User talk:N5iln/Archive 5

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Abc518 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And again --Abc518 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from userpage

Hello Alan. Thank you for the message. I shall use sandbox in future. Apologies :o) (unsigned comment by 86.163.243.26 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

I moved that from your user page to here. ---Abc518 (talk)

Beat me to it...thanks.Alan (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

KKCK "Edit War"

That was me reverting clear vandalism. If you check the user's contribs he was also vandalizing several other pages. If it wasn't vandalism, I would not have used TWINKLE to revert as that would have been in violation of the rules to use TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'm getting tired of seeing the same article appearing over and over in my workspace, with the same edits appearing and being reverted by the same users. I'd prefer to see both parties either come to consensus or walk away and let someone else complete the revision. To be completely fair, he was also cautioned regarding WP:NPOV since his edits were clearly non-neutral, and his commentary demonstrated his displeasure with the format.Alan (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact

Alan, how does one contact you? (unsigned comment by 70.41.217.95, 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

You just did. Alan (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, basically, the edits to my wikipedia page (Daniel Horowitz) are part of a campaign that in part is designed potentially to cause me or my family harm. The killer of Pamela has a web page run by a person who has stalked me and my family. She recently posted my home address, links to public sites but still links to the interior of my home, exterior of my home. That plus the "trashing" of me on Wikipedia, esp. painting me as a racist (which contrasts my entire life history as a civil rights activist from like, age 8, civil rights lawsuits etc.). It is intended to get people very angry and perhaps to do harm. Most of the edits are way out of context, some completely untrue. This heated up when I joined the board of a group opposed to parole (as a possibility) for all Juveniles. Why wouldn't I take that position, Pamela was murdered by one. I understand that there are two sides to any issue including this, but that is my side. Meanwhile, this plus other threats (personal harm) are what is going on.

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'll keep my eye on your page, and in the meantime, you might try requesting edit protection from an Administrator.Alan (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

DreamHaze has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism left by Aeftw on my userpage. :D DreamHaze (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Barry LaValley

Hello N5iln, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Barry LaValley - a page you tagged - because: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPM

This removal was more than adequately explained. Thanks, 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Had it been adequately explained, I would not have intervened further. Edit summaries are intended exactly for that purpose. Alan (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - sorry but any movement of reverts such as those shown here are going to look like a 3RR violation by both parties. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with that article...the other user in question was, to me, intent on editing it in violation of WP:NPOV. While I recognize the necessity of WP:3RR, I also believe partisan politics have no place in an encyclopedic work.Alan (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping to revert all of that vandalism on my userpage. It's amazing that I didn't have to revert any of it because you and a few other people kept beating me to it. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We try to keep up with such matters as quickly as we can. I was getting hit by the same user. Huggle is a fairly useful and fast-responding tool, though, and there were others jumping in and reverting.Alan (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		I, Eagles24/7, hereby award this Barnstar to User:N5iln for reverting vandalism on my user page! 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009: The Final Destination

It is not bias; it is an expansion of a very short section. I am a registered editor here and know what I am doing. Read the section before reverting. 72.216.3.171 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Too many "expansions" lately have been vandalism. Sometimes I'm too quick on the trigger.Alan (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the recognition and the userpage shield. I believe you've done the same for me and I've seen your hard work on recent changes, so...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Please accept this token of appreciation for looking out for my talkpage as well as your work on Wikipedia in general. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullard High School

I think you should change the Bullard High School principal back to Steven Ford because he is the new principal as of 9-9-09. (User:SC2013, September 9, 2009 21:08)

Is there a reference to support this? If you posted one with the change, I missed it.Alan (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know: The principal of Bullard IS Steve Ford. This user is NOT a repeated vandal. Thank you for your time and effort!

I guessed. That's why I asked for a reference instead of blindly reverting his change. "Trust but verify" didn't die with the Cold War... ;-) Alan (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk to Steve Ford's son. Username is Delldude101.

Supertouch here...

