98% of the authors are uneducated non-licensed self proclaimed electrologists. The knowledge that I provide the public is free of charge and far exceeds most professional standards.

Alpahachimp the electrolysis profession has been invaded by uneducated non-licensed hacks claiming to be electrologists, these cutthroats lie, cheat and steal to get their way. However your removal of Americas best and most read Laser Thesis & Dissertation does not make sense. I suggest you read it http://www.bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com/boston-electrolysis-2.html.

Your removal of my external links smacks of Fascist Book Burning and I bring your removal of my external links to the attention of to the executive council of Wikepedia because it apparent that you allow Internet thugs AKA uneducated non-licensed electrologists the privilege of posting their external links yet you have removed my links. Why?

Fact I suggest you visit my site and read my thesis and learn the truth of how my profession that invaded by thugs whose articles and knowledge of electrolysis mislead the public. However try reading my website and you will learn that I stand for for honesty, integrity and ethics.

HOWEVER PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU DID NOT REMOVE THESE BLATANT LINKS WITH BLATANT ADVERTISEMENTS

Disappointed,

Kimberly Williams, R.E., Dean Massachusetts Licensed & Registered Electrologist, 1979

http://www.bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com/index.php http://www.bostonschoolofelectrolysis.com/boston-electrolysis-2.html

EXTERNAL LINKS WITH ADVERTISEMENTS CAN BE FOUND ON THIS PAGE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrology —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KJWRE (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The above post is an exact copy of an email I have received and responded to yesterday. Given my prior response, I will not respond on this page. Please keep our correspondence to one form of communication. Thanks. Alphachimp 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How's it going?

"Fascist book burning" in reference to hair removal advertisements. I love this site.

Hope you're doing alright despite all the recent trolling I see your in your talk history, Chimp. Thanks for all the AIV help, et cetera et cetera; maybe you could help me further sometime by helping me decipher how I'm doing these AWB regexes wrong. Regular expressions can be so infuriating.

Well, again, hope life's treating you better than the trolls are. Give me a yell whenever you need a hand. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message. I'm doing great. I hope you're doing well. BTW, I actually suck at regexes. I usually post on WT:AWB when I need help making one. The message above is a duplicate of an email sent to me on Friday (I responded on Saturday). The user has replied to both me and m:OTRS... Anyway, thanks for time stamping those entries and keeping close watch on my talk. Regards, Alphachimp 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I actually fixed the problem: pipes (|) have to be escaped. Guess that was pretty obvious. Thanks for pointing me to the AWB talk page, though – I'll check it out next time I run into the same sort of trouble. It's a great tool.
Glad to hear you're doing so well despite all the demands being made of you (not that I thought you couldn't take the rigors of adminship or anything). Thanks for the smile, and have a good one. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Muggle1982

His block expired and he has been engaging in massive edit-warring on udit Raj, Indian Caste System and Untouchability. After crossing 3RR he proceeded to delete large sections of Indian Caste System without discussing, suggesting pattern vandalism. Please intervene. Thanks.Hkelkar 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have already been blocked (I've changed the link abfove to his userpage). Feel free to contact me with any further issues. Regards, Alphachimp 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for your help.

Hey there, Alpha. Recently, there has been an IP user (using multiple IP accounts) who has been vandalizing the Turkish Armed Forces page. They have done a lot of POV pushing and attacking other users, and so I have repeatedly blocked this guy. So, now he comes and attacks me and threatens legal action against me. I tell that I will neutrally resolve the editing dispute, but then he goes and says "Better yet, talk with your parents as they will be responsible with your actions also." Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could step in because as I am an admin, I am not totally experienced at this whole resolving disputes concept. Thanks! Nishkid64 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alpha. Love ya lots. =) Nishkid64 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Right back at ya, Sparky

Riana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Cheers, dude, made my day :) riana_dzasta 04:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for {{unsign}}ing all those comments. Would you like to take a look at the situation if you get the chance? I'm not sure what to believe. riana_dzasta 04:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

AN/3RR achive bot

When Essjay returns, I'd ask him about Essjaybot II. It seems capable of handling that task.Voice-of-All 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guy, stop changing the warning templates on my page please. I can just change them back to lower my warning you guy.

