User talk:Wikipelli/Archive 6

Helpful Stuff

Pending Changes

Awards

Leave a message

Edits

Collapsed Long Discussion

(collapsed discussion): Bm gub2 is accusing me, explicitly using my name and the institution I work in (VERY wordy discussion)

Dear administrator, You saw the issue within Bm gub2 talk page. May You erase my name from that accusation. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Is that content against: General Scope This policy covers personally identifiable information collected or stored by the Foundation on its servers in relation to the Projects and their communities. Consistent with its Data Retention Policy, the Foundation collects and retains the least amount of personally identifiable information needed to fulfill the Projects' operational needs. The public and collaborative nature of the projects All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions. Activities on Foundation projects In general, this Policy only applies to private information stored or held by the Foundation which is not publicly available. Interactions with the Projects not covered by this Policy include, but are not limited to, aspects of browsing and editing pages, use of the wiki "email user" function, subscribing and posting to Foundation hosted email lists, and corresponding with volunteers via the Foundation's ticketing system ("OTRS"). These interactions may reveal a contributor's IP address, and possibly other personal information, indiscriminately to the general public, or to specific groups of volunteers acting independently of the Foundation. Users may also interact with one another outside of Foundation sites, via email, IRC or other chat, or independent websites, and should assess the risks involved, and their personal need for privacy, before using these methods of communication. User accounts and authorship The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account. Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request. ?????? Note I am asking it politely. It seems an absurd, citing a person (me) under a difamatory context with no proof. The cited user concludes such thing from some IP numbers and may prejudice me as is. I am trying to solve it without legal threats. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Hello... First and foremost, I am not an administrator and I would be unable to permanently delete information from an article's history. I noticed the exchange on the talk page and that is the extent of my knowledge of the incident. If there IS information online that contains unfounded or malicious accusations or if it reveals personal information that is contrary to Wikipedia policy, I will be happy to try to have it removed. Can you provide me with a link to the material that you wish to have removed? Unfortunately, I don't know the specific article. Thank you. (oh, and please refrain from even suggesting legal threats. This is very much contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you have a legitimate complaint, I would hate to have it diminished by further violations of policy) Wikipelli Talk 12:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Talk page of Bm gub2: He accuses me and puts my name in, and the name of the University I work in. May you erase my name and the name of my university from that infamous accusation. A. Assis. 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Talk page of Bm gub2: He accuses me and puts my name in, and the name of the University I work in. May you erase my name and the name of my university from that infamous accusation. A. Assis. 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Here is the talk page: Bm gub2 ( Bm gub2|talk), where my name appears under difamatory context with no proof. You all, seeing this page, cannot erase that absurd against me with no proof. This is a quite bizarre situation I am experiencing within Wikipedia. Again, I am trying to solve with no legal threats, but I do have just five minutes more of my time before contacting a person to deal with this threat. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Here is the talk page: Bm gub2 ( Bm gub2|talk), where my name appears under difamatory context with no proof. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Again, you will have to be specific, please. I have just finished reading the talk page and there is a contentious discussion about the material. However, the only information that I see about you, specifically, is that you wrote a paper and that you work for a university. As near as I can tell, both of these facts are available to the public on the web (your department's website, and the online journal to which you published your paper). As this information is available publicly, I don't think you have any recourse. I don't see any 'accusations' on the talk page. Though there are opinions expressed about the content of your paper, there do not seem to be any 'accusations'. Please let me know specifically where the accusation is. Wikipelli Talk 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) No Sir/Mrs. This is the page (talk). This user uses within the title content: More Spam from (My name). May you erase this difamatory content. He is accusing me of Spam. This is extremely difamatory. Respectfully, did I make myself clear now? A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC) You reading this page, did you see the accusation in the title within Bm gub2 (talk) talk page. Again, may you erase this from that page. This is an obvious accusation, easy to demonstrate as an accusation. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I see I have no choice. I must appeal to the competent via. I will wait five more minutes for a definitive position from Wikipedia regarding this issue. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Five minutes are gone. I tried to solve with no legal threat, but it was impossible. Goodbye. I wait more than the one hour I had said within Bm gub2 (talk) page. Unfortunatelly. Two minutes more and I will be going without no more words. A. Assis 187.88.70.10 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Well, I'm sorry I couldn't help but I just don't see accusations on the page. I see opinions, which are perfectly appropriate for a talk page. You would do well to be more cooperative with those who express a desire to assist you and try to be a little more demanding in your words. What I don't think you understand is that Wikipedia is collaborative and there is no-one that is responsible for all of the content. Thus, it is the wrong approach to demand things of me or of anyone else here. Just words to the wise. Wikipelli Talk 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Final word.. I googled the name that you left on my talk page and found your paper online. In this paper I find your university, name, email address, etc., so you really shouldn't be concerned about that information being available publicly. In reading messages that you left on other users' talk pages, it appears that you are concerned that you are possibly being accused of spamming. I don't see that. One user mentioned that your article had been spammed to a number of Wikipedia articles. He did not (as far as I can see) accuse YOU of spamming. If information is available online, it is fair game to include it in articles and discussions. This is not to say that the information is correct, true, valid, or appropriate, but it is open to comment by others. Wikipelli Talk 14:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