Yes, perhaps I got carried away with the reverts, but how else is one to handle such obstinance? For me to be blocked from editing over this is absurd. I f you simply compare my contributions with the other user you will see that, first of all, I have many more contributions then him. Secondly, the vast majority of my posts are clearly constructive, while the other user commonly throws himself into the midst of controversy, with repeated reverts and blanking. Most importantly, I clearly attempted to handle the situation in a diplomatic manner even editing my own edits in an attempt to appease. The other user's blanking is obviously POV based.Supertouch (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but there are reasons behind WP:3RR. I've run afoul of it myself (see above). And to be fair, the other user was similarly cautioned. In future, I suggest disagreements be settled either through discussion on the Discussion page or off Wikipedia.Alan (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Couglin

Please note: WP:3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. In the article in question, a user is attempting to game the system by averting Wikipedia policies (specifically, WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). I have already sought resolution as you suggested. Regards, JeffBillman (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

With all the back-and-forth, I honestly could not tell who was reverting what by the fifth cycle, so in fairness I elected to warn both sides. If I erred, feel free to remove my warning.Alan (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem... I only remove edits to my talk page if there's a compelling reason to do so. (My user page is another story...) Anyway, reflecting upon my belly button, I realize that I probably needed that speed bump. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my IP talk page and my guestbook. (H) Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: World Domination (The Re-Visit)

Hello there. Are you looking properly into the edit removals? --A3RO (mailbox) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note on the user's talk page asking for information as to why they were removing the material from the page. That's as far as I've gone with it.Alan (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, while although the editor did not provide a proper edit summary in regards to the removal of content and the section entirely, the removal of that content, i feel, was acceptable. If you actually look at the text it's nothing more than opinionated hear-say and is clearly uncited. Therefor, I have undid your revert to the article and removed their warnings. Feel free to ask another editor's opinion; if a multiple concesus is warranted I will undo my edits. Thanks and Happy Editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I admit to knowledge of the topic extending only to the group's existence. I'll leave the content to those more versed in the subject.Alan (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! Happy Editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also left a notice on that user's talk page here --A3RO (mailbox) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Done!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Thanks for all your help! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Move Cheap LLC

Hello and good morning. I saw you reverted the edits of this article. I assume it is because you saw the speedy deletion template removed. Were you aware the author blanked the page? That constitutes a good faith edit requesting speedy deletion due to author blanked and would have been an easier speedy. Please make sure that when you use rollback that there can be no controversy. Rollback is a great tool but can be misused and although this is borderline, I think you should've taken a closer look at the article and marked it G7.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the original author had blanked the page. Had I, I would have set the G7 flag.Alan (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion Larbanois Carrero with Larbanois Carreiro

For a typo miskake make the article should be called as Larbanois Carrero for Larbanois Carreiro. The article written under the name correctly and clean with the correct name appears.

Very well. I wasn't aware the article was being rewritten. Has it been redirected yet?Alan (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For a typo mistake make the article should be called as Larbanois Carrero for Larbanois Carreiro. The article written under the name correctly and clean with the correct name appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.206.0 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

re: September 2009

I was testing something, hush Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, just in case you didn't know about this, you can ask for protection of your user page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of course that means the vandals you attract will come to your talk page instead, but it might discourage a few, and there will be only one page to keep cleaned up. Best, CliffC (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome information...but the speed with which the Huggle-equipped editors have been reverting vandalism make requesting protection a bit superfluous. I'll give it some thought, though...and thanks!Alan (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Chris in the hemel

What makes User:Chris in the hemel an attack page? It was written by the user. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My screwup. Too much back and forth between its originator and a vandal. However, from what I did see of the page, it needs at least a notability flag.Alan (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a User page. We don't do notability on those. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Chalk it up to my inattention, overzealousness, and a lack of caffeine.Alan (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookie but......

I checked my contributions and I didn't revert vandalism on your user page. It was Rich Farmbrough. I imagine the cookie was a snickerdoodle and it was delicious. :-) NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What, you need a valid reason to enjoy a cookie? How odd...(j/k)Alan (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you Alan, I will get the hang of all this soon! I never purposefully intended any vandalism and never will I. I hope that I can contribute many things as I have a great deal of knowledge in my head and have never put it down on paper, so to speak. once again many thanks, chris. (Christopher spence (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Mentally retarded vs mentally challenged

Seeing as how the article about mental retardation specifically uses that term - retardation - would it not be correct, in the name of consistency, to refer to it by that name throughout Wikipedia? If you think mental retardation is somehow incorrect, then shouldn't the article be renamed? I find it funny also that NPOV was cited - nowhere did I introduce a non-neutral point of view, but merely changed the wording to be more consistent. Surely it is less neutral to refer to mental retardation in a condescending way to be more politically correct. --82.36.136.3 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Alan (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a TY

for reverting the vandalism on Marriage, appreciate your contributions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's vandalism per se, but there's a definite issue regarding POV...possibly COI on the part of the poster. I looked through the talk page and it's pretty well spelled out as far as what the consensus to date was. Hence the reversion. Alan (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of Vandalism?