Bots and approvals

I'd like to once again apologize for my comments on Betacommand's RfA. I'm uniquely aware that the reason you failed to join BAG was probably due to my weak opposition, and I've second guessed myself a number of times over that, including now that I'm wondering if you weren't the better candidate. When I was faced with the vote I wanted to play it safe and I also was still a little unsure, but I've always respected you. Alas, it seems that there is very little activity, but I'm working on a new voting policy for adding new members at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group. Werdna volunteered and I gave a response similar to that which I'd give anyone: If you want to join BAG, just start commenting on requests for approvals. That's probably the best way to show everyone that you are capable of being a BAG member. In any case, you can always help out drafting the approvals group voting policy if you'd like. The reason I mention this is that once the procedure is ironed out and we go through another voting process, you'd probably make it, especially if you participate in the approvals process. All this assuming that you are still interested. I've looked at your comments and it seems to me that while you don't comment often you do seem to read the requests for approvals. -- RM 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

last message was left by

Yes my name is sarah 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC) sorry frogot to sign it

please i really need help

Bread & rice 01:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

administrative board

uuuh?? why have you doen this? are you allowed to be just deleting text like that? that discussion was important Hungrygirl 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AIV is only for obvious vandalism, not disputes. Your text has been moved to a more appropriate forum. Alphachimp 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

User talk:Hungrygirl could do with a protection to prevent further harassing trolling by the indef-blocked user. Daniel.Bryant 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Great call. Nakonkantari got it. Alphachimp 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm

hi there alpha chimp lol what is with the name, do you remember me i was just wondering if you could help me i was wanting to know if you could add photos to your own user page? Yes my name is sarah 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what your talking about

I defintately do not look at Jesus shit on your Wickepedia im hardly ever on it in that case. I have no clue what your talking about vandalizing a wedsite!? I dunno —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.139 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks

Hi, Alphachimp! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Notable people"

Hi Alphachimp,

Thank you for your welcome on my first incursion in (English) Wikipedia. I am resorting for the first time to seek assistance from an experienced wikipedia guru in order to ask for counsel and, if appropriate, protection for a page. In the Linares, Chile article, someone added the following entry to the Notable people born in Linares (city and province) entry: "Juan Carlos Enrique Soto, born 1959 in Linares, a child survivor of the Government overthrow of 1973 costing thousands of Chileans their lives". Actually, nobody with this name is notable in Chile, even taking a great stretch of imagination. I respect the background and ordeal of the person of the reference and share the concern of the author of this entry to make this person's name known but I understand a list of notable people should be reserved for people who meet the wikipedia guidelines on this subject and be considered from a neutral point of view as well as based on verifiable information from reliable sources. Therefore, I removed the aforementioned entry.

Thank you for your help,

Eguirald 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

172.1xx.xxx.xx

FYI, our old friend is back as 172.129.189.39 (talk · contribs). —Khoikhoi 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

...and he's back again as 172.129.207.94 (talk · contribs). :-( —Khoikhoi 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

MyKungFu

This above user was blocked indefintely by yourself, however; he has resurfaced as GreatChimp, User talk:GreatChimp and immediately begin his attacks on Alpha Phi Alpha. I'm sure his new name has something to do with the fact that you blocked him. Can you watch this user? Ccson 07:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked indefinitely, so I'm not sure how much watching there is to be done. I just denied the unblock request. Alphachimp 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

re: adminship and all that craziness

Oh, that means so much, dude. Seriously. But I don't think I would consider running for at least another 6 months. For a slowcoach like me, a year should be just enough to get a good handle on policy, etc. Also, in the light of a recent event involving a sockpuppet (supposedly), I'm not sure I handled myself as well as a good administrator would.

