User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-18

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on October 30, 2007. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Template:Infobox Musical artist move cleanup

I've found some more pages that should be moved, see WT:MUSICIAN#Consensus. Thanks. --PEJL 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One more if you have the time: Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Req: Cleanup after move. --PEJL 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did the "one more", so that's finished. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For an hour's worth of help with my chem lab report. MessedRocker (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning:Javascript security issue

Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Easy db because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle_101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that thing... eh. I just edited it so that it wouldn't put things in CAT:CSD. Ok... Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Pepoopalop

Hi there; do you really not see this as a username violation? Try saying it "pee-poop-plop". I will not wheel-war, but I seriously ask you to re-visit this one. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but since it took a stretch like that to find the violation, I decided to assume good faith. If you really think it's a problem, I don't have a problem with you blocking it. Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can learn

hello,

i was dismayed to learn that you categorized my "i can learn" wiki page as "advertising" or promotional material. what part of it, exactly, was promotional? i'm a journalist by trade, and i can tell you that the issue of computers in the classroom is a huge, heated topic. if you're so sure it's spam, why don't you throw it up there and see if other educational researchers agree? what, exactly, will it hurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelejacobs (talk • contribs) 19:47, October 24, 2007 (UTC)

What made me think of it that way was the method used to describe it, which is often used by people adding advertising: a series of facts about the company, using wordings and facts that make the product seem desirable or effective (the hallmark of advertising).

Specifically, the following made me think it was so and gave me cause to remove it:

The post follows a classic pattern of spam: a quick introduction to the concept, some nondescriptive number words (e.g. "there are hundreds of lessons available online", also known as peacock terms in this context), and then a promotional ending (e.g. "students are said to learn 53 percent faster and retain 37 percent more"), with links to the organization's website embedded in the text.
It did not cite any reliable sources - this is highly desirable to establish verifiability and notability
The post used bad wikicode syntax. This isn't much of a problem, but much of the spam we delete is poor in this regard, so badly-formatted pages are more likely to be read more closely for other problems.

Since your edit fit this pattern, and having come not long before from deleting promotional material, it seemed clear to me at the time that the material was promotional. I am willing to accept that that is not the case. I would recommend, to maximise your chances of having a new article accepted that you review Wikipedia:Your first article (a good general reference), add references to reliable, third-party sources (help is available at Wikipedia:Footnotes), and try again. Also, since the article is currently a redirect, please add a hatnote to the top of the page linking to the target of the current redirect upon replacing it.

I'm sorry that I erroneously categorized your changes as spam, but I would recommend substantial improvements in your article before you re-post it, lest someone else repeat my error. Hope that helps, and if you have any further questions feel free to ask. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

I'm puzzled about this edit. Is this page actually linked to the ArbCom? ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in the ArbCom or the request in question, but it was asked that it be undeleted because that request is active, so I figure that we can hold off on having or leaving it deleted just yet - if it isn't involved with the ArbCom, it shouldn't be a real problem for it to wait a while, should it? :) Besides, the first line of the single version which was not a request for deletion is {{POV|Arbcom}}, so I'm somewhat skeptical both ways. Good luck, Nihiltres^(t.l) 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All hail Nihiltres, < imagemap > wonderboy

Ooo, a ducksheep. I will ride it into battle in my quest against the savage {{click}}. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Just in!

Hello, sorry to bother you, But I have uncovered a 3-user sockpuppet ring. These users have created accounts for vandalism, then abandoned those accounts and created new ones. All three users are as follows:

Hargon10, The original user that was hacked. Omnifish and Omnihargon10 the newest in the sockpuppet ring.

Please check this out. I'm very sure that this entire ring is sockpuppetry, and a terrible attempt at that.

RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More info!

Suspected Wikipedia Sockpuppets of Hargon10.

All you'll need to know.

RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Hargon10 as vandal-only, Omnihargon10 as a sockpuppet, and I've left a final warning (really, pretty much an ultimatum) on Omnifish's page. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I've fixed the signature. Interesting that I didn't see that. Well, thanks for helping me uncover the sockpuppet/vandal ring, and cheers to you! RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out...

here.

I have changed my username too many times. This is their attempt to show who they are. I know all of them, just block all those users. They're all just idiots I know trying to pull pranks. I'm not going to change my username, I can find their IP's and you can block those too once you get around to it.

One IP is this: 76.202.209.212

Thanks for your help.

RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if any false claims are made, real life confirmation has concluded that all these people are a group of vandals who are out to cause terror in one way or another. They probably meet in their mom's basement on friday nights. Losers. --RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much more - unless they're actively disrupting the project, we aren't supposed to block (in general, it's more subtle than that). I don't think I can do much more right now. The IPs... bring them to AIV if and when they vandalize - it's not worth it to report these directly to me since I'm not on all the time, and I will not indef block an IP. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Valley Schools

Thanks for stepping in and protecting the article. I was busy deleting all of the stupid image uploads, figuring out who was who, and blocking a few accounts. Kids. =\ -- Gogo Dodo 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, though Belinrahs deserves the credit for asking for help on IRC. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 06:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, was wondering why you noticed the article. Something is fishy though. See User talk:Belinrahs. When I blocked what I thought was the vandal created clone/attack account Belinrahss (talk · contribs · block log), Belinrahs got caught in the autoblock. -- Gogo Dodo 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Belinrahs on IRC, it's his brother in the same house, which sounds plausible. Nihiltres^(t.l) 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though the edit history of 67.143.191.6 (talk · contribs) isn't exactly stellar. Since you're talking with him (I don't do IRC), I'll let you decide if he is being truthful or if the whole household needs a wikibreak. -- Gogo Dodo 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-block 67.143.191.6 directly with anon-only enabled - which should allow Belinrahs, who seems fine, to edit, while preventing further vandalism. Nihiltres^(t.l) 06:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nihiltres, for trusting me. I'm a 13 year old, and my brother is a 17 year old. How am I to stop him? (Oh, btw, he told me before I secretly went to work trying to fix the mess, that all his friends at school have been having fun vandalizing the article. Just in case it helps.) --¤Belinrahs ^talk/_contribs¤

Since the page is now semi-protected, that shouldn't be a problem anymore, though if it is, the protection can be extended, the vandals can be blocked, and we can laugh at their petty attempts to damage the page. Nihiltres^(t.l) 06:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks Nihiltres for the help :) ¤Belinrahs ^talk/_contribs¤

AutoNOC

Hi Nihiltres. You blanked and protected the AutoNOC AfD. If you have the time, would you please respond to this DRV request that the contents of AutoNOC be restored by sending to usermail. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]