We "spoke" last week following an edit war on Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari. A third party intervened, writing on that page's discussion page that no further action should taken without discussing it first on that discussion page. This page was left alone until a short while ago when this user blanked the section I had added. How do I proceed? I reverted it once, but will leave it at that for now. This user is accussing me of bias but simply uses this as an excuse to blank the entire section when his complaint is limited to one word. I previously edited this word in an effort to please this user and he undid that edit and then blanked my edit. I want this resolved... Please help! Supertouch (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRR. If the other user is not willing to enter a meaningful discussion with you on the topic, this seems to be the logical next step. Just make sure you have all your information ready to hand, including reliable, verifiable references for the material you want included in the article, as well as the diffs showing the reversions and the reasons for them. Alan (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

huggling

Try and be more careful, you restored vandalism with one of your reverts. Thanks, nableezy - 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad...never saw it. Alan (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All good, figured you just tried to revert 2 edits but I got to it first. nableezy - 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Fundamentalism change

ok, I should have given an explanation. But, Mr Smarty - look up Ram puniyani, and you'll find nothing related to islamic fundamentalism. He's a rights activist being defamed by hindu nationalists. Time I looked at your own changes with doubt!

I'm reverting the changes that you made!136.152.151.17 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Without an edit summary, all I have to go on is what's in the article. Especially since I cannot, and never will, claim expertise in Islam, other than a lower-division comparative theology course a few years ago. If this has induced you to include edit summaries, I consider my job on this article to be complete. Alan (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

I was in the process of rewriting my comments in a more positive light when you reverted. I have been editing on wp for years however this particular editor has made progress on Ching Hai slow and painful which got to me momentarily. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However, all I have to go by is the snapshot of how the page stands when I pull it up, and the comments were much more in line with being a personal attack than a considered response...hence my action. It's impossible for me to see intentions, only results. Alan (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrected now although I note you didn't comment on the accusations levelled against me and another editor. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because I haven't reviewed them yet. Alan (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ars Regia

I'm sorry but ARS REGIA is not mainly a sales company. Our textile production is appreciated in many Museums worldwide and we don't need advertising trough Wikipedia. We published our picture for the only reason we have a big collection of pictures of liturgical vestments and garments in high resolution. Please let me know if I may at least publish picture, eventually without an external link to Ars Regia. Best regards. Pietro

The material, as written, appeared to be primarily promotional in nature. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style for inclusion in Wikipedia. Alan (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Unconstructive?"

What exactly was so unconstructive about the edit of mine on the 3 Inches of Blood page that you decided to revert? The fact that I didn't log in? I would have thought that getting rid of words like "very" and "major" on an oft-contented subject to replace them with more neutral expressions would be fairly useful. Simialrly, the idea behind replacing "death and black metal" with the more generic "extreme metal" tag was to make the article less likely to cause debate since the exact style of vocals the band use has been endlessly contested throughout the article's history. Thanks. User:Radagast1983

If, as you say, the vocal style has been "endlessly contested", there should be some sort of consensus established. Reading the Discussion page indicates the terminology is still subject to some debate, however, so changes would be subject to close scrutiny...if not by an editor attempting to maintain article integrity, by another with a different viewpoint.

I would recommend in future that a concise edit summary be posted with any changes, which would both assist editors with limited knowledge of the band in determining accuracy and demonstrate the edit is not simply being made to bring the article into conformance with one reader's opinion. Alan (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the changes. Rest assured, the contents of the edit were not as lazy as it's exectuion. I will attempt to stay logged in and leave edit summaries in future. Radagast1983 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, my edits to the Cossack page make the translation more accurate. I would suggest reverting it back, unless there is disagreement on the translation. Thanks.