But thanks very much for the thought, it means very much. Ask me again in, say, 5000 edits' time :) riana_dzasta 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooops! I didn't know that one. Should've guessed, though, he's such a hard worker here. I'll go clarify that on his talkpage :) riana_dzasta 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

RV on my talk page

While I appreciate the hard work admins put into this site, especially in noble struggle against the vandal hordes, I'm curious as to why you took it upon yourself to revert edits by an unregistered user (172.129.207.94) on my Talk page. There was nothing vandalous (?) about those comments. No harm, no foul, as they say. Is it b/c anonymous users are not supposed to contribute to other users' talk pages? Alcarillo 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but according to WP:BLOCK, banned users are not allowed to edit. I reverted the edits of a blocked user. Hope that helps. Alphachimp 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes it does. Thanks! Alcarillo 16:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

Hi AC, could you take a look at user:DAde again and his reverts (5 in 24 hours) against consensus at Islamic extremist terrorism? He doesn't seem to be acting reasonably. Thanks. By the way, I believe he was also responsible for many more anon edits under IP 84.146.xxx --Lee Hunter 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, I thought I had reverted it when I messed up, sorry. And I think I will stick around and hopefully become an Admin later EagleEyes 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User:208.39.151.150

Sorry about that. I know it's a school IP and all, but sometimes you just have to put your foot down, you know? The simple fact is, nothing of use or value has ever come from there, so it's not like we'll mis them, right?--HalfShadow 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. They're the 3rd or 4th long term school IP block that I've made today. Alphachimp 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

merge by month

a belated thanks :) it's very helpful. thanks for doing this. phoebe 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Block of 66.211.149.162

Just curious. You put 66.211.149.162 on a 1 week vandalism block. Why not longer? The contribution history and talk page indicates a single purpose vandalism account. This IP has NEVER made a single contribution that has NOT been tagged for vandalism, they have been repeatedly warned, and have received prior 1-week blocks. It seems apparent from the evidence that an additional 1-week block will only remove the blatant vandal for, well, 1 week. How often do we have to clean up after this vandal before a longer block. I understand the need for dealing with long-term blocks VERY conservatively, but I was curious if you could steer me to the policy that determines when one is made, and how this IP does not meet the requirements? --Jayron32 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, a "vandalism only account" can only refer to an actual account (with a username). We block usernames indefinetely, but we very, very, very rarely do that to an IP. We've got to assume good faith that a block will have a desired effect. There may be people behind that IP (editing with usernames) that are contributing legitimately. Probably not, but maybe. Blocks are typically incremented 2-3 x higher than the last one. His longest prior block was 2 days, and his new one is 1 week. If he returns with vandalism, either myself or another sysop will increment the block steadily. Alphachimp 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One more note: he never received prior one week blocks. See the block log. The relevant policy would be WP:BLOCK. Alphachimp 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proxies

Just a reminder to throw {{OpenProxy}} on the proxies talk page after blocking.--Andeh 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I was in the process of removing the IPs from AIV and looking up the relevant templates. Have you added them to WP:OP? Alphachimp 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add them to WP:OP, other users did. I've added the templates to the the IPs talk pages now.--Andeh 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourettes Guy article

i think this article should be restored. it is a legit article because it is a funny website that many people know about. if this isnt good enough for an article then why do u have all these illegitamite things on this site. It is very good for an article75.41.244.100 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'd suggest pursuing it on Deletion Review. Alphachimp 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i watch the tourettes guy all the time. good for an article on wikipedia. please unprotect it and hope it wont get deleted KeakDaGreek 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You just posted twice and said you agreed with yourself. Alphachimp 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

October 20 mass suicide something or another.

