Jump to content

User talk:Nn123645/2008/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Accusation of vandalism and spam

I don't consider the amendments I made to the Kyal Marsh article to be spam or vandalism. I added a link to a freely available picture and updated another link which was broken. If that is spam, advertising or vandalism I will abstain from using Wikipedia. I am satisfied that my amendments are within the Wikipedia guidelines. Oxfordmale (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look a bit more closely at that edit I see that. Disregard my revert. I apologize for the warn.-- Nn123645 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Nn123645 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UnCatBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 03:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with this. Fireproeng (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Np, hopefully it will resolve the issue, if not, well I guess I tried. If he continues I would proceed with a User Conduct RfC, I will certify it if comes to that becuase if he continues, I will regard that as trying and failing to resolve the dispute. -- Nn123645 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Hertz

In continue to hertz's jewish ancestry discussion look what i have offered and tell me if its fine by you.(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider re-visiting Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry. I'd be interested in your feedback about the suggested edit strategy I've proposed. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am reading the proposal now. Since I think this is out of the scope of WP:3O I have requested an RFC on the issue. --Nn123645 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your prose

Digesting, thanks. Will look at it more over the weekend. --Achim (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if you have any questions feel free to ask me and I will try to help to the best of my ability. Please note that if you ignore what I have discussed and continue with disruptive behaviour there is really nothing I can do but escalate this to the next step in dispute resolution, which would be a user conduct request for comment (abbreviated as a RFC/U). A RFC/U is somewhat like an involuntary editor review in which all your actions will come under scrutiny. I think everything can be resolved outside of RFC so I look forward to settling this dispute =). -- Nn123645 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of tangling with you. You took a lot of time to write to me, late at night, so I suppose you must have a point. This does not mean that I change where I stand with regards to Fireproeng et al. I will simply have to be even more politically correct in how I write. An epiphany for me was something I saw on the page Fräulein. It had been vandalised by someone who was an expert sock puppeteer. Darkspots was fighting this nonsense and had asked for my input. I then edited an explanation about German suffixes and put that the use of the term Fräulein is no longer politically correct in Germany, which is an accurate description. Then, someone changed that from politically correct to appropriate. I won't meddle with it, because it means pretty much the same thing. But here we are in this society, at a point, where it is no longer politically correct to say politically correct. Where will this end? All we have anymore is these absolute extremes, South Park on one side and on the other we have this newly contrived excuse for communications where you have to strain ad nauseum to say what you mean and think and re-think it because you cannot say things quickly and briefly anymore because then you're subject to anti-social labels, such as incivil, etc. I also notice that some are more equal than others on here. People do gang up on one another and it is this sort of sick game, which I find utterly repulsive. But so be it. That is what the communications on here have been reduced to. So be it. I am no fan of it. I find it distasteful and insincere, much more than what is being leveled at me. I gather, however, that you personally are being sincere in what you have written to me. So I don't see you personally in any bad light at all. I believe you are being used though. But that does not matter, since I will do my best that my prose cannot be interpreted as being of ill intent, which I believe is your intention. --Achim (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

UnCatBot

Here, your bot added its template to an article. Confused about how the lack of categories could have escaped my attention, I guessed they had been removed, and, sure enough, an unexplained blanking was the prior edit. Would it possible to add functionality to the bot to check for category removal in the last three edits or so, and make note of it somewhere? Picaroon (t) 03:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently UnCatBot is pretty basic. It just uses the features already written into AWB to make its edits based off Special:Uncategorizedpages whenever I notice that the cache has been updated. I would however eventually like to expand the bot, but currently I lack the programming knowledge and expertise to do so. I am in the process of learning PHP as well as C# and am really just at the beginning level. I do like this idea however and will try to implement it as soon as I figure out how to do so =). Another thing I would like to add to the bot is the ability to tag obvious stubs. AWB is supposed to do this with the Autotag option however it doesn't seem to do that good of a job. Eventually I would like to move the entire bot off of AWB and possibly create something from scratch in C# but I have a lot to learn before I'm ready to do that. -- Nn123645 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

