User talk:SpuriousQ/Archive 2

thanks

thank you so much, mr. smarty. really. thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.138.150 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

oh, and..

this is a university computer.. so i dont give a f--k if you block this IP address. :) have a terrible day, @#$#@$ @#$%$# ! :) :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.138.150 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Using an appropriate sequence of vandalism warnings

I'm a bit confused about your warning to User:James116 on his talk page about vandalism. This user has indulged in multiple incidents of vandalism today, and I think that a single warning from you mentioning no specific incidents probably does not accurately reflect the reality of this user's actions enough. It does not allow for the proper escalation of warnings to be given so that an administrator can step in, when appropriate, to take more firm action against the user. I've gone through the user's contributions for today, and, given the timing of the warning you posted, a total of six separate incidents occurred, including 2 after your message. This would certainly have allowed for the due process to take place, which has been thwarted a little, but perhaps not entirely, by your warning as it stands. Can I politely encourage you to consider the advantages of logging each incident of vandalism separately so that users who are primarily just concerned with vandalising can have aprpropriate action taken against them as soon as is practical to avoid them doing too much damage to Wikipedia? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's actually not neccessary to log every vandal edit as we don't strictly follow a five vandal edits = block formula, especially for such a blatant case. I noticed one of his vandalisms, checked his history and saw he'd done a bunch since his most recent warning (he had received two priors) and warned him that he would be blocked if he did it again. There's no reason to issue a separate warning for past vandalisms if they went unnoticed before. Had I noticed his two vandalisms after my warning, I would have reported to WP:AIV. Will do so now. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Johntex

Hello, thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishima

My bad on the references, pretty tired and got into sort of a drone mode Thesaddestday 12:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, no worries at all, I know the feeling. I was just happy someone edited the article after I started it :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What action do you recommend for edits such as those by 64.91.7.138?

What action do you recommend for edits such as those by 64.91.7.138? 75.185.66.16 04:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, revert and warn. But it's an IP and the edits took place so long ago that it's possible someone else is using that address, so in this case there's nothing really to be done. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for some more general guidelines on how to deal with vandalism. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've bookmarked your link for the next such writer. 75.185.66.16 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping with Assassin (game) RyanTMulligan 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a douchebag

WTF are you talking about unsourced material moron? Didn't you see the movie? He did it on camera. Ask someone you know who's actually a Jackass fan since you're apparently not. As for defamatory, hey I didn't tell him to chug horse spunk. Fucking fascist wannabe censor drone get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.38.182.112 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Watch your personal attacks, they will not be tolerated here. Something done on camera to perform or entertain should not be inserted in the biography in the manner you did, e.g., "HE ALSO LOVES DRINKING HORSE JIZZ!!!!!". It is again, unsourced and defamatory; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, if you mean the $ signs, that's been happening for a while. It's because I'm not an admin, I just use the popup system to revert, and it creates its own edit summary. I've tried to do things about it, but it's not that bad! Thanks for taking an interest, though.--Rambutan (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NIN

Thats what he said, "FUCK fucking fox news", it was on his nin.com update.

The cited source (which isn't all that reliable) says, "Thanks for the Fox News heads-up. A cease and desist has been issued. FUCK Fox Fucking News." If you can provide a better source with an accurate quotation, please do. And a tip for the future, explain in your edit summary what you're doing, otherwise it may look like you're just arbitrarily changing quoted text. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the revert on Evolution. I saw I hadn't gone far enough but lag... ah well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I note that you are both a douchebag as well as a moron - have you considered standing for admin? This is a serious not a trolling or joke question. You've been registered since 5 June 2005, you have 5897 edits, and you clearly deal with trolling and personal attacks calmly. You are a vandalism reverter; the tools could help you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah I've been thinking about it, especially because I feel I could help out at WP:AIV, whereas now I'm piling on to the backlog. I'm a bit concerned I wouldn't pass the RfA, however, because I've only been very active the past few months, with over half of my edits from this month. I will probably seek it at a later date. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

61.68.192.238

sorry mate i never realized you could edit the pages

i was just mucking around wont happen again

i just think some information is misleading and some isnt there at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.192.238 (talk • contribs)

No need to apologize, you're welcome to make constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Linksearch