trinity christian academy

whats wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.66 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to the article contained potentially damaging information about a living person. Information of this nature MUST be accompanied by a citation in a reliable third-party source. I neither accept or reject the assertions you have made, but it hasn't taken me much time to search and discover that there is some question as to whether the young man was expelled or was withdrawn from school. In the case of personal information about a living person, information must be verifiable. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Important

If you look at all my Discussions and edits they are the truth. Not just Wikipedia and its version of the truth. So you decide.

Sincerely,

Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern Imperial and Royal Majesty Fernidad Frederick, King of Prussia Emperor of Germany Head of State SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments Owner Ken Pochinko 'Spyder' Moonlight Helicopter Squadron - U.S. Militia http://www.scag.ca.gov Diplomatic and Sovereign Immunity President Gerald Ford and the Foriegn Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.245.245 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether your edits are 'truth' or not. The important thing here is that your contribution contains discussion that should be on the Talk/Discussion page. The other important thing is that you have offered no references to verify your claims. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Richview Collegiate Institute

Hi Wikipelli

I do not attend and have no idea about anything related to Richview Collegiate Institute however, I guarantee you that the principal is not named "Herp Derp" as that is an internet meme signifying that someone is an idiot. See: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/derp#.TdbVHkca8UN

Best Regards,

Random Wikipedia User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.94.82 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

:) That's a fair point, and I appreciate your good humor. I see now where I went wrong. I've corrected the page and warned the user that vandalized the page. I'll take the warning off your page. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No Prob, as one of the anonymous denizens of this place I am sure you are generally doing a terrific job of cleaning up wikipedia for everyone just look before you leap next time =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.94.82 (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Another thought is that it would have taken just about the same amount of time for you to revert to the real version of the page as it did to edit and say that it's wrong. :) Feel free to correct the pages - not just edit to say they're wrong. :) Cheers. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Eliminator Award

(moved here)

Thanks.... and no problem. :) Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Regards

I really appreciate your helping in protecting the honors of Mr. Taheri from Iranian government's attack. Best Regards Faradarman (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My only interest is in protecting Wikipedia articles. :) Cheers Wikipelli ^Talk 15:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All In The Water

Hi -

It may not have been your intent, but the speedy deletion template you added to All in the Water was a G7 template, ("speedy deletion request by the author of this page"), even though you're not the author of the article. Please be careful when nominating a page for speedy deletion, that you use the correct template. Thanks! —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... and Huggle always gets me into trouble with that because it defaults to G7. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eli Fuentes

Isn't a user allowed to blank a page they created? I understand that you were using Huggle, I almost did the same thing. I just wanted to be sure. In addition, if a user blanks a page they created, that is grounds for an immediate speedy deletion, right? Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely.. My apologies. Sometimes, yes, with Huggle I go faster than I should and revert any page blanking. It is grounds for speedy deletion. Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