Keith Floyd

I have restored the edit by User:94.195.129.221 adding the C-word to Keith Floyd, which you reverted. Wikipedia guidelines (@Wikipedia:Profanity) say that such words should be included in full, or not at all: "words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols". It's debatable whether the exact quote needs to be included, or the sentence that contains it to be honest, but while it's there it shouldn't be censored. —David Johnson [T|C] 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see that word used too often in vandalism, and automatically assumed it as such. Alan (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Roc Raida

I removed the BLP template because he died today. The whole concept of BLP is the L, the living. Please reconsider. 71.63.102.251 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, a reference needs to be linked into the article showing his death. Alan (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't feel like getting in to an edit war with you, | link. 71.63.102.251 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Add that as a reference link in the article and you're good to go. Alan (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid

Hi,

I made an edit on the article South Africa under apartheid which you reverted, and then you left a warning on my talk page. I honestly don't understand why you regarded the edit as vandalism. Could you please elaborate?

Regards, Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. If there was a specific factual error regarding the material you removed, it should have been noted in the edit summary. Alan (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I understand that, but I don't understand what in this case was "Unexplained removal of content". I left an edit summary explaining what I did. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your entire edit summary simply said "removing other links". You provided no information as to why you were removing them. If they were spam, broken, etc., you should have noted that. Alan (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to be more specific in the future.

But I'll have to ask one last thing before moving on. Does that warning have to stay at my talk page? Because with it it looks as if I'm intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. Nothing prohibits you from removing material from your own talk page, although it is considered bad form, as it makes for a record of who's talked about what with whom, especially if a dispute of some sort should arise. Archiving is always allowed, although sometimes difficult to set up. So, if you're so inclined, you can remove my note without running afoul of any Wikipedia policy. Alan (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your warning

Sir, what do you mean by edit warring. Did you see the edit history! I just reverted unsourced contents one time and added some source materials. --WIMYV? (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. Outside blatant vandalism, a user may only revert an article three times in a 24-hour period. I understand you are attempting to constructively edit the article, and another user is attempting to thward you...that's what WP:DRR is for. In the meantime, you might ask for semi-protection of the article pending that resolution. Alan (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	As I pour over the edit filters I am always happy to find you having reverted vandalism before I get there. Thank you for your efforts! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan...hello, Alan. I'm speaking to you, Alan

Alan. I haven't vandalised Wikipedia. I'm merely voicing an unpleasant truth. It is clear that the Admiral Stufflebeem (if that even is his real name) is a lying cunt. It's true.

I mean no harm. It's just that when I see distortion like this, I feel bound to correct it. I hope this has clarified matters. I'm going to edit the page again, best wishes.

See WP:NPOV for why I reverted your edits. If you can come up with a way to include your statement without using the expletive, one that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources, it can be included in the article. Alan (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

About my edit

I would appreciate a little bit of respect on the tone used in you warning notices. I invite you to look up the last edits of User talk:Fgdfgdssfghrr6rg7g756r5b57g7gr6 who has been either vandalizing or making unproductive edits to some articles. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but in any case you applied the incorrect template; rather than warning a vandal (who has since been blocked), you flagged his User talk page for deletion, which if accomplished would have resulted only in all previous warnings being removed. I strongly suggest you preview such edits in the future, instead of simply assuming you're using the correct template. Failing that, it might be better if you allowed the administrators to do their jobs. Finally, the warning I issued was automated, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy it is strongly-worded to alert the recipient to a significant error in usage of a template. Alan (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WPOD

Congratulations, N5iln! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, for your anti-vandalism, and for reverting vandalism in my userspace, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, September 20, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: A userbox will be coming up for this. Add it if you wish. But it won't come today.

Happy editing! Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Berlin_High_School_(Connecticut)

Hello, The Berlin High School page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berlin_High_School_(Connecticut) Was last reverted by you on 00:27, 8 September 2009 N5iln (6,180 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 24.2.183.61 and 70.118.224.45 to last revision by 24.61.70.194 (HG))
The reverted edit includes defamation towards our Athletic Director on line 59.
I have been asked to investigate get protection for this page from anonymous edits. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks
Mrszymanski (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I saw a large amount of material removed from the article with no supporting edit summary and erroneously assumed it was vandalism. If you are the originator of the article you may request partial protection by following the guidelines at WP:PP. Alan (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium

What's not neutral?[1] I couldn't see any discussion on the talk page, and your edit summary didn't explain why you added the tag. Fences&Windows 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wrong flag was applied...while unquestionably encyclopedic in nature and content, the topic of the article appears to conflict in interest with Wikipedia itself. This will be a matter for more voices than mine alone to examine. I'm withdrawing from further editing of this article. Alan (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Well, I suppose the {{coi}} tag could apply, as most editors will be regular Wikipedians. Why withdraw from editing it? I was just wondering about the tag, I didn't mean to drive you away from the article. How do you think the article could be pitched differently? Fences&Windows 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Citizendium, so I'm not the person to ask that question. Not to try and "cop out" but I already have more than enough on my own plate without looking at how best to rewrite an article about what sounds like a direct competitor to Wikipedia. Alan (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Users

I wont because people are trhying to delete pages such as Victoria Lennox they say it's not true even though they clearly have no information about it.