Re [1]: I'm delighted to see that someone else took note of the linksearch tags! However, the main idea is not only to provide an easy search link, but also to leave a 'live' weblink on the talkpage (it won't improve their search ranking due to the nofollow tag). This way, earlier warnings for the same spam will be interlinked through the linksearch, which will help a great deal keeping track of repeat spammers and their sock accounts. Though it doesn't really matter how the links are placed on the page, I've created {{subst:spam interlink}} for convenience. For a wider search, the domain should be reduced to a minimum, see also the documentation of the similar {{spam-i}}. Femto 11:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh very interesting, I didn't think of that. I'm still a bit hesitant to place a live link, though, in case someday the nofollow tags are switched off, as has been done before. Do you know if that is at all a possibility, or if there would be an easy way to remove these links if necessary? I suppose, however, there would never be a good reason to not have nofollows on pages outside article space. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps except for the article space, I think there'll never be a reason to switch off nofollow anywhere. In the meanwhile we might just as well take advantage of it and keep adding to the reason not to disable it on user talk pages. :) Femto 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

info

i need a little more info and i thought i would get it from somebody firsthand. if you could just sum up the idea of nanotech in just a couple sentences that would be great. Thanks. 65.103.159.21 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)jackson owens65.103.159.21 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

I do apologize if some of the wrong tags get applied. I am working on my project of clearing out the unassessed articles in the WPBIO project, and most articles need the {{expand}} and {{unreferenced}} tags. I put it {{wfy}} so that will be compliant with the WPBiography standards. A lot of it is copying and pasting on some occassions I forget to remove that tag. A lot of the articles are stub/start class, but it does not hurt to have someone peruse the article again to make sure I am insane and then remove it. I apologize if this has caused any confusion and if you feel I have unjustly tagged an article for wikifying just remove the tag, no harm done. Thanks! --Ozgod 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. However, I'm still not sure what the wfy tag is referring to, the page you directed me to is big and doesn't seem to really explain it. Can you point me to the WPBiography standards pertaining to this? -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Username tag

No, I don't think he removed his own tag. I wasn't thinking and I put the wrong username tag on his page and I never got back to putting on the right one; thanks, though! Wikipedian27 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what happened. No worries. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinatown, LA

With regard to the Chinatown article, it rambled a lot and gave specifics about businesses that read like advertisements. For an LA neighborhood article, it runs at least 10x longer than the average other article, and with a lot of information that doesn't seem particularly relevant or interesting. I removed a couple of what I felt were the most egregious cases of this. I think the article is still far too long for its purpose, but I'll let others deal with that if they think that is the case.

Best regards, Tckrtckr 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I respect your judgment and thanks for the explanation. I was just checking recent changes and couldn't tell if yours were in good faith or not. In the future, I'd recommend using an edit summary and the article's talk page when making such substantial changes, especially deletions, so people know what you're doing. No harm done—I wouldn't oppose if you want to reinstate your change. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!

.. for reverting the FSU vandal who just hit my user page. Thanks :) - Alison^✍ 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I must say though, this guy's persistence (on your and Gwernol's pages) is bizarre and has piqued my curiousity. Do you know what caused such a reaction? -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep! He started off as a sneaky vandal about two months back, hopping around the Florida State University netblock. He'd been getting away with it for a while until I figured out his game and started reverting his changes. Had the cites to back me up. He got more and more destructive & eventually started hitting my userpage. Gwernol got involved when he blocked him after I reported him on WP:AIV. Then Gwernol and a bunch of other editors (Ryan, Abtract and others) started monitoring the vandal. He got to hate myself and Gwernol - started calling me a repulsive bitch and more. And on it goes ...

Thanks for the help earlier! :) - Alison^✍ 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I recall reverting some sneaky vandalism from an FSU IP about a month ago, and at the time considered that it could be some sort of improvised research project on Wikipedia (seems quite unlikely now). I don't know what he's trying to accomplish with all these user page vandalisms, but whatever it is I'll keep an eye out. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! They'll doubtless be back. I figured you were either watching mine or Gwernol's userpage as you reverted in seconds :) - Alison^✍ 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My IP

I'd like to inform you that if you block this IP address for editing, you will be blocking the entire school network. As a teacher on this network, I'd appreciate it if you didn't block our static IP address for editing. I will do my best to inform my kids about appropriate Wiki editing and how to not vandalize, but until that time, I hope you consider keeping our IP operable.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.33.5 (talk • contribs)

Hi! Thanks for your message and responsiveness in this matter. Blocks for shared school IPs are typically issued only for very persistent vandalism in a short time interval, which doesn't appear to be the case here. Furthermore, the blocks are temporary, but with longer durations for chronic cases. I'll indicate on the IP's talk page that it is a shared school IP. It would be helpful if you could provide us with a URL of the school. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the reply. Here's the URL if you need it: www.rondout.org. We're a small school of roughly 120, so it shouldn't be that hard to find out who's doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.158.33.5 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I put it on the talk page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations!!!