About the RfC

I was waiting for it to be certified before I notified him to avoid any members of the Dash Jr (talk · contribs) sockfarm getting to it and vandalizing it, as the only way to differentiate V-Dash from Dash Jr (or his socks) is via checkuser. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ahh sorry about that, I was unaware. I thought you simply forgot to do it. I have added the article to my watchlist and will be looking at all changes for vandalism. I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea to request another checkuser if the RfC is confirmed to see if there are any active socks that have been created since the last checkuser that might bring to light new evidence for the RfC. Though I'm not too familiar with the checkuser policy and don't really know if such a request might be approved. -- Nn123645 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've requested a few CU cases, and I can say that such requests are denied as "fishing" and not performed - you need evidence of a problem. Besides, V-Dash has not used a sockpuppet since Vdx10 (used to bring a baseless complaint against me at AN/I). In any case I was waiting because Dash Jr has a habit of popping up in places where V-Dash is and causing trouble indistinguishable from V-Dash's behavior. This means that in order to determine who is who, a CU has to be done - Dash Jr and V-Dash use different IPs and are either static or remain in close range to their past IPs (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantlefish). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I read from what the Wandering Hero linked me to, PolluxFrost - who is Dash Jr here - appears to be one of your most vocal detractors over at GFAQs. At the very least, you responded to his criticisms about your methods. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Message boards could be reliable if you had a verified person who was knowledgeable on a subject, for instance a university professor discussing something on an official message board where the users are verified on their identity. However your average message board can't be considered reliable because anyone could post to it. This is the same reason non-notable blogs can't be cited. Since anything anybody can post anything they aren't reliable. -- Nn123645 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. The university professor thing was just an example. If you need experts to clarify something on an article there are templates that you can place to request it. Mostly though you should just try to find a reliable source and get it clarified that way. If you need to you could list an article for RFC, to try to get a consensus on a content dispute. But again, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “said subject”. -- Nn123645 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused about this as well, but I believe that V-Dash was referring to the implied association he has with others on GameFAQs. (PS, no need for a talkback template on my page, ;P) MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahh, ok. Well I do have to agree with that to some extent. Different places have different rules, and you shouldn't be punished here for bad behaviour somewhere else. That doesn't make any sense, as long as you are following Wikipedia's rules, everywhere else is irreverent in the context of wikipedia.-- Nn123645 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that V-Dash is doing essentially the same thing here as he was on GFAQs. If one was acting a certain way on another site and repeats that behavior on Wikipedia, off-wiki behavior can be considered. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So Jeske, what you are saying is that a message board is reliable source? You see, this is the point I have been trying to make all along. Jeske's trying to alter things to picture him in the light while I am in the dark. I have clarified on the point already.V-Dash (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which means I don't get the benefit of reliable sources. If someone were to post something from one of the internet forums I'm part of and it was relevant to my behavior, it would apply iff I was doing the exact same thing here. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Forums are not reliable sources for use in articles. A user's conduct is not an article. Even you can't argue that, V-Dash. Forums are fine for comparing a user's behaviour and conduct towards others on the two websites. How a user acts has no relation to sourcing an article. I cannot see your point at all. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Melicans. You keep going on about how we are using forums as a source. We are using them as an example of your behaviour, not as a source for facts on an article. The reason they aren't reliable is because they have user generated content, and unless that content is generated by someone who is regarded as a knowlegable person on the subject, you can't really trust them. Any 4 year old could type that the sky is pink into a forum, however that is obviously not true. Thus that is the reason why they can't be trusted. However when it comes to behaviour that is no longer an issue. As long as there is significant proof that you are coorlated to someone on a forum everything you do there could be cited as it was generated by you. -- Nn123645 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What the fudge? Why are you guys messing up the page with the...forget it.V-Dash (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored the discussion to make it easier to see what is a reply and what isn't as per the talk page guidelines. Typically when you want to reply to someone you indent your comment with a colon (:). In this case I have used bullets, which are less common, but due to the number of indentations it kind of made it easer to read. To see the full explination of talk pages look at the talk page article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn123645 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 January 2008

Oops

Sorry about that. I think I got mixed up with your comment on User_talk:ClueBot sorry! PseudoOne (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, fixed it :). -- Nn123645 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User Sub Page

The UncatBot has placed a tag on one of my user subpages as "an article needing to be placed in a category". I believe that User subp[ages don't need to fall into any categories. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am incorrect please put the subpage into any category you feel it belongs in. However if I am right then please some way prevent the bot from tagging my subpage thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I will set it up to only tag articles in the mainspace. -- Nn123645 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The UNCATBOT is still tagging my user sub page :( Please set it up to tag only articles as soon as possible. JayJ47 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you are refering to (this article). User subpages are supposed to be created in the User: namespace, you have yours created in the regular article name space, this is why your article is being tagged. As long as your article is in the article namespace it is considered a regular article and not a user subpage. I would recommend requesting speedy deletion under criteron U1 of your redirect page (here) then moving the article to the user namespace. -- Nn123645 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Calvert High School (Prince Frederick, Maryland)

It's too bad that your UnCatBot couldn't recognize that the reason there were no cats on this article was because it had just been vandalized. clariosophic (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above I currently lack the programming knowelge to expand UnCatBot. I will try to implement something to detect vandalism as soon as possible :). Possibly along with another way of getting uncategorized pages to check. -- Nn123645 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nn123645/2008/January&oldid=1052148754"