Okay, I know it's early in the morning in some places, but that made ABSOLUTELY no sense to me. Again, removing material from either an article or its discussion page is considered vandalism, unless such removal is to delete either demonstrably incorrect information or to revert vandalism in itself. Also, please sign your posts on discussion/talk pages so future editors can see who has commented on what. Alan (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fiorina RfC

I suspect you misunderstood the intent of the RfC at Talk:Carly_Fiorina. The proposal presented by User:J makes it less clear that Fiorina was fired, not more. If you did in fact intend to support a weakening of the assertion that she was forced out then I apologize for second-guessing you. Rvcx (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread the tone. I'll correct my entry in the commentary. Alan (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Daniel L. Barth

Heya! Thanks for your work at AIV. I'm just wondering if this was a mis-report. Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to classify it as...he spammed his guestbook link onto several other usertalk pages, all IP users. See here. Huggle won't escalate warnings or re-warn unless a more recent edit has been performed since the reversion. Alan (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, though. You were warning him for external links; spamming is a blockable offense, yes. However, good-faith newbie stuff like that is harmless, really. I'll ask him to stop all the same. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alan (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A late thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Alan (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Nsaa (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Human Height

OMG!Dinaric Alps isn't even a country it's a region so why include it!?I don't get it! Come up with countries and not regions or mountains! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.62.221 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I said you should come up with sth right and not placing names of places that shouldn't be there!I guess you're not that smart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.62.221 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you'd mentioned something about that in the Edit Summary, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, I strongly recommend you be careful with your tone when commenting on other editors' Talk pages...your comments here come perilously close to a personal attack. Alan (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on!You know I'm right!We'll I have to go!Too little time for this discussion!Goodbye!Or DOEI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.62.221 (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care to engage in political arguments on my User Talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. Please do not attempt to continue this. Alan (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

chuck asay is labeled as right wing but gary trudeau is not left wing???????? are you kidding?????

19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)RUNMONTANA (talk)

Review WP:NPOV. Also, while you're reviewing policies, WP:PA. Alan (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD G7

Please ensure the tag applies before adding it; this was an error as there were many contributors (and in any case deletion was clearly inappropriate for the article, it had just been vandalized). Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My error. Alan (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WT:MANGA

I'm replacing the comment that I had posted with a new comment. That is allowed. --75.60.13.107 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the IP addresses of the comments, involved, you are in fact replacing someone else's comment. Unless you're operating using two separate IP accounts, which is a violation of WP:SOCKPUPPET. Alan (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only a violation of WP:SOCK if I'm using the accounts for purposes which violate policy, which I'm not. --75.60.13.107 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It still gives the appearance that you're trying to circumvent the policy, as well as refactor Discussion page comments...both violations. I'm going to leave it to an Administrator to sort things out from here. Alan (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that using two separate IP addresses is not necessarily sockpuppetry or even necessarily intentional. It's entirely possible for a person to get a different IP address for legitimate reasons. Say they started it at work and continued it at home (different machines, on different networks, having different IP addresses). Or their ISP just up and decided to change what IP address they were assigned. (I'll point out that a WHOIS query on both of the IP addresses in question gives me "PPPoX Pool - rback4.spfdmo-" followed by a different long sequence of numbers.) That said, there are other things going wrong here and I'll take it up on the IP's talk page. -- Why Not A Duck 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. Moot point anyway. 75.60.13.107 is cruising for a blocking; recent edits make that a lot more clear. -- Why Not A Duck 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Give 'em enough rope... Alan (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this appears to be the same editor who has previously been indefinitely banned for sockpuppetry on Pokemon related article. (case file) —Farix (t | c) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV reports

Hey there! I'm just wondering if you could report only serious, clear vandalism to WP:AIV. A few of your recent reports have involved users who are posting in good faith or do not understand some things (not to mention the last wasn't warned properly). Please watch out for this in the future. If you have any questions, I welcome them on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . . .

for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Countywide Inspector

You need to be a bit more judicious in your issuing of warnings. Tagging a clearly promotional page as spam 1) is not a warning, and 2) is an appropriate use of the {{db-spam}} tag. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I apologize. Too many other IP users have been making use of warning templates recently. Alan (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I reported him, no need to report him again just FYI. --BlackAce48 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BTC pipeline

Thanks for your message. Nothing about that edit was POV at all. There was a long-time mention in the BTC pipeline article of the Armenian Genocide as a contributing factor in Turkey and Azerbaijan opting to route the pipeline through Georgia. That mention has since been scrubbed, incorrectly or out of political motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording was suspect at best. It read to me as an indictment of one side by the other. That's the danger of including such phrasing. Alan (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a neutral way of saying it would be best, that Turkish-Armenian conflict over the Armenian Genocide was a factor in the pipeline route. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigma Guitars

Again, you need to look at the edit and not rely on Huggle to do your work for you. I removed text that was incorrectly placed and an obvious cut-and-paste from somewhere else. The unlinked reference numbers are a dead giveaway. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was there no edit summary to that effect? Had there been I would have left your edit alone. Prime hallmarks of page vandalism are IP users changing pages and leaving no summaries. Please keep that in mind when making large-scale edits. Alan (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the edit itself. People can lie in the edit summaries so basing your reverts on that single line is not good practice. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not presume to know what other editors do or don't do when attempting to revert vandalism. Do not contact me again regarding this matter. Alan (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Bunyan

Are you kidding me? I added to the pop culture section because there is a reference to Paul Bunyan IN pop culture. Edit constructivly, not to move up the chain of Wikipedia command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.231.236 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Smodcast" before, although I'm somewhat familiar with Kevin Smith's work. However, there is probably a better way to reference the episode than the description you wrote, even though Smith tends to be (putting it mildly) irreverent. I would also suggest you use care with your tone when questioning edits by other users. See WP:PA. Alan (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your bullying

You are in blatant violation in WP:CIVIL , and probably quite a few other policies. You have no right to threaten me with bocking simply for making edits you don't like, especially since I am fixing a blatant violation of NPOV policy. Heqwm2 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC) And you are also blatantly misusing the "minor edit" tagHeqwm2 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on which articles I am "bullying" you about, and which edits I apparently don't like? It's been a couple of days since I logged on, and I've slept since then. Alan (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback/Huggle Use

Having spotted a bad revert you made [2], I have reveiwed your contributions, and I am highly unimpressed. For starters, 4im warnings should only be used for serious vandalism, not as a quick shortcut to a block. You have reverted edits as vandalism when the user had objections to content, using edit summaries stating that. This is what talk pages are for- the fact they are an anon editor is irrelevant. The way you responded to an anon above, stating that "anons editing and not using edit summaries" indicates vandalism, is disgusting. You wouldn't do it to an arbitrator, would you? Don't treat anons different simply because they're anons. RC patrol is not a race, so review the changes before you revert them. It prevents you getting into trouble.

Regardless, you have misused Huggle and rollback. Misusing these tools can carry the penalty of losing them. Please explain why you should be allowed to continue to use these. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was treating it as a race, or that I was stepping on what are apparently sensitive toes. I see my role in reverting vandalism as a serious one, and do my best to examine the entirety of the editing involved in an article prior to reverting it. I will say that I do occasionally err, sometimes out of zeal, sometimes out of sheer carelessness. However, I can't see where that is a detraction from the larger task at hand. I step in where I see a positive outcome as a result, and if I feel I can't contribute to that positive outcome by further involvement I step back.

If an Administrator asks me to, I'll discontinue using Huggle. But I have no intention of terminating my anti-vandalism activities, or contributing material where I see an opportunity and positive outcome. Such is the nature, and mandate, of Wikipedia as I see it. If this is incorrect, I invite you to explain why my view is in error. Alan (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From just browsing your talk page, it's evident that there has been a long pattern of poor use of tools. Regardless of whether a simple majority of your reverts are either correct or uncontested, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding between what should be reverted, and what shouldn't. I've also seen some comments stating somethinhbto the effect that almost all anons are vandals, and I get the impression, both from your edits and comments, that you truly believe this. It's not the case - in fact most content in article space was writen by anons. This is why I'm coming down on you so hard, having your edits reverted which you put effort into, and made in good faith, then having them reverted, and being called a vandal, is very upsetting, and is enough to make you stop editing.

