User talk:AmiDaniel/Archive11

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

== seeVote ==

seeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC) your current info for seeVote is wrong.... its misleading .. and will continue to confuse a very confusing subject to begin with.. please take the time to understand that seeVote is a theory .. nothing to sell ... by reverting to the erranous definition... you are doing a disservice to people trying to understand how important seeVote is to restoring democracy in USA. ... PLEASE NOTCE THE REVERTED WRONG definition links to the same website at I am quoting. Pleaes fix .. i am done trying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.60.155 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, and all contributions must further conform to the manual of style. Please try to rewrite these ideas in your own words, and discuss changes on the talk page before implementing. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! I am stuck, tho. You suggest I re-write the definition of seeVote. It would be wrong for me to write something different than what I wrote on the seeVote website, since I took alot of research to write seeVote in the first place, it does not make sense for me to re-write it for you. I wrote it correctly the first time ..so you all would not screw it up .. but instead you insist on reverting to the WRONG definition of seeVote. Follow the link from your wikli .. to the ACTUAL seeVote.com website.. you can see for yourself that your wiki is InCORRECT..

Either take off the link or correct the definition please.

I am only attempting to prevent your wiki from broadcasting OBVIOSLY wrong and misleading inforamtion about my invention.

you suggest I write seeVote in my own words. now what? It IS IS IS in my own words ... I invented seeVote. thanks for taking the time to understand the situation. If I could describe seeVote in other words .. then I'd use those words for the website too.

PS ..seeVote.com is not copyrighted. Your are too quick to judge! Where does it say it has a copyright?

Maybe I should make the seeVote website wrong .. so that you will accept the correct definition .. then Ill revert the website back.. but that seems silly.

I thank you for your time, seeVoteDan

Also, from your own Manual of Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style :

"Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting."

I am sure somewhere it says CORRECT information is more important than ERRORS too.. please take the seeVote entry off your site .. if you refuse to correct it.thank you. Please goto seeVote.com contact page and ask them what they should do... then you'll be talking to me.. and we can resolve this. thanks. you're the greatest!!

From how I read your website, it seems like a reasonably accurate summary. Perhaps your website is not as clear to others as you think? By my understanding of copyright issues, everything is copyrighted (you do not have to assert copyright) unless the copyright holder specifically releases it into the Public Domain or applies another licence to it such as the GFDL. David Underdown 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

seeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) David Underdown said: "Perhaps your website is not as clear to others as you think? " Perhaps, the need for clarification! ...ie my article update. get it? have you made my point for me?

I agree with you about the copyright issue. I, as sole holder of its copyright agrees to you publishing correct information about my self-copyrighted invention/theory. I do not grant you permission to broadcast wrong information about seeVote.. Certainly you may not link your wrong article to seeVote.com either.. only link the proper description .. found at the website. Please help me.

Your current wiki description states: seeVote... "produces two ballots (one for voter to keep; the other for a locked ballot box)"

This is misleading since seeVote keeps both ballots locked in two differnet places, counted by two different efforts (a precincts traditional counting system and the seeVote system of verification on the internet) ..etc..

Funny, I got a google alert today telling me how eBay now has seeVote in its wiki.. it came from your wrong article that I am desperately trying to change:

http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/SeeVote.html

get it? this is very painfull to all our effort of people here helping me with seeVote.

"Reasonably accurate to you" is exactly why I need to have this corrected. I hope my explaination of the issue is as important to me as it is to you.

I respect your time on this last issue ..and will accept a final careful judgement from your thoughts after a more careful reading of the wrong wiki article Vs. the correct definition on the seeVote website, which, by the way, should at least prove that your wrong article should STOP linking seeVote.com. thank you.

I'd rather you link your article to Diebold. sheesh.

Just incases you had time to try the last demo version here it is .. I am currently working on version 5 of the demonstration .. not available yet. thanks so much! http://www.seevote.com/version4/introduction.html follow the links to the interactive demo. peace.

seeVote 12:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I finally read "The five pillars of Wikipedia" and I appreciate your efforts here much much more. I will be brief: I am attempting to write an objective article for your wiki.. it will be interesting for me to rethink seeVote in a more objective perspective. See how I do. until then, can we please fix the wrong article? thank you

