User talk:Ottawa4ever

Welcome!

Hi all If i left a message on your page it probably concerns a recent change. If it was related to vandalism and you are not responsible please accept my apologies. I typically wont leave a warning but if its severe enough I just might. If you wish to give helpful feed back please do and take care, I have begun to compile a list of how to crack down on vandilsm, Please add a comment at the bottom or feel free to expand this discussion.

Grammar and Spelling checks are always appreciative on my user page. However profanity or comments designed in such a way will be deleted as vandalism. Have a great day! :D

I prefer to keep conversations/threads together, so if you post here, I will usually answer here(but will try to address you on your talk page); thus you may want to add this page to your watchlist. You can click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Hello, Ottawa4ever, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Maxim_(talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quick question...

Ah, thanks for the interest in helping to clean up vandalism. Check out the counter-vandalism unit page. Anyone is free to join. If you'd like the little button thinggy, they are near the bottom of the page. You might also be interested in the quick guide to cleaning up vandalism. Lemme know if you run across any problems or have any questions. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: St Thomas

Thanks, that's so kind of you! I appreciate it. It was difficult to remain diplomatic, and it's really cool for someone to recognize that. Again, thank you, for the barnstar, and your input within the situation as well. Cheers! See you around. -- Reaper X 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reform

For a peson who claims to be a former vandal you have certaintly taken some good steps at unduing your past. The way youve handled yourself on st thomas was good. Its about time your recongnized for your recent peaceful edits

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your peaceful efforts on adverting an edit war on st thomas ontario and continued efforts to reduce vandalism i award you this barnstar of peace Jgale061 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work Jgale061 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language in KFC

Being french canadian i just read your fix to KFc

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your fanatstic fix of the article KFC`s tone you are quite the peace maker, please come back and edit! if only more would edit like you :) 67.70.43.129 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow thank you thats so nice, It always upsets me when people are so blatenely biased and use bad tones its not what wikipedia is about, happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas, Ontario

Nope, I don't have a source. Let's see if whoever knows her can properly describe when she lived there. If not then the article will manage without one person. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE WARN!

I saw your multiple vandalism reverts on Dragon Tales--and thank you for that--but I went to report the vandal and discovered they didn't have even ONE warning. Without the warnings, admins won't block. PLEASE use the warning templates in cases like this--they make it SO SO SO much easier to get rid of jerks like that IP. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ottawa4ever! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: University of Ottawa (POV)

Hi, I've added my opinion on the talk page. Meant to do it earlier.. but been somewhat busy and lost track of it. Thanks for the reminder. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This image is blatantly stolen from the article Wikipedia:Edits_Per_Day

File:Twinkle cat.jpg

Concerned cat doesn't want you to steamroll other people's edits with Twinkle. Don't listen to him. He's evil.

-- Works for Huggle too.... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Ottawa4ever, thank you for the barnstar! I'm thrilled :))))) Maedin\^talk 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thank you for the barnstar. Very unexpected. Ronewirl (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		For all the valuable information for helping squash vandalism Im going to use this for fighting it! 142.163.85.181 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually be updated as the information is a tad behind Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Help from a Wikipedia administrator is needed please. There seem to be a couple of differences with the english article on Christopher Cox. 1.) There is a section on short selling that reads like a blog. Someone has tried to correct this but failed. 2.) There is a "bot" which inserted the reference es.christopher cox into the main article. The link to the spanish article is not about the American government official. I tried to remove the link yesterday, but the "groucho.bot" returned. The creator of the "groucho.bot" claims the link was automatically generated.

Any ideas? Ronewirl (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting. Im actually not an administrator. It seems to me that the have a bot gone wild. it added the link again after you reverted it. Its also a fairly new bot so the user may not fully know how to operate it effectively yet. the other bot apparently is doing the same thing to other wiki pages as well. you can get more info on bots here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard

As from what i can tell if its very disruptive a block could be possible so you would probably need to get the attention of an admin here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

hope these links help, take care Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had to report the violation of Wikipedia's 3RR to one of the administrators. I wish I didn't have to, but the reversions deleted contributions made previously by others who wanted to improve the article, and they were achieving that goal until the revert wars started up again. Many, many thanks again. Ronewirl (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirection

Sure, no problem. Check out Help:Merging_and_moving_pages. Most are just cut-and-paste, but it can be complex at times so it's helpful to have the help article. It's good that you're thinking of proposing and getting consensus; I'd say that's the first step most of the time. From there, it's a question of what exactly you're doing, and the article will help you with tags and procedures for each. If you're redirecting to a page that already exists as something else, even a redirect page, you'll probably need to request that an admin make the move for you. If you need any more help, just let me know. Hopefully I'll be on often enough to help out further. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Historic Fires

I added the disambiguation link as the search phrase "The Great Fire" currently redirects to List of historic fires. As The Great Fire (novel) is quite significant as a winner of the William Dean Howells Medal perhaps the search phrase "The Great Fire" should link to the novel?--Tbenst (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for getting back, clears that up Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your concern. However, I believe that both my reversions were justified. If the edits to an article are patently constructive, I would typically correct any syntactic or grammatical errors in them myself; however, in the case of 70.49.153.50's edits to Liz White (politician), the article's tone was shifted from being biased in favour of the politician to being biased against her, a change I did not want to endorse; thus, my only option was to revert, not on grounds of the content dispute (which should not be handled using rollback), but to remove the syntactic and grammatical errors which were "clearly unproductive". In the case of 117.195.18.133's insertion of 40 blank lines into Palm wine, you could easily have seen that I did not issue any warnings to the user, but politely asked them to explain the rationale behind their edits and encouraged them to use edit summaries; once they replied, I corrected the issue myself. Of course, if you still feel that my behaviour was "not acceptable", please go ahead and file a complaint against me. Gail (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 40 lines were there to break the section, I did not know about the {{clear}} function then. Thanks to Gail I know now. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im a bit confused with what you write, Im not sure I understand fully , you say you rollbacked their edits because you didnt agree with their tone of the article, but then say you used a loop hole that their was a grammatical mistake and which allowed you to use the roll back function to remove it this that way (70.49.153.50's edits to Liz White (politician)) Its fishy this edit. Im not going to make a complaint about this as you seem to be aware that you cant use this feature this way. But I find your use of huggle and the roll back feature a bit `eye brow raising`. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you're calling it a loophole, but consider this... If I did nothing, the article would have been left with the syntactic and grammatical errors. If I corrected the errors, I would have been endorsing the new bias which is, in my opinion, worse than the purported original one. I was reluctant to take this to the talk page because, when making controversial changes, the responsibility to gather consensus rests on the editor making the changes, not the editor opposing them (see the WP:BRD essay). Honestly, what would you have done in this situation? Gail (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the solution would have been not to use your roll back feature or automatic scripts. If you disagree with an common edit you revert manually (click on a previous page edit it) and if controversal make a note on the pages talk page, If its vandalism use your roll back feature then slap a tag on their page (though people seem to be complaining of this too, (Im not touching that one even though its falling under biting newcomers). You can throw wiki policies around if you like to make your case, but here you flagged it as vandalism used your roll back feature and slapped a warning on the users talk page, when it was an edit you disagreed with in principal and wasnt vandalism. I dont necesarily buy the fact of this story of yours (I think your trying to cover yourself and not take responsiblility for a mistake). Fighting vandilism isnt just about reverting, its also about helping other new users grow as editors, making suggestions on edits and proposals for pages. You can easily create vandals by biting newcomers and slapping warnings left and right on edits you disagree with so please be careful in the future Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me one correction to your post: I never flagged or labelled the edit as vandalism. I said it was "clearly unproductive" which, given the errors introduced, I still believe it was. WP:ROLLBACK states that rollback can be used "to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism" (note added emphasis). The level 1 warning issued is very conservatively worded ("your edit appears to be unconstructive"), and is intentionally meant to assume good faith ("if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary") and avoid biting newcomers. Finally, I want to point out that I always take any reports of mistakes I might have made seriously, and take full responsibility for ones which are correct (see User talk:Gail#Geese are indeed monogomous for an example of where I was wrong). In this case, I don't believe I made any mistake, but I'm ready to stand corrected if consensus should determine that way. Gail (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Like I said before, I fail to see how your explanation justifies your usage of rollbacking that edit (Maybe Im stuburn, but Ill admit that). If you revisted the page in question about Liz white you would see the editor had and was in the process of perfecting the edit (The last edit was an attempt to fix the citation before you reverted, In fact your reversion was undone afterwards (if you had a problem with pov then why didnt you say anything on the page later or even now still?) however I will note this , grammer mistakes are still intact. I read the liz white page now and no where to me does the edit in fact make it more biased, it is merely updated to reflect the results of the last canadian election held in november or so (how this makes the edit unproductive I question?). Everything in that article is in fact a fact (minus the grammer which can easily be fixed). In fact , the edit did have an edit summary which mentioned paticular issues that the article was suffering from (PoV) it also mentiones you could revert the edit and mentiones reasons against this, which to me suggests an opening of dialogue for the article not of an warning to the user). If we reverted everything with a spelling mistake and warned every user of this especially IPs (potential new comers) we will turn people off wikipedia and create vandals. I am not convinced of your reasoning (Your edit history suggests you merely glanced the edit at the time and reverted, other people are experienced in huggle too, (Can anyone determine POV in 10 seconds?), I stand by what I said before I think you made a mistake, but Ill let your future edits speak for yourself.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't press the issue because, from my experience, POV debates tend to be way too protracted... I believe they should be resolved by editors who have at least some knowledge of the subject. I disagree with several points of your assessment of the situation, but I think I've explained myself enough, so unless you have any further concerns, I'll stop here. Happy editing. Gail (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which is why you would involve yourself in a POV revert in the first place (Or is it grammatical or vandalism)? You know my position. In the future be careful, Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, Ottawa4ever. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ottawa4ever. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I have heeded your advice from the help desk and opened an RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duke53_2. There is currently some discussion at the talk page there as well. I would appreciate your help and advice. Hoopsphanatic (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive left a proposal of my own for both sides to look at (simmilar to this though a tad different in mannor) if they would like on the disccussion section on the request for comment page (sorry terrible with links RC). Analysts proposal though may be easier to implement Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Would you mind endorsing the RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duke53_2. It simply states you tried to mediate the situation. Thanks. Hoopsphanatic (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this, it seems Duke has compromised with Alanysts proposal and placed the `no index` stub on his page. Which should mean that your username should no longer be visible in a search engine. Hope this helps, I dont think endorsing the rfc is necessary at this time unless im missing something or this isnt agreeable(i think you said it was okay). take care, hope to see you back editing someday :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for essay writing