John cooper

Explain how that revision is vandalism? The article is fully verifiable and and sourced, by all the main media outlets in Britain, the worst serial killer in modern wales, and there is more information on him than say, john cooper the tennis player, so it is relevant there, and I will revert it so it remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raised leg (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation was not obvious and relied on a page that you created today. I'm satisfied that the page you created has citations and, unless there's a problem with that page, I've restored your edit and removed my warning. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

Could you please check the edits of this person: [1]. I reverted a whole lot, mostly nonsense edits. I don't know how to stop this. Thanks. --VanBurenen (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked and reverted several of the user's edits. Many were nonsense, no question. Typically, when you find a user making edits such as that and you revert them, you should put a warning template on their talk page. You'll see that there are increasing levels of warnings. Once a user has received their 4th warning (within a day or so - they shouldn't get a second level warning if their first level was a week ago, for example) they can be reported to Administrators who can block the user. Hope this helps! Wikipelli ^Talk 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep this information for future use. --VanBurenen (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But also look close at the pattern and intent of the edits. :) I've been watching the editor for a little while. I have a feeling it's someone that's new to Wikipedia just trying things out. That's why, instead of a final warning or reporting, I just put some info about linking on their talk page. I could be wrong, but I always hope maybe it'll be someone just experimenting to learn. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a question, you said they shouldn't get a second level warning if their first level was a week ago, aren't the levels supposed to restart each month, but any edits within one month move up a level? Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tough call, Ryan. Obviously, if the editor vandalizes 2 times on the 31st and then 2 on the 1st, it seems as though they ought to be beyond the 2nd warning. Conversely, if they vandalize on the 1st and then not again until the 31st, what then? It's the same month but quite a bit of time has passed. It has to be different, too, for IP editors and registered users. IPs can be several different people if it's a school or business. I know I read something on escalating warnings somewhere but I can't find it now. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Today this user started again with "idiotic" edits. He has even seen your warnings on his talk page and removed them, also edited the page of another user. My impression is not that of someone who is trying out wikipedia but trying the patience of editors. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not for very long, I think. Wikipelli ^Talk 10:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The other difficulty is that some of the editor's links ARE appropriate. They just get a little 'link happy'. Hard to tell if it's malicious or not.Wikipelli ^Talk 11:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a message and a link in Hungarian (I took a shot). The link is to the Hungarian Help pages. Maybe that'll work.Wikipelli ^Talk 11:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

strange, re time stamp

I noticed a difference of two hours in the time stamp of your contributions: [2]. On top I read the time "Revision as of 23:58, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)", but in the text I read "21:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)". Any suggestions why? --VanBurenen (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A mystery to me! I know that Wikipedia uses UTC. I've never stopped to work that out. Wikipelli ^Talk 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a suggestion, sorry to bother you with this, have you set the right time in you computer operating system ánd for your time zone in the "Date and time" of you wikipedia preferences? --VanBurenen (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I checked both on the basis of your first message. I don't know why it says that.Wikipelli ^Talk 11:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have triple checked mine too, and I think it is correct. Thus it will continu to be a mistery. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you have me hooked.  :) Interestingly, right now as I edit this, I see the time stamps on our thread are all between 11:00 27 May and 11:16 27 May (your last message), yet, when I save and read my talk page, the times are correct for my time zone.Wikipelli ^Talk 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My contributions on my computer also show a time lapse of two hours between the time shown on this talk page (i.e. not correct) and what it says on my contribtions page (i.e. correct). Puzzling. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My Edits

Hey man,

Sorry about that but my friend told me to make that edit from my IP address or he will beat me up. I come in peace, dude. 68.170.113.112 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My disruptive editing

I am sorry for constant disruptive editing. I will cease doing that. Sorry to bother you... :( <--216.210.45.2 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So go ahead

Go ahead and ban me then. She gets to talk like that and I'm the one receiving warnings and threats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scryer 360 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Has she threatened or treated you harshly? If so, you have every right to give her a warning or report her to administrators. No one, absolutely no one, deserves the kind of treatment that I saw here . Please act in a civil manner or you will likely be banned. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

welcome to wikipedia

please read this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

and please stop protectively reverting articles just because you feel as if you own them.