VP going interwiki

Although it's hardly the most active for vandalism, I'd be happy to run VandalProof on MetaWiki, if you need someone. Let me know if you do, thanks. --Xyrael ^T 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really have that Wiki in my plans, but as the technical aspects are really wuite easy on my behalf, I would certainly set it up if you'd be willing to maintain it. Give me a couple of days, and I'll set up the relevant pages, etc. Thanks again for all of your help with this project--I'm not sure you know how great a help you've been. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, please keep me informed and I'll try and remember to check this talkpage (usually, I'm one for responding on the recipient's, but I'll go with whatever the other person wants usually). Thanks - I've enjoyed helping out so far. --Xyrael ^T 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen

I've restored the histories of the userboxes; however, I would think it better to move them rather that cnp-move. Do you mind if I migrate these to your userspace for you? AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be delightful. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that in just a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a bigger bitch than I thought it would be =D. You can check my move log if you have any question about where they wound up, though I kept the namings all as logical as possible. Let me know if I missed anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of dholbajja

A user User:Holywarrior is behind defaming the upper castes of northern India and he has been continuously editing this article on a nonexistent but derogatory word Dholbajja. This is NOT a subcaste of Bhumihar. Go to the Bhumihar page and find out if it mentions this word. This word is a form of abuse/slur and it has been intentionally associated with Bhumihar. This article claims that Bhumihars are Dom that is the lowermost caste of India and they are also 'untouchables'. This article should be deleted and I am fed up of fighting with you administrative people. With my efforts, a similar article Domkatar by the same user has been deleted. Please get this false article dholbajja deleted ASAP.

Please reply on your own page only. I will read it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.43.73 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

This article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. If you believe the article should be deleted, please list it at WP:AfD where Wikipedians will discuss the article and decide what to do with it. Simply replacing its content with {{deletedpage}} could be viewed as vandalism. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If the word is an insult of sorts then it could well be A6? - Glen Stollery 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't know -- I have no idea what language it is, and the article appears to either be legitimate or a hoax (which is excluded from CSD). As anonymous up there stated, I'm just an idiot "administrative person" =D. I'll bring it to AfD in a sec, as anonymous apparently has not yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you beat me to it [1] =D. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great minds... - Glen Stollery

I have commented on the AFD as per your request. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. Always difficult to have an opinion on an article about a topic I know pretty much nothing about--I'm glad you were available to comment =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The AOL vandal

Now they're going around inserting "ts" into articles, should the range be blocked again? (see my contributions) —Khoikhoi 09:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cough. Unfortunately seems to be the only solution at the moment. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. AOL IPs shouldn't be listed on AIV, should they? —Khoikhoi 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, probably not. Something like this should more likely be reported in IRC channels or on WP:AN/I. Reporting to AIV will typically get the standard 15 minute block, which works on most vandals, but this guy ... oye ... I dunno what to do to be honest. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was just that one time my report got removed because it was an AOL IP. BTW, one final question if you don't mind me asking: should {{bv}} be used based on how much damage to the page is done, or what? I usually use it when someone blanks a page, but should I use it for this? —Khoikhoi 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may want to ask someone else on that one. I personally find the bv template is used far too liberally given the bluntness of the warning--I personally regard it as a template synonymous to {{test4}} or {{test4im}}; thus, it should really only be used following t2, t3, etc., but that's just my opinion. Others think its usage is justified after the first ill edit. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, I need to get some sleep now. BTW, "Indian" isn't a single language. :p —Khoikhoi 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm ... I was just about to correct that =D. (I'm always saying really dumb things like that, so embarassing.) Good nite, sleep tight, and don't let the bed bugs bite. I'm always available if you need me for anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright! :) —Khoikhoi 09:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing a limb

If you cut of your right foot, and act fast enough, you can get it reattached. "An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up going blind." -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a certain page

There used to be a page where I could see all current AfD discussions in a table with percentages etc.

It seems to have gone, could you reply to me with a link?

Figured the vandalism specialist would be a good one to contact here! --Matt 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about User:Dragons flight's AfD tables, which you can find here. Absolutely a great tool that DF came up with in my opinion, as well as his RfA summary. They're updated about every hour by User:DFBot and are quite suprisingly accurate. If there's anything else you need, feel free to let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New Username

Hey Daniel,

I should have thought to tell you beforehand but I've changed my username from User:Stollery to User:GIen (note that's G capital "i" en the "l" was taken) - could you please enable my mod access as soon as able as the requests line is backing up! Thanks :) - Glen 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mod reset

I need you to reset the mods again, type 13 mismatch. Prodego ^talk 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that: TBC has been renamed to Tree Biting Conspiracy and Stollery to GIen. Prodego ^talk 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be good now, sorry for the delay. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Prodego ^talk 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof version 1.3