18-March-2009: Many essays get removed from the category, so there are some issues to note. All essays can be judged as Wikipedia public-relations, so avoid too much negative talk. Try to emphasize a better future, or potential solutions: there are lots of people to help with anything (if you can reach them). Others have disguised criticism, in the form of semi-humor, but beware that some admins live in strict societies, where negative talk is swiftly censored. That's just the way those people were raised: "The nail that stands up gets hammered down". They tend to squash anti-talk and feel no sympathy for apologies. Because Wikipedia has over 9 million registered users, plus 9 million anonymous IP users, the audience you face is some portion of those 18 million people, plus others. Hence, try to create the best essay you can, perhaps revising several times in an off-line text file. I sometimes forget to mention the current time, but it is good to include "in mid-2009" (or such) because many issues change within 5 months. Currently, about 35% of English or German Wikipedia is written by teenagers, half of Wikipedia is under 30 years of age. Remember at the bottom, put category:

[[Category:Wikipedia essays|Title of essay]]

Good luck with your efforts. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Account on the ACC account creation interface page

Ive made a request for tools for account creation. This edit is meant as a confirmation edit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been approved to use the Internal Account Creation Interface! Some important notes before you get started:

Abuse of the interface is not tolerated, and access can be revoked by an interface admin at a moment's notice
If you end up hitting the 6 accounts-per-day limit, you can request the Account Creator userright from RFPERM. However, like access to the interface itself, it can be revoked if abused.

Now that you have read the generic warnings, please read (or re-read if you have read it already) the tool's documentation page which includes a link to the tool's request-filling interface. If you ever need any help, I myself am an interface admin and developer, so feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help, or would like a new welcome template added to the autowelcome feature!