Is it possible to see the the log history for the deleted article? After doing some investigative work I think I may have spotted a connection between a registered user and an IP that's been known for doing some vandalism and I want to make sure I'm not seeing connections where none exist. -- Sapphire 02:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved to User:Alphachimp/bad for (very) temporary viewing (along with the history). Alphachimp 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found patterns that have connected GallifreyanPostman whom you've blocked for a total of 48 hours to two other IPs that have made some serious edits, but have also vandalised articles. Is this information useful and what should I do with it? Thus far the info is still on my user page. -- Sapphire 03:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You could report it to WP:ANI. I doubt it's serious enough to merit a long term block, but I'll take a look. Alphachimp 04:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well thanks. I don't like to dabble into WP's policies and politics, but I was curious about the edits. I'm a little sleep deprived so that may be the reason why I noticed the pattern and decided to follow the trail. For the most part the vandalism seems highly peculiar: changing words around or replacing words. I listed it on [[WP:RFI] and on a checkuser page or something of the sort. Anyhow, thanks for help. -- Sapphire 05:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Are you OK with deleting the page? Alphachimp 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got all the info I wanted to know. Thanks again. -- Sapphire 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

just to tell you

>(Talk)</has been constantly stating that i have been vandalising pages i belive that i did edit some trver moreies disscussion page and i didnt know what was going on can you plse talk to lid since you are an administrator and talk some sense into him. because i edited australian slang page and he reapets it was a vandalistation wt ever any way just speak to him.krakcrook 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

editing and warnings

Hi I just recieved an editing warning. Im quite sure I did not edit under any of these headings, the only time i have used this site was for research to do a health project and the only other users of this computer are both over 60 and do nothing but check their e-mail and play pogo games. Do you have any idea how this confusing situation may have occurred or what I can do to ensure it does not happen again? mcbreal@aol.com

It's a shared AOL IP. I wouldn't worry too much. Alphachimp 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Accident

I didn't mean to vadalize a page, it was an accident, but i will be more careful next time.

ok. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

you might want to semi-protect "2003 invasion of Iraq" to prevent vandalism

WP:RFPP, the issue is probably moot now. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

Alphachimp, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Need an opinion on this

This looks to me like someone bulk-spamming himself all over the hip-hop/rap articles...what's the appropriate way to deal with it? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a warning would have been appropriate, but it seems nobody caught him while he was editing. I've reverted all his edits and left a warning not to continue. If you do notice that such behavior is persisting, go through the warnings (see WP:TT) and then report the spammer to WP:AIV. Thanks for the report. Alphachimp 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the average case, I would have run through the warnings, but I didn't notice it until a few minutes ago, when he'd already spammed a few dozen articles. Reverting all of those edits without the admin rollback button is a pain. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:POINT by User:KJWRE

I notice that you blocked this user for External Links spam and once the block expired, he seemed to go a link blanking spree on the articles Andrea James, Electrology, and Hair Removal. I reverted the blanking and left a note on the user's page to encourage him to refer to WP:EL however it does seem to be a bit of WP:POINT. Agne 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I will be monitoring the situation. Alphachimp 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At your suggestion I removed spamming links by other parties and in no form or manner did I post a link.

Dear Alphachimp,

At your suggestion I removed spamming links by other parties and in no form or manner did I post a link.

KW —Preceding unsigned comment added by KJWRE (talk • contribs)

I would strongly suggest you avoid any possibly defamatory edits. Thanks. Alphachimp 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

In regard to your last email, that was actually a colleague of mine (re: changes to Indigo children and Zoltan), so I have no idea why I've received this email, although I guess the IP numbers are close.

Many thanks

Stirling Attfield stirling.attfield@bauer.co.uk

OK, no worries. Alphachimp 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the vandals you blocked...

...is being rather tiresome ([3]). Can I suggest a page protect or some other admin wizardry? --Dweller 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's protected. I think that should suffice for the meantime (until it's deleted). Thanks for the report. Alphachimp 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Al.! I need help!