In summary, I am still unconvinced by your explanation. Carelesness is not an excuse.Remember that there are hundreds of regular RC patrollers. If you miss it, someone else will fix it in a few minutes, even seconds. What are you going to do in future to prevent this from reoccuring? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look through the last few days of contributions to see what's up here. I didn't see cause for removing the use of huggle or twinkle. In general, the edits you're making are pretty straightforward vandalism reverts and appropriate warnings (though I often hate the templates, but that's more a problem with me than with you.) I noticed occasionally you revert text removal that probably should have been given a bit more thought, especially when done by a user who is not logged in and who does not use an edit summary. I can understand the impulse to revert those edits, and have done the same myself in the past. Sometimes, though, you need to just spend an extra moment loading links or reading the text to see the context of the situation. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, vandalism patrol makes your user talk page a popular place for newer users who may be testing or may be unfamiliar with the culture of Wikipedia to comment. It's important that you stay polite here whenever possible, and have more patience than is probably normal. The comment above "Do not contact me again regarding this matter." is understandable but probably a bit too harsh for a relatively polite discussion of your edits. So, in general, I think you're doing good work, with occasional errors, but there does seem to be an effort on your part to correct those errors. Try not to let conversations on this talk page frustrate you, take a moment before you revert an unexplained edit that isn't obvious vandalism, and I think you'll be fine.

By the way, administrators don't have special authority to tell you if you may or may not use huggle. You should take seriously the concerns of any editor who comes to you with them, whether they're logged in or not, and whether they're an admin or not.

Thanks for the work you do to improve Wikipedia. kmccoy (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for taking the time to review this issue, and for the work you put in as an Administrator. I can think of few more thankless jobs anywhere.

I do get frustrated by page after page of blatant vandalism, be it insertion of "I was here lol" or anatomical references or changing information that's difficult to verify. While the bulk of Wikipedia articles may have originated from IP users, the bulk of vandalism committed is also from IP users...hence my comment. And as noted on my User page, I believe users should register and have their accounts validated prior to creating or editing articles. Granted, this flies in the face of Wikipedia's stated ideal of being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". But it's a sad truth of life that a small minority spoil things for everyone else.

That frustration does, on occasion, override my judgment, whether in editing articles, reverting what appears to be vandalism, discussing material that supports (or does not support) a proposed change, or dealing directly with other editors. I try to keep that frustration in check, but occasionally fail...I believe yesterday is a good example of what happens when that occurs.

As far as Steve's question of "what do I plan to do"...I plan to keep on keepin' on, as the song goes. Goethe said "Man errs, so long as he is striving." If other editors, mediators or administrators are looking for perfection from me, they're not going to get it, because I'm human. All I can do is my best. If that's not good enough, I'd like an Administrator to let me know before I go too much farther down this path, so I can shut down and leave before I do any more damage. Alan (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators don't have special authority to tell you what you may and may not do, in general. I'd strongly urge you to consider the advice of any user, logged in or not, admin or not, if it's reasonable advice. Maybe you don't have to act on it, maybe you don't have to take any actions suggested, but move away from the idea that administrators have the monopoly on good advice. Or even that the advice from administrators is always good. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little digging a little while ago. Based on comments in the anon-IP's user Talk page, it appears that the two of them (the anon-IP and Steve) are playing some sort of "bite the anti-vandal" game where the anon-IP does something to try and get himself warned, then Steve steps in and stomps on the user who issued the warning. I can't begin to describe how annoyed that makes me. Trying to head off all the vandalism that takes place on Wikipedia is bad enough without a couple of "good ol' boys" playing "good cop, bad cop" at others' expense. I can't speak for anyone else, and I wouldn't attempt to anyway, but what I saw there has me convinced that ignoring both of them is the best and safest choice, at least for MY sanity (or what's left of it). Alan (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kahane

Excuse me but Meir Kahane was considered a terrorist by the U.S. and Israel. Why did you get rid of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.240.130 (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable, verifiable source to support that statement? If so, please add it to the article with appropriate citations. Alan (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BONUS

Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) Reactor Facility: I adding a link in this page because the lack of more details on the page and little time to edit. I think to use the informations on that link´s page, but don´t copy...189.42.228.115 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