IMPORTANT: If you did not request this account, please NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY.
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers Without Borders Chapter Pages

Hey, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is where I'm supposed to reply. I'm bringing up the Wiki with the President and VP Communication of the U of A Chapter and we should have something up soon. We're just trying to find some media sources. Thanks! HY7 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)HY7[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ottawa4ever. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replies have been made at the help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{resolved}} ~~~~ at the top of the section. Thank you, ZooFari 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

It's always good to hear that I have not overstepped by reverting edits to a user's talk. I was almost certain you wouldn't mind (considering the edits), but it's good to know for sure. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were nasty edits but its in line with my own user talk policy of removing inappropriate text being vandalism thanks again.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Reporting all of them to AIV would be the best way to do so. Until It Sleeps 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported them, kinda an off chance but they are all editing the same articlesOttawa4ever (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful when reverting page blanking

Just a heads-up. Sometimes page blanking is not vandalism. For example, Drobizam was blanked by the original author, indicating a desire for the article to be deleted. I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7. The correct action would have been to re-tag the blank article with a {{g7}} instead of reverting the page blanking. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, realized shortly after it wasnt a vandalism and I reverted my warning. I did not think to just add the tag back, but thought the tag would come back with the article for deletion, nether the less your solution seems the way to go thanks. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

My friend, that was some truly great work. This dopey kid looks as if he wants to be caught! It'll be interesting to see how the CU turns out. I plan to watch this one with great interest. Thanks for your help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Vandalism hunting

Paste your requests here:

I have reverted 100 cases of vandalism and warned the users without using Twinkle, Huggle, or popups. If this barnstar is granted, could you please place it here. Thank you. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}, TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — ^talk

FWIW, I thought your question was a good one.

spoiler

Why don't you do something constructive about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.136.213 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially we could look at it as a Trivia section though that could be integrated into the article or removed. Thanks for responding.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

section is flaged now for trivia. The info should still be integrated Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Spoiler

Yeah, go ahead. Until It Sleeps 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Ottawa4ever! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. Flying Toaster