When will this version (1.3) be avaliable to us for download? Booksworm Talk to me! 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully within the next couple of weeks, though I may put out a quick patch for some of these minor bugs sometime rather soon. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Porting VandalProof to Linux

Hi AmiDaniel, what language is VandalProof currently written in? I'm interested in porting it to Linux in a few months time during my spare time (if I graduate on time!). I'm currently doing all my counter-vandalism using Lupin's scripts, but having more firepower would be nice = )

Netsnipe 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe VandalProof is written in Visual Basic. Prodego ^talk 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Userpage edits

I took the liberty of fixing your Userpage, more specifically your userboxes. I hope this is OK with you, as it was annoying to me. Here is what it looked like to me (sorry about the large file size). It may have been Firefox's fault, but everything is better now.

--yaninass2 | talk 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

URGENT problem with VP

User_talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs#URGENT_PROBLEM_-_Watchlist --mboverload@ 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Some of the parts were content dispute-ish, but the anon kept removing the main image w/o any explanation, it's that vandalism? —Khoikhoi 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's disputable, but it seems like a content dispute to me, that is, the anon is not trying deliberately to deface the article. In any case, if it's decided that these edits are vandalism, I'd still say that it's not frequent enough to warrant protection. I'll keep an eye on the article for you, though, and step in if it does get out of hand. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I see what you're saying. Adios. —Khoikhoi 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I love how understanding you are =D. It makes it so much easier to work together. Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What, you think I was going to yell at you? :p You're welcome! —Khoikhoi 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at the majority of posts on my talk page, and you'll see why it's quite shocking everytime someone addresses me in a friendly and professional tone =P. I'm more used to "You asshole, I'm going to sue you and get you desysopped for this horrible abuse of your admin powers!" =S AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I see you protect a lot of pages to the wrong version, same on you. Then again, there's also the delightful privilege of getting your userpage vandalized 20 times a day. I actually sort of like it—they're almost like barnstars in a way. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nizami unlock

Agreements were made about the [Nizami] article. So I am requesting unlock. --Ali doostzadeh 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected Elvis page

Unfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See [2]. Onefortyone 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see m:The Wrong Version. My hands are tied; please discuss changes on the talk page, and once consensus has been reached, it will be unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Let me know if my revert of you was a mistake. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I got scared! —Khoikhoi 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

=D. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Get on IRC - mboverload —The preceding unsigned comment was added by mboverload (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Ummm ... I am on IRC. =S AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Patashnik.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patashnik.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gahhh... I uploaded that image months ago, and it's been nothing but headaches. Also, a little unfair when the image is tagged six days ago by some random and then I get notice that I have one day. For future reference, source was http://www.tug.org/tug2003/bulletin/highlights/photos/passport/jpg/patashnik.jpg, and according to the site, the images are all PD. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal-fighting

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your hard work defeating vandals, inventing VandalProof and being a good all-round editor of the encyclopedia. Sunholm(talk) 10:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks!! The barnstar is much appreciated, although you deserve one for your great countervandalism work last night as well. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nornna

hello AmiDaniel, can you redirect the Nornna article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#YouTube_stars

Mateus Zica 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

VP question (and extremely minor bug)

How did you block version 1.2 by placing "DONOTALLOW V1_0_0"? Wouldn't that block 1.0.0? Second the bug, when you use the mod tools to welcome new users, the cancel button does not change to done when you are finished if you welcomed more then 1 user. Prodego ^talk 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to change the code in between versions. As for the notify contributors function, I'm working on fixing it--just forgot a couple lines of code. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

WelcomeBot

Hi AmiDaniel: I recently proposed the idea of a WelcomeBot at Wikipedia:Bot requests and Template talk:Welcome and found that it was written off by Wikipedians almost immediately. After searching the 'pedia, I found that you've been kicking around this idea, too. Personally, I don't really understand the objection that this would "depersonalize" the Welcome process. Veteran users would continue to greet newbies: they'd just use a "Hi, I'm ABC!" instead of the rather impersonal {{subst:Welcome4}}. Anyways, I noticed that you said you could probably make such a bot. I have absolutely no programming experience but am interested in the idea of a pursuing this project. Would you want to bring a WelcomeBot to life? --Alex S 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh really! Glad to see I'm not the only proponent of this idea. Yes, I've been mildly pushing for a WelcomeBot for quite some time, and I would be more than glad to code the bot. I would however need to find someone else (or get a toolserver account) to host the bot for me, as I don't have a a server handy. I know that before I received my welcome I had no clue about the project, and after I received it ... well, I was an instant addict :). I agree that there is a central impersonal element, but I think a WelcomeBot would be quite advantageous. Is there a discussion going on about this somewhere? AmiDaniel (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sitenotice