Along with my user space my talk page has also been blocked. I am hoping that it is not In response to my previous behavior. Again please help. R.S.V.P.--19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Alphachimp,

The above message belongs to me. Thank you.--Missingno. 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock my userspace so l can add one last thing

1.1.1.1 This is what I want to have added. Please un protect Qho, my other self. Feel free to re protect them after that. Thanks again.

OK, all done. Let me know if you need anything more. Feel free to come back and contribute at any time. Alphachimp 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

I'd also like to note that I totally didn't cannibalize anything from your RfA thanks template for this. I'll look forward to seeing you around the wiki. :) Luna Santin 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Correction

Thanks for correcting my spelling error on my user page. I can't believe I only noticed your helpful edit now! Erich Blume 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

haha, my pleasure. =) Alphachimp 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What does process have to do with it?

I'd be interested to hear why you think I'm against process, or what you think it could possibly have to do with necessary counter-vandalism measures. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting a bit here. You've told me that you are against process, particularly in regard to the unnaproved operation of your bot ([4]) from your sysop account.That said, I'm just explaining the reasoning for my statement. You can make whatever you want of it, and I'll WP:AAGF that you will WP:AGF about that statement. Love, Alphachimp 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unapproved? Whatever gave you that idea? --Cyde Weys 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, our prior discussions. What exactly are you trying to achieve by badgering me on my talk page? Alphachimp 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

• Thank you for blanking my page. I would prefer it plain out deleted, but that's a good temporary fix for now. Smeelgova 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

Ummm. . . Thanks for your help

Well I see that you got that done but the missingno wiki break does not seem to show up. I see it in the veiw source but not on the page it self. So what might be happening? Again thanks for the assistance,--Missingno. 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm

Well Never Mind it got up and is going. Odd. And An Drew Sombody Should really get off his high horse. Because of his complaints I am deleting all of my accounts, well thats not the whole reason, my personality just does not fit with many of the admis.Oh no... I am fighting again.I am most likely to be blocked again if i continue. Well this is the last of Missingno. Although you might see me again under a different name... Check for the "you know who" comment before or in place of the actual name. See You later. Read This, section 14 If these comments are in violation of wiki civil please delete them.--Missingno. 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Weston Reservoir

Hello. I created Weston Reservoir and a number of others. If you would look at its history, you will notice that an annoymous person has been making changes that are wrong. I tried to leave information at Talk:Weston_Reservoir but it is ignored. How do I prevent annoymous from continuing this destruction? LymanSchool 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I created Weston Reservoir and quite a few other water system articles. An anonymous user (141.154.89.148) keeps making invalid changes to the MWRA overview section. The information presented may seem credible, but has no basis in fact. Further, MWRA’s system improvements were made with redundancy part of an engineered solution. The anonymous writer kept referring to the use of this redundancy as “emergency” and in one case “extreme emergency.” These editorial comments should not be part of an encyclopedic article. The anonymous writer does not bother to read the information I left, simply sets itself as some sort of expert, and continues to spew undocumented and in most cases completely invalid diatribe.

I reverted some of the previous edits, but I cannot spend too much time undoing the wrong information every day. How do I prevent this anonymous writer from continuing to destroy the validity of this article? LymanSchool 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to this user]. I'd suggest leaving polite messages on their talk page (I've left a welcome, but I don't know enough about the situation). Other than that, our best control would be to eventually block the user for ignorance of warnings, but I'd rather not do that for a little while. Let's try to generate some dialogue up. By the way, I'd be careful how you welcome the anonymous users. He might not be responding because your first comment accused him of screwing with the article. Hope that helps. Alphachimp 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was quite kind! I note that the same address is now engaged in an edit-war on the Fitchburg, Massachusetts article, so I figure it won't be too long before you hear about (he/she/it) from others! Thanks LymanSchool 19:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal going wild!