You are now recognized as a recipient of the Big Boss Award. Thank you for undoing the vandalism on my userpage. This is my way of showing thanks to dedicated wikipedians. Big Boss 0 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has been recognized as a Big Boss Award recipient.

I don't remember doing this, but thanks! -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Ok I am sorry SpuriousQ! I won't do it again. --Spebi^[talk] 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ALRIGHT! LEAVE ME ALONE.

IM SICK OF YOU WIKIPEDIA. YOU ARE INCREDIBLY INNACCURATE. SO STOP SENDING ME MESSAGES. I DONT EVEN HAVE AN ACCOUNT HERE. HONESTLY. I WILL COMPLAIN THE NEXT TIME THIS HAPPENS. I WILL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.148.150 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Erm, I am not Wikipedia... -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pentz

SpuriousQ said: Hi Bobo, you deleted Pentz, but I could have sworn there was a legit article there before the vandalism hit. Can you check the edit history to make sure? Thanks.

Previous versions of the article include revisions about a "homosexual, loud dog", a flamer named Jordan Pentz (along with an image link to Facebook), and some (albeit rather impressive) ASCII art. No revision of this article has been in any way encyclopedic, and it is likely to always remain that way.

Regards. Bobo. 07:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird, guess I was wrong. But thanks for looking into it! -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries whatsoever. It's always a worry when an article has been deleted multiple times that at least one of those revisions, somewhere, must be notable. It's just a case of wheedling out the right ones and doing whatever possible to put the article where it belongs, whether it be deleted, as previously, or reverted. Thank you. Bobo. 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE..

CAN YOU PLEASE GET RID OF "mike paget" this site is killing me please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.127.193 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Responded on your talk. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on reverting the vandal on Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. The vandal was blocked indef by an admin. --Mattarata 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, was just doing my usual recent changes monitoring. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

nonsense.

I realize you, and others, are for some reason doing their best to keep negative information off the Paris Hilton page - but photographs and video are about as conclusive evidence as you can get, short of her admitting as much herself to Barbara Walters. It doesn't matter whether the information comes from Youtube.com or Awfulplasticsurgery.com, ANYONE can view the images/video first-hand, so there is no question of the reliability of the source, the sources are direct, they are PRIMARY SOURCES.

furthermore, any "inferences" made do not require an appeal to a "reliable source", since they are mere logical deductions. A) Gossip press says Hilton is racist against African-Americans; B) Footage exists of her using ethnic slurs. There is no "original research" or "inference" there.

and why are you using the inclusive "we"? are you among a select few that dictate wikipedia policy? no? i thought not.

I'm providing facts, you're deleting them. I can't for the life of me fathom why...

The ParisExposed.com website is one of the most significant things ever to happen to her career, and is all over network news stations around the world - yet you, and a group of editors who appear to be Paris Hilton "fans", don't wish Wikipedia to make anything other than the most off-hand, dismissive reference to it, while detailing 37KB of positive or neutral information.... Ledenierhomme 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You still seem unfamiliar with WP:ATT. Secondary sources are nearly always preferred over primary ones. Your most recent edit consists of the following:

1. An assertion that Hilton is "a naturally brown eyed brunette" using photographs here as a source. This website does not have any claim to credibility. There is no verification that (1) the photos are in fact of Paris Hilton, and (2) the earlier photo depicts her natural appearance. Furthermore, whether this is even notable is open to debate, which is another reason Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources. If a reliable one has done so, it probably can go in the article.
2. An assertion that Hilton uses the terms "chink", "niggers", and "faggot" on the videos. This is first problematic because no source is provided; an Internet video is unacceptable because there is no verification that it is genuine. On a different level, the information is poorly presented without context (who was she addressing?) or explanation of its implications (has anyone notable commented on it? Has Paris made a comment?). You could write that same sentence for a comedian's act, but of course would not unless it was commented on by an outside source providing more information on why it is notable.
3. An assertion that the racial slurs give "credence to earlier rumors in the gossip press regarding Hilton being racist towards African-Americans". This is a personal interpretation finding a connection between two separate events, not a straightforward logical deduction. Same with the comment that the herpes prescription "appears to confirm the truthfulness...that she suffers from the sexually-transmitted disease"
4. A partial list of items found in the locker. This again must be attributed to a reliable source.