The id used to be in there... I'm not sure when it was removed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 07:23

Thanks for the format changes! +sj + 10:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. And if you want to hide it altogether (like I have), you can open up your monobook.css and add "#sitenotice { display:none; }". AmiDaniel (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your UBX on Registration

Hi AmiDaniel. I was just looking over the userboxes on your main page, and I notice you have one which says you wish people would register with Wikipedia, but do not believe it should be required for them to edit a page. As an RC Patroller myself, and a member of the CVU, I have encountered numerous difficulties when it comes to dealing with Vandals who simply login thru an IP Address, rather than a username, which is easier to block and keep track of.

I would like to ask you why you object to people having to register in order to edit a page, since this would make both mine and your jobs a heck of a lot easier. Your may either reply here, as I will mark the page to my watchlist, or you may pin a message to my Large Hairy Icelandic Yak and I will collect it when I come on next.

Thanks for your time. Thor Malmjursson 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

From CVPJ

Thanks for the courteous reply on Ajit Someshwar. I looked at WP Auto and I assure you this is a bio, not an autobio, and I am not the subject, I am not Indian, I have very little contact with Indo-Canadians, though through a colleague, I do know Ajit and I thought he would make a worthwhile bio. Better if his book were done of course. You could probably guess at my own background by looking at some of the other things I've chosen to 'volunteer' for Wikipedia, and they have nothing to do with India or Indians. I think Wikipedia is a fantastic enterprise, but it needs to be wary about its occidental biases (and I'm occidental myself). I've already made the point about 14,000 'American bios' by W search, 6,000 German, 4,000 French, 2,000 Indian (these are rough figures, you must have better ones).

A search for 'Indo-Canadian bios' kicks out some five people, two of them the director and the Indo-Polish star of the film Water. By adding Ajit, the overall Indo-Canadian category was at least boosted a little - there are about three million South Asians in North America, a small nation if you like and they include 45,000 doctors in their own US association. However, I don't really want to ask for a deletion review - the tone of some of your reviewers ('Who is this guy', etc) suggests that's it better not to be in Wikipedia at all than to be rejected by it. The current Google search for Ajit kicks out the Wikipedia deletion as if he were rejected or outed for some crime - it has to be quite humiliating for him, and I don't even know how to broach that. In some areas of my journalism career, that 'publication' of what should perhaps be internal Wikipedia documents could even be construed as repeating a libellous or at least slanderous statement, and the US first amendment doesn't protect Wiki or Google in many countries (try defending a claim for lible in the UK). So there are a lot of issues still to be discussed in all of this.

However in the end I bow to your own W wisdom in deciding what is notable enough. But perhaps in your 'internal' discussions you need to find a way to be more discreet in how you do a deletion. I know that may do some damage to the open source idea, and to the freedom of 'insider' debates. I am all for open sourcing, it's the whole point of Wikidom. Finally I can tell you I was considering putting some others I know (not Indian) who have authored books or have some notability and might be worthy of a place, but I'm not going to risk it for their sakes. As an author of no importance myself, my own bio won't go in unless someone I don't know does it (and I'd probably be the first to call for a deletion).

Many thanksCvpj 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)cvpj

VandalProof

There is a problem with my VandalProof. All the links are followed by a link with ? and then the name, for instance:

• Zürich HB railway station?. When I click on these links, I get:

Error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "User:Booksworm/monobook.js‎ (Diff: 0, 0)".

This might be because no page has yet been created with this name, in which case you can start it by clicking the "edit this page" link.

If it is a recently changed page, trying again in a minute or two will usually work. Alternatively, you may have followed an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

Revisions that contain personal information disclosed without permission, may have been permanently removed.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this using the procedure given at Wikipedia:Bug reports, making note of the URL.

Retrieved from: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Booksworm/monobook.js%E2%80%8E"

Booksworm Talk to me! 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to download the patch, as I indicated on the welcome page, from the main page. That will fix the question mark and bad page title problems. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

copyvio?