old school vandalism fighting

Am I allowed to use popups to view diffs or warn? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope no popups. You could use the recent changes tab to spot something and revert. the idea would be to train you into being able to pick off suspisicous edits as was done before these useful scripts came, gives more apprciation to them as well :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I first joined 4 months ago, I fought vandalism using recent changes and the vandalism warnings. I will try to get a 100 by the end of this week. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to use my rollback tool (I'm a rollbacker)? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to use tabs with my browser? For example, If I spotted vandalism, I could pop up a new tab to warn the user, and with the current tab go back to recent changes. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to include the article name in my warnings? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not see a problem with using roll back providing it wasnt used with software (like huggle), And also using multiple browser windows i dont think thats a problem either for this. Just no automatic tools from software to detect and revert vandalism. All old school, well mostly.... :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standard warnings (you should include the name of the article for good practice (but dont be too discouraged if you forget ~~once or twice~~)) use a template if you can. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted different types of vandalism 47 times. I might do some more later, but I should be finished by Saturday. Have that barnstar ready. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to WP:VAND and looked up sneaky vandalism. To qualify for the reward, does it only have to qualify as sneaky or does it have to be "extra" sneaky? Griffinofwales2 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as its said there, any example of this will do (providing its been in an article for over a year). A good example of this was the jacques plante article. Some edits were made 3 years or so ago and his statitistics for 5 years were deleted. No one noticed for over a year or so, that would be a good example. If its extra sneaky, then there be more kudos for finding it, but im only looking for sneaky ones :) hope that clears it up Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else seems interested in the barnstar, I have decided to bother you endlessly with status reports. As of now, I have reverted 88 edits (and warned the users) the old school way. The rest will be completed by the end of Saturday. Have the barnstar ready (you could check my contribs but it would be difficult to sort out, and for all you know I could be using popups to view the diffs ahead of time [I'm not]. However, if you still want to view my contribs, just ignore the twinkle edits [I used Twinkle for the multiple user vandalism edits]). Griffinofwales (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really dont know how many people read WP: reward board but i figured for those who do why not a lil reward. I tried to do this once myself when i first started with wikipedia, it takes about a day I think. I would imagine a tech savy person could find a way around using pop ups to help, but your still fighting vandalism and going through the process and thats what its all about. If you do the sneaky vandalism one make sure you post the diff showing which one. Happy hunting Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to do it (I do it when I'm not using Huggle). You activate navigational popups in Gadgets (My preferences), then you go to recent changes. If you want to view a diff, you put your cursor over the word 'diff', and a popup will show you the diff. If it's vandalism, click on the word 'diff' and if you have Twinkle activated, you click Rollback (VANDAL). Also, on your user page you mention that you will give a barnstar out to the person who fixes your revert count. I can do that, but I need to know a time when you won't be editing, that way I don't have to keep recounting (all times in UTC please). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, what would that be, 3 awards potentially? (My worry there would be three antivandalism awards from the same account lol, might not be as prestigious but i could find away to make them different and noticable). Whole idea is working to reduce vandalism, and why not get recongnition for it? For the user page, Nah its cool just a little easter egg award for those reading the user page (that is unless you really want to). I do think its a cool idea for a user page, but using huggle some users could have 10000 of these little ticks so it can get crowded. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I should be finished in about an hour w/ the 100 reverts. I will try to find some sneaky vandalism, but I probably won't put much time into it, and I won't work on the revert count. So, that should leave me with 1 barnstar which is enough for me. Do I get another one if I do another 100? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wont stop you form doing another 100, Not really defined that its a limit of one per person (kinda implies it but doesnt say that), but there can always be exceptions for great anti vandalism work. But Id go for a sneaky one. They exist but theyre hard to spot unless you know the subject matters well Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sneaky ones are hard. One clever IP tried changing the Pope's page (this was 2 months ago[the content was about gays and lesbians, but when you read it, it didn't seem like vandalism]), and it probably would have stayed there, but I picked it up through recent changes. The best ones for reverting sneaky vandalism are the content developers. They know what they're writing about so they know what's true and what's not. I will look through some of the articles I specialize in to see whether I find any. But, usually the vandalism finds you, not the other way around (i.e. you are reading an article [for informational purposes] and you find a false statement). Griffinofwales (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And you can easily overlook it. Why its so sneaky, and dangerous for the project, good luck. The other trick to is finding out how long its been there which adds another element to the thing Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I took the liberty of updating the revert count on your userpage, which at the time of this writing, is 802 :). Until It Sleeps 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks! My user page has an award description for doing this work. Ive given you a tiny award for appreciation, but more so because you are approaching 40000 edits which i think is fantastic. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks so much for the welcome & great contributions, Ottawa4ever! I really appreciate your bringing the Gourman Report up. Now that I know it's out there I'm looking forward to researching that topic more in the future. Cool stuff. 174.21.10.53 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skittles products

Picking up your challenge. You a big fan of skittles or something? Geraldk (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to see this list be improved, and not be curropoted as much. Ill keep an eye on your progress, Lookin good so far. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it gets hit with a fair amount of vandalism too. Limited computer access over the next few days, but I'll continue working on sourcing. Geraldk (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up

Up (film) redirects to Up (2009 film) , it should be the main title. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm didnt realize Up (film) redirects there, Probably due to it being the mainsream search since the other films are older. Quick read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) explains that disambiguating films of the same name, the year of its first public release should follow in its article name. So long as there is no risk of ambiguity or confusion with another existing Wikipedia article the film could just take its name, but in this case theres two others in 76 and 84. Hope that helps any Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Up (film) be a disambiguation page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an Up (disambiguation) page. However guidlines say nothing against making one specifically for the films See WP:DDAB. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring it up on the article Talk page. Thx. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Vandalism hunting

Hi! I noticed your challenge, and I've done at least 100 vandalism reverts and warnings using neither scripts nor any additional programs during the time period you've set out. (Also, I have to say, this challenge made me smile.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Thanks! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont care

are you like a moderator or somthing you leave a commet like five seconds after i do its just scary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmchasnon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a moderator.Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom of the Seven Ships

Thank you for reverting the edit by 24.206.111.156. I was getting tired of having to deal with all of the edits on the page by myself. Thanks, 71.32.247.78 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not to worry, :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated. Geraldk (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 12:29PM EST

Do you not have a life or do you suffer from Agoraphobia? I understand that some people's life revolves around being a Wikipedia admin, but dude, seriously?