Please block the following IP address:

72.159.129.226

This person is wreaking havoc on several articles this morning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.127.119 (talk • contribs)

Already blocked and edits reverted. Alphachimp 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hargeisa

Some anynomous user has changed and added offensive material on the Hargeisa article, can you sort it out please!!!

Abdullah Geelah 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, but feel free to revert the vandalism yourself. Check out WP:REVERT. Alphachimp 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei

The Da vinci Code depicted Opus Dei like a dangerous cult. Any problem with this allegations into the book?. Well, on the other hand ex-members laicists and other persons (and associations like ODAN, websites like Opuslibros and others) say that OD has a cult like style. Any problem with these other persons and your claims? I do not a vandal, I know and have good sources about Od (in english and mostly in Spanish)Do you undestand Spanish language?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.6.210 (talk • contribs)

No I only speak English. I checked the edit again and realized I was in error. I've fixed it and welcomed you again. Sorry about that! Alphachimp 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaka

I think you made the wrong decision regarding the protection of the Kaka page. The problem is essentially the same reason for the semi protection. This false and unsource claim of him becoming a art of Islam. We were reverting that for a while now and now we're seeing this from registered users now. I can garantee that this will eventually be fully protected sometime down in the near future because of this. Kingjeff 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Full protection is not a tool for enforcing an "approved version" of a page. Instead, it's a technique to stop edit warring. You can check out WP:PROTECT for more information. Full-protecting usually does not help our encyclopedia and should be used sparingly (at most). Also, since semi-protection, there was one disputed edit. Just one. I really don't think that merits, in any way, full protection to stop an edit war. Alphachimp 05:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much about me approving as it is about me disapproving of this page. I can ganrantee this will become an edit war with IP address that have become registered users. This is not just 1 disputed edit. This is 1 topic that has been reverted serveral times. Kingjeff 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

TFN

thank you very much for protecting the TFN page. a few of its message board members were trying to vandalize it. Quietmind 05:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Quietmind

Sure. Alphachimp 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of policy pages

You recently semi-protected quite a few policy pages based on a supposed consensus at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, but the consensus merely consisted of about five users over two days discussing the policy, and it appears there were quite a few objections to the policy as well. I don't want to wheel war with you, so I'd like to politely ask if you could unprotect the pages in question while this is sorted out as this policy essentially rewrites the semi-protection, and much more time and a wider community input is necessary for such a drastic change. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted (7 pages). Where do you intend to carry on this discussion? Alphachimp 05:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

COMPULSIVE LYING ON WIKIPEDIA

Dear Alpahchimp,

Regarding Andrea James AKA Pinnochio Of Hairfacts, Hairtell & Tsroadmap

Compulsive lying by Andrea James on Wikipedia is an insult to honesty and her claim that she is graduate from the University if Chicago who majored in Latin and Greek is a cruel hoax, however her biggest whopper is her claim that she has a degree in English from the University of Chicago.

However Andrea James is big on calling people names and slandering them with lies however lets ask Andrea James to prove that she graduated from the University Of Chicago and produce her degree in English with a letter and copy of her Diploma from the University Of Chicago. Additionally her websites use profane language and questionable content with photographs not fit for children under 18 and thats what I call smut. However you should see her in action with with her personal attack on a professors children .[4] of which [5] - now removed - followed with Andrea James issuing a benign apology, though the apology includes further slander and attacks against them posted right on Wikipedia.

However Andrea James lets get back to the truth, stop your compulsive lying and prove what you claim and let see your degree in English from the University of Chicago.

Waiting for the truth,

KW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_James You can read her lies right here,

what im adding isnt nonsense. every cardinals fan would agree with me.

Id suggest protecting nazi pages. i saw blogs that said they were gonna put bad stuff on that page. Explodinglam 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)explodinglam

Userpage protection

Hey there, Alphachimp. I would like to fully protect my userpage, if possible, and I am asking you because I want someone else to judge my page history and see if it really needs protection.