Hi, I know you specialize in anti-vandalism, but it seems you know something about copyvio issues as well. If you have the time and inclination, would you take a quick look at DeVotchKa Lyrics? 99% of the article's content is the lyrics, and they seem to have been reproduced in their entirety. I get the impression that this is not strictly kosher but I lack the wiki-experience to be certain. If you do get a chance to look at it could you also post your opinion here? If I'm wrong I don't want to waste anyone else's time with similar issues. Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work; WP could use more like you :) Doc Tropics 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I've brought the article to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeVotchKa Lyrics, though I contemplated speedily deleting it as it provided no real context. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm learning :) Doc Tropics 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sitenotice

What you're looking for is

/* REMOVE THAT UGLY SITENOTICE*/

#siteNotice {
    display: none;
}

There already is an id with the "N" capitalized. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo, I already got that. Thanks, though. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandals and Spammers and Newbs OH MY!

Hi Ami! I am stuck between a rulebook, everyone telling me "No no no, never edit war", and seeing many blatant advertisers for porn or insignificant bands, etc. It is my humble opinion that the docs actually lead to edit wars. If anyone had any sense at all, they would insist that the 3RR be read first before giving out a username. Situations occur at random, and Wiki is VERY inviting and helpful as you know. "EDIT ME" it says, and that is encouraged. A newbie really has no idea what the difference is between a vandal or an editor that simply blanks out what they wrote. And when that occurs, the editor will cite WP:VER. Reading that educates some about the edit and leads to the vandalism pages on which the VERY FIRST listing of a vandalism act is blanking out what a user has done. Having no idea about revert rules, or one-word clauses, or the difference between an edit, a change, or anything else, the user is instructed to bring it to the discussion, and that new user is CONVINCED that they are in the right. You know what happened to me, and now I read on your site to go and hunt vandals! I'D LOVE TO, well, NO, well, yes, I am still confused, when I ask a question like "What is the appropriate first step when one sees what "may" be advertising, what "might not" be, on good faith?" and everyone ignores me. I go to the WP:AIV screen and it reads, "if this is not an act of vandalism . . ." and so the porn and spam prevail. Then I hear, "Oh, no, it's okay, because you are carrying out "policy"". I propose, therefore, to the WikiDevGods and Gurus, that a template be made that puts an article into a Category "Blatant Advertisers", and that when that occurs, an alarm bell is rung somewhere on somebody's desk who the user knows will at LEAST get around to it sometime. I'd be more than happy to report every vandal, spammer, and advertiser with a template that would keep me, the newbie, out of the picture, AT LEAST to the degree that when it came time, I would be advised of what actions occurred. Call it training if you will, but I think new users would be a lot more productive if they were able to see by example what they should have done, without having to go through it themselves. Thanks! And I hope you're feeling better soon. :) Ste4k 10:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Health issues

I can't find a nice image, so I'll do it in words: Get Well Soon AmiDaniel —Xyrael _{/ 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)}

Thank you, Xyrael! I'm trying my hardest to get better, but I'm likely going to be relatively inactive for the next few days. It will prolly do me good to walk away from the Wiki for a bit though =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'm so jealous that you get so many messages on your talkpage though. —Xyrael _{/ 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)}

New America Founcation

Hi - I've noticed this article with a typo in the title. Still pretty new here, and don't know how to get this corrected. Could you help, please? regards. --MichaelMaggs 06:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has already dealt with it. Sorry for my really slow response, I'm a little out of things at the moment =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilwell Campsite

I removed the stub and merge tags as I merged the article into the Scout Association of Hong Kong Article. Please delete it as the article has been merged.

hongkongtechkid 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best not to delete the article, as its history should be preserved for GFDL reasons; however, its history shouldn't at the same time be merged. I'd suggest that you simply convert it into a redirect for now, which you can do yourself. If you'd like me to do this for you however, please let me know, and I'll do so gladly. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More Mieciu problems

If you go on kosovo war you will find links that proove my point on June 11th and we need to change casualty list since it is not neutral. Remove protection and post version before mieciu vandalized it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.168 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

If you believe there to be consensus for your opinions on the article, please request unprotection. I would however like to ask that you please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; it's quite inappropriate to refer to good-faith contributions as vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Aimcool

Thanks for the temporary block, however I recommend this user be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account and sockpuppet - the same as the other socks vandalizing this article. See this link: [3] The socks have been used for the last 7 days to commit the exact same vandalism to both the Ronnie Coleman and buttocks articles. Thanks again. Yankees76 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I digress, someone's already done it. Thanks! Yankees76 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)