I'm all for appropriate detail and don't care whether the information is positive or negative, but it must be well-backed by outside sources. I have actually spent a good deal of time trying to expand on the ParisExposed.com incident. The only sources I could find referring to racial/homophobic slurs were the New York Post and The Daily Telegraph (Australia)—hardly reliable sources—and the treatment was too weak for inclusion here (e.g., NY Post simply says she's seen "hitting the dance floor with sister Nicky and boldly declaring, "We're like two n-----s."). -SpuriousQ (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight. It's okay to reference YouTube when it's something positive ("Paris Hilton has her own channel in YouTube which is currently the #34 most subscribed channel of all time on the service, with over 10,000 subscriptions and 2,000,000 views.") but not negative (her saying "niggers")... the context is clear by the way, and you know it. Same goes for The Daily Telegraph (Australia) in reference 4.

Also, TMZ.com, TheBosh.com, Filmbug.com, E! Online, dailycal, and other websites of questionable credibility are referenced throughout with positive information - whereas when it comes to negative information, New York Post and Sydney's largest newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, are, according to your good self, "hardly reliable sources".

Despite your quite humorous attempts to appear devoted to academic rigour and source objectivity, it's clear your will go to any length to keep negative information off this page, no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical you look. Whatever. I've got more important things to do with my time, like marking about 50 essays before this weekend. I hope you get to meet Ms Hilton one day, I'm sure she'll go for your type............ HA! Ledenierhomme 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued on Talk:Paris Hilton. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported the Clone User:SpuriousQu

You have a clone User_talk:SpuriousQu I have reported him to AVI [2] and he was indef blocked. Leafyplant 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, thank you very much. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

edits

I have not edited any pages on this site. There is someone else in my office with a shared IP address and they are doing the editing. Please stop sending me warnings.

Right, the warnings go to everyone using that IP. If they really bother you, you should create an account, or better yet, try to get your colleague to stop making bad edits :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris

Cheers for cleaning the muppetry off my talk page. Chris Bradshaw 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries! -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

simple thanks from new user

Just wanted to let you know that I thought the "welcome" message you sent was a great touch. I've been a big fan of WP for a long time, and I'm a seasoned writer (in other areas), so my inception as a contributor to WP has been a long time coming. The learning curve was surprisingly gentle (though I am a lifelong techie, but still : )

With the welcome letter, you filled in what few questions I still had remaining, and you encouraged some suggestions that I have happily now made into regular habit.

I've done enough damage... I mean, improvement for the betterment of WikiKind for one day.

You may just be "doing your job" by guiding new users, but I owe you the thanks you deserve. You put a human face on WP, and even though I didn't think it was possible, I admire and embrace the whole concept even more than I did this time yesterday.

Thanks! Feel free to contact me any time. I think I've left my email address open, but in case I haven't, it's ManfrenjenStJohn.wikipedia at hackwrench dot com. Like, you know, you're not busy welcoming 8 billion new users a day. : )

Props Where Props are Due, -- user:ManfrenjenStJohn -- ManfrenjenStJohn 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm glad it made some difference and hope you find this place as cool as I have. Feel free to contact me too on my talk page, I'll be happy to answer any questions :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious about Spurious (...God I need sleep!)

OK, sorry for the "cute" headline. : )

Nice to be working with you on Wiki!

I'm new as an editor (you knew that), but I've been interested in WikiP for ages. Can you tell me, or link me, so that I might understand what your role is? I mean, I get it to some extent... you're a shepherd for new editors like me. (I'm a systems guy, you can get as technical as you like in your response.) I've read your suggestions and your talk page and it's all been very helpful and informative. But what I'm missing is: What are your "magical powers", for (horrid) lack of a better metaphor. Do you have an assigned area of topics/interests? When and how did I show up on your radar so you could observe and help me? How exactly did I enter your "airspace"?

Hungry for info. : )

Thanks! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 09:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, MSJ. I actually have no official role or extra permissions here; I'm an editor just like you. (There are people in the admins group and other access groups that have more privileges.) A lot of what I do here is monitoring recent changes to revert just plain bad-faith or misguided edits, but I also try to welcome or help out newcomers when I see them. I've been slowly developing my own software to help me monitor the RC feed, but there's a lot of available programs and other information listed at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm....