Thanks. Nishkid64 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh...I'm not so sure. It's obviously your own judgment (and some sysops do it), but I'm against Full Protection of sysop userpages in most cases. In the last 50 edits, the majority of vandalism appears to be coming from anonymous or new editors. I'd suggest semi-protecting (but if that doesn't work, absolutely use full). Coincidentally, protection would also block bots from editing your page.

So yeah, those are my $.02. Alphachimp 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Alpha. I'm just semi-protecting my page then. Nishkid64 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"sockpuppets"?

I appologize if I did anything wrong. I am a student doing research on bazaarz in Pakistan and India. I have copied some pictures from Wikipedia. If that is not allowed let me know. I do not understand what a "sockpuppet" is but it seems that I have violated something to grant a warning from your site. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, David T

Excuse me

But thanks for you and Anchoress's concern please stay out my bussiness and userpage or I will get very very nasty--Cowboy From Hell 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)DJ BatWave

Judging from your edit history, "getting nasty" would probably be considered an overall improvement in your behaviour...-Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not appreciate the threats. Thanks. Alphachimp 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Osidge - thanks

Thanks to your bot for sorting out the welcome template for Osidge. I'd never welcomed a user before so I didn't realise about subst.--Londoneye 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Keep up the welcoming. It really helps to develop Wikipedia as a welcoming environment. Alphachimp 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:ScoobyDooGuy1991

Hey, there. Looking into this one's current unblock request. Saw you blocked with a "vandal only" reason, but also saw that your block message looked more like a username block. In any case, do you have any input regarding this unblock request? :) Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 03:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people that was heavily involved in that whole incident, what happened was that he created a page, which was deleted for notability, and subsequently became frustrated and started vandalizing. I added a quick note on his unblock notice. I didn't say so there, but after a long discussion with his uncle (see my note), IMHO it looks like it was a momentary loss of temper, and Scooby would probably be a good contributer. We might still have some issues with the deleted page, but I think we could work those out. Thanks in advance for hearing my input! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the wrong template when blocking. Nice catch there Luna :). I blocked him because of the immediate switch from nonsense article creation to Ryulong vandalism. I'd totally be willing to give him another chance. One month is quite a long time anyway, and he seems like he could handle the community. I'll go ahead and unblock him (although I forgot the proper template to use, what is it?) and WP:AGF. Thanks for contacting me. Alphachimp 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think {{request accepted}} is what you're looking for. :) Best-kept secret of CAT:RFU, it is. Thanks for the quick response. Luna Santin 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I've also reverted lots of vandalism for your information. Whirling Sands 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I get some diffs? I had some trouble finding more bad-faith edits than good. Nishkid64 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm....but he's also got some good vandalism reverts and speedy deletion tagging. But he did vandalize...hmm...temporary block? 24? 31 hours? Nishkid64 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Comment

Alphachimpbot suggested a merge of "Simple Church" and "House Church". I replied on Talk:House_church, please read and take into consideration. I would be against such a merger because the current difference in labeling reflects a difference in values. Oakiebsc 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually agree. Alphachimpbot doesn't actually make the merge tags, it just marks the merge tags into month specific categories. The great thing about wikipedia is that you can change anything...seriously. I'd go ahead and remove the tag. Thanks for the nice message and feel free to contact me with any further questions. Alphachimp 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing I did wrong! I was "reverted" when I edited one spelling error on a page. I'm afraid i don't understand.

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. Ralbot 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My approval

Hi! Thank you for my approval to use AWB. I have one question, that you might ignore as I really have a crappy computer filled with viruses and what-not: Did any one ever complain that AWB quits whenever it loads the first page, and suggests its changes?--Dami 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have no such problem. AWB runs using internet explorer, so it's possibly a result of the difficulties with spyware in IE... I'd suggest reformatting if at all possible (or just running a free anti-spyware app like Spybot S+D). Alphachimp 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

24-hour block of User:204.138.9.6

204.138.9.6 is a school IP address. As is customary in such situations, I suggest a much shorter block duration (perhaps three hours). In all likelihood, the responsible individual (probably a bored student) will have moved along by then, and we don't want to prevent other users from the Wellington County Roman Catholic School from editing.