After you add the material to the article, you can use the link as a reference. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so I'll step back and let you work... Alan (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I guess it's a case of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" ;)--Iner22 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good to watch out for each other...because no one else will. Alan (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wakefield City High School

Is it not possible to edit the article so that it is not a word-for-word copy of the original? --Delta1989 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a task for someone knowledgeable in the topic. Alan (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Siam

Hi. Thanks for reverting the edition of 86.28.214.34 in the article Siam. His information was totally wrong. It seemed to be vandalism. Please keep an eye for me. --Octra Bond (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It was rather obvious...I had good reason to doubt that there was a Siamese ruler named "Felicity" in the 13th century. Alan (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

please help

Hello,

How do I add this important and relevant link to Dr. J. William Hirzy's speech before the United States Senate on Water fluoridation, on Wikipedia's "Water fluoridation" page?

right here:

Intelligent Anti-Fluoride Statement - Dr. J. William Hirzy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.182.18 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The best way would be to write a precis of the content of the speech, add it to the article in a new section entitled, perhaps, "Controversy", and use the YouTube link as the reference for the section. That way you show the relevance of the speech in context and provide a citation for support. Alan (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism placed on my user page. I would give you a barnstar if not for the blatant conflict of interest .. :) Nezzadar (speak) 02:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Alan (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive gift of new award!

		Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
		Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend,   Nezzadar ☎  .

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Alan (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

yo dude

How can I become an Admin, like you? Please give me some pointers. Thank you :)

See WP:RFA for information. Note...I am not an admin. Alan (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million, dedicated Wikipedian !!!

I Appreciate it very much - you're being on the ball. Keep up the good work! --Ludvikus (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can. Alan (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been the target of talk page vandalism more than once, so I know how annoying it can be. Alan (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both my pages have actually been vandalized quite a lot of times. I have a vandalism counter for my userpage if you wanna see it. - Zhang He (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Didier Drogba

Do you have rights for semi protection?

Please give Didier Drogbas Profile a full semi protection.

I´m getting sick of these vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea-fan1 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Admin, so I can't grant any protection levels to any pages...all I can do is request protection. However, you can do exactly the same. Follow the instructions at Requests for Page Protection. Alan (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International, WarriorBoy, and Allied Artists Pictures Corporation

Thank you. I revised the edits. Please check, and check why WarriorBoy is allowed to edit with a single purpose, NRS, and ADVERT. He is apparantly an ally of Kimball Dean Richards, as his edits have all been promoting Richards' Allied Artists International, such as posting trademark approval, as if this is encyclopedia material. I usually only do China articles, but the new owner of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation has been vetted by the Chinese, and approved to do business in China! ChinaUpdater (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll review the edits and see if there's a situation developing that may need Administrator intervention. From what little I've seen so far there's at least call for watching the page closely to limit WP:COI involvement. Alan (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a relatively new editor, who writes on China.

• 1. Historic Chinese business figure, Louis Lesser, is now CEO of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, NOT Kimball Dean Richards, famous in the news as a "criminal Mastermind" in fraud. Lesser was partners wioth President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Urban renewal, and helped open China. ChinaUpdater (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2. Lesser is 93 years old and is computer illiterate. Lesser has not tried to self promote with his own Wikipedia page. But association of a 93 historic, and well loved man, with Kimball Dean Richards, a mand who the FBI and newspapers called a "Criminal Mastermind", by taking advantage of Lesser's lack of computer skills, to ride their Allied Artists International on Lesser's Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, via WarriorBoy edits, is WRONG. It is a form opf senior abuse, not just self promotion of WarriorBoy's company.

• 3. Can you review the CONTENT of WarriorBoy's edits, and see what WarriorBoy is doing, removing LA Times and other sources and \federal court records sourced matieral?

• 4. Can you suggest what a new editor like me can do regarding WarriorBoy trying to remove information on Kimball Dean Richards, like breaking the links by dropping one of the letters out of his name, like this {Kimbal Dean Richards]] in vandalism of the link I created in my edit, so that my link does not work? Thanks

ChinaUpdater (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's clear and obvious vandalism, such as you're describing, issue appropriate warnings (see WP:VANDAL for procedures to follow). I'll review the diffs and see where things stand. At this point, though, I can't see any way around issuing WP:3RR warnings. Alan (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)