Not to seem a bit obtrusive, being new and all, but quite a bit of the information on the site regarding Warhammer 40,000 and the races and characters related to it is incorrect. However, I am just a bit intimidated, being that I would say too much, or not enough, or just not detailed in a way that would meet this website's standards. If you could please take some time to help me out, that would be wonderful. Thank you --Guilliaman 05:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have to say this topic is really outside my knowledge. But if I could give some general advice, I'd say go ahead, be bold and improve the articles as you see fit. The fact that you're taking the time to ask these questions shows you're a conscientious and capable editor, so I wouldn't be too worried.

How much detail to go into for a fictional universe like this is a bit of a gray area. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and everything in it should be notable to a significant proportion of people outside just a limited and specific fanbase. A helpful guideline to read for this case is WP:FICT, along with the more general WP:N.

One specific thing you can do is start writing edit summaries along with your edits to help other people understand what changes you've made and why. If at all possible, cite reliable sources to justify your claims, but since you're dealing with a fictional universe, it may be a bit difficult.

I was going to direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, but I see you've already found it. You might try to bring up your concerns there, especially you envision making massive changes that would benefit from collaboration with other interested people. All in all, have fun and if you have more specific questions you want to ask me, I'll try to answer them :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry

I didn't notice that bit about the edit summary.

And, I hate to say it, but I'm nowhere near as good an editor as I may or may not appear to be.

Thanks for the compliment though. Oh, and, how would I be able to cite a Games Workshop Codex? --Guilliaman 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I know what that is, but keep in mind the purpose of citing is to give enough information to enable anyone to find the source. If it's a book, try the "cite book" template at Wikipedia:Citation templates. A really useful tool for automatically generating the citation, if you have the ISBN, is here: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/isbn2wiki.php. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Codexes are specified army lists in book form, with background information and variations. The only problem is, I don't know offhand if they have an ISBN number. Oh, nevermind, found it. Now that I have it verified as a source, how would I go about using this as a citation. Should I do end notes like MLA formatting, or what?

You can do MLA if you want. What I do is just use the cite book template, copy and paste this and fill out the info:

{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}

Another way is to input the ISBN into this website http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/isbn2wiki.php and it will automagically (if it finds the book) output a citation you can use. You can see WP:CITE for more information about this. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I just wondered if that link was cite ready, or if I would have to alter things. That's about it for now, I just have to learn my way around this coding stuff. I'm terrible at coding... :D

Zonda07

I need some help concerning this user. He is making unconstructive edits to Hypno-Disc by changing battle information and making it suggest that Hypno-Disc won many battles, which it actually lost. And Zonda07 is a sockpuppet of a similarly named Zonda2200. I quite tired of having to revert his edits and could use a bit of support, can you help me out on this? Glenn Browne 11:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Glenn, I don't know anything about Hypno-Disc so I'd rather not endorse a version of the article. Have you tried contacting this user about the problem? You should try that first. If you could add sources to the article to back up your edits, it would be helpful, as right now it just seems to be one person's word against the other. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'll see what I can do to help the article. I'll probably add sources from tv.com. Glenn Browne 11:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Rebelkass

You may remember reverting all those edits on my page. How do I revert edits? The jerk made even more. If I knew how to ban him, I would. Teaching me how to revert would be greatly appreciated. Do I just delete the edits and redo the old ones, or do I push a button or something. Thanks. --Rebelkass

Hey Rebelkass, there's a page about reverting at Help:Reverting. There are also third-party programs that let you revert quickly at WP:RCP#Tools. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AND Magazine

Hi.

I've ben trying to leave a brief description of AND Magazine on your site but it's been cited as advertising and speedy deletion. ? Absolutely no way is it advertising, I'm just trying to point out a few of areas that make it what it is. happy for you to advise or rewite. All the items in the text are entirely factual. I have tried to upload an image to go with it but must confess I'm having a little trouble sorting it all out including how to edit - whta are all those symbols for - yes I've read the help - sorry. very grateful for your help. Great site! Image name is: Southampton's AND Magazine October 2005 cover.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by AND Magazine (talk • contribs)

Lack of an image isn't really the issue here, the problem is that the text is promoting the magazine in a way that breaches Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Examples of unfactual, promotional phrases are:

• "best selling local What's On Guide ever"
• "where the reader is more important than the advertiser."
• "high quality production magazine"
• "pro-actively find, promote and assist local talent and good causes"...

etc. In my opinion, the article needs a complete rewrite with only encyclopedic content that is attributable to reliable sources independent of the publication itself. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting (and reverting and reverting...) the vandalism on my talk page. Cheers, Opelio 10:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem at all. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I believe someone has recently seen a certain, unacceptable change, on my page. I had put the setting on my computer for auto log-in, and it seems someone else, having learned about my recent editing, decided to cause some trouble. I am terribly sorry if anyone was inconvenienced, but it won't happen again.