After typing the above, I checked your block log and found that you're instituted a number of very long blocks of IP addresses known to belong to schools. Lacking familiarity with the specific circumstances, I'm not sure that I agree with this practice. —David Levy 16:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Alphachimp, I strongly support your actions in this case and the others; I can see no productive edits from 204.138.9.6. Particularly given the ability to block IP only, this is an effective and appropriate measure. Most of these school IPs are sources of persistent long-term vandalism and do nothing but harm to the project. Any serious contributor at those schools can easily register a user account and avoid being blocked. Gwernol 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not familiar with the other cases' specific circumstances. I do know that 204.138.9.6 had never been blocked before (so there's no way to know whether a shorter block would be effective).

Given the fact that Alphachimp routinely blocks account creation, users of these IP addresses (including some blocked for nearly a year) cannot "easily register a user account." —David Levy 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this really points to the two philosophies in dealing with educational IP vandalism. Some see it as a more minor problem and give shorter blocks. Others (myself included), give longer, incremented blocks. I've come on every day and seen the same IPs vandalizing over and over. It's true that the 3 hour blocks stop them, but the fact remains that the same kid is probably going to be back tomorrow morning or in 3 hours (which is typically evinced by the contribs). Are we only going to block him for 3 hours the next time? I'd say no. The next block should be longer (double, maybe).

As for that particular school, you're welcome to change the block if you want, but I noticed a long pattern of vandalism (check the talk page) for which no blocks had been issued. I didn't see any legitimate additions in my scan of the contributions. I try to make the block length commensurate to the history and severity of the vandalism. 24 hours is somewhat of a standard minimum length for me.

As for the long term blocks, those have only been for long term and severe offenders. Honestly, I think these blocks are significantly reducing the amount of school vandalism during the day.

Finally, as to the account creation block. I've never really thought about it. I always assumed that those users who had registered previously or at home would be contributing productively (and without appearing in the contributions).

Hope that helps. Alphachimp 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is a complicated matter (into which you've given a great deal of thought). There is no perfect solution to the very real problem of vandalism from school IP addresses. I certainly don't view this as minor, but I weigh it against the harm caused by blocking good editors who have done nothing wrong. Vandalism can be reverted, but prevented edits might be lost forever.

I would feel more comfortable with your long-term blocks if you would permit account creation. (In fact, I advocate such a setup for all AOL users.) Even if no productive anonymous edits have originated from a particular IP address in the past, it's likely that someone will attempt to create a legitimate account in the months ahead. Many people are able to access the Internet only from school, and I hate the thought of turning them away simply because one or more classmates misbehaved.

Meanwhile, few school vandals will bother to register usernames, and additional measures can be taken if and when they do. —David Levy 00:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds just fine to me and I'll start doing it for shared IPs. Honestly, I've never allowed account creation before. I just always assumed it was bad. In your experience, do the vandals decide to create accounts to get around the block? My concern is that we wouldn't be able to ID the vandalism as coming from their particular educational IP (obviously checkuser could do it, but that'd be "fishing").

By the way, I really do share your opinion about discarding legit edits. Alphachimp 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Based upon my personal observations, it's fairly uncommon for anonymous vandals to circumvent blocks by registering accounts. (It's difficult to know for certain, but the pattern of vandalism seldom resumes.) It seems that vandals who care enough to register accounts generally do so in the first place. Anonymous vandals—especially school vandals—tend to be casual visitors who don't plan to stick around very long and aren't interested in jumping through hoops. At the first obstacle, they usually give up and find something else to do. —David Levy 01:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)