--Guilliaman 14:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the warning you received on your talk page. If you want, you can explain what happened under there, or remove the warning and explain in your edit summary what happened. Please note that I am a regular editor just like you and don't have the authority to "forgive" inappropriate edits (indeed, no one really has this authority) but as long as you don't display a pattern of making such edits there should be no problems. Hope this helps. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Just noticed that you reverted vandalism on my userpage earlier today. Thank you very much! Will (aka Wimt) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -SpuriousQ (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My new account

Thank you for taking the time to help with editing wikipedia. I've made edits in the past with different ip addresses, but never with an account. Anyway, if you had any advice on setting up my user page, I'd appreciate it, because I have no clue what I'm doing. Thanks again. Mattbash 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just click on that red link in your signature or go to User:Mattbash and start editing as you would a normal article. A pretty useful resource is Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help and a more dry, official thing to read is Wikipedia:User page. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Hansen page

There's an anonymous user that keeps adding a section to the Chris Hansen page about an arrest which sounds pretty bogus. They don't have any sources and I can't find anything about it online. I keep reverting it but they keep putting it back. Any way to block them? Thanks!

Dpiddy1337 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dpiddy, looks like simple vandalism to me. See WP:VANDALISM#Dealing_with_vandalism for info on how to deal with it. Basically, revert, warn, and post to WP:AIV if the user continues past the final warning. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Art Stamps Referral Page

There is a need for an "Art Stamps" page. I created this page from scratch. Whrther the external links are permissible or not is a valid discussion, but the "Art Stamps" page shoudl still be allowed to refer readers to Rubber Stamps.

Note that Art Stampers are somewhat disinfranchised from the business-side of rubber stamping, and this should possibly be a consideration. That is, few art stampers think much about or are very interested in "office stamps." This is because office stamps are largely utilitarian while art stamps are a pure art form.

Ultimately, the section under rubber stamps that deals with "Rubber Stamps as an Art Form" may be best rellocated to the Art Stamps page, as the discussion of art stamping is itself a lengthy and illustrious topic. The techniques, process of using stamps, and finished products are only related to office stamps int he most remote of ways.

The link to Addicted To Rubber Stamps may not meet your guidelines. I don't know as I am new to editing articles.

But I will assert that they are a very special company--not just another online store. They are utterly in a league by themselves, and they lead the industry in many ways.

Addicted To Rubber Stamps has been selling art stamps online since before Amazon.com sold books. (Yes, this is a true fact...I do happen to know the founder of the company.)

Addicted To Rubber Stamps carries a million items in their store. By way of contrast, the next closest art stamp store online that I am aware of carries about 10,000 items. This means that Addicted To Rubber Stamps is reasonably 100-times the size of its next nearest competitor. It's a noteworthy and formidable gap.

More to the point, Addicted To Rubber Stamps is the place that stampers turn to to see new products first. This sounds like a lot of bravado, but they are the resource that 2,000 independent stores use to select their own stamps from. They carry virtually every rubber stamp manufacturer, and their SKU numbers are widely accepted by many companies including competitors.

For these reasons, I believe that special mention of Addicted To Rubber Stamps may be useful and noteworthy.

If in doubt...visit their web site and form your own objective opinion.

David Dot Kovanen At Innovator dt com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kovanen (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Kovanen, I don't quite comprehend your message. You seem to be saying there should be an Art stamps page and it should have a link to the website of the company "Addicted to Rubber Stamps". Please note that I was not the editor who proposed Art stamps for deletion. But if you want to keep the article, please have a look at WP:N. Basically, the article needs to cite multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources about the topic. Right now the article is very short with nothing to suggest it is a notable topic. I'm a bit confused why your explanation above is focused on the merits of the "Addicted to Rubber Stamps" company. Per Wikipedia's external link guidelines, there should not be a link to it from Art stamps, because that is a purely promotional link. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)