User talk:Whereizben/Archives

Welcome

Hello, Whereizben/Archives, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Substituting for text when using User Warning Templates

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did not know that, and have changed my foolish ways :) Have a wonderful day. Whereizben 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SelketBot

Hi! Great bot, but I did notice that it added a sharedip template to User talk:64.45.86.199 just after I had added one, and I wanted to know if a) it could check that and b) why it didn't use subst with its own template addition. I just recently started doing that to help prevent any problems if the template is removed, at the advice of Elipongo. Thanks! Whereizben 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it checks if the template has been transcluded, but not if it has been substituted. You are not supposed to subst this template per Template_talk:SharedIP#Prefered_method_of_usage. I am going to have it start to pay attention to substituted templates also, but I will need to request a further approval first, and I will not have time to make those changes for a couple of days. --Selket ^Talk 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., subst: should be used for warning templates, just not {{SharedIP}} or {{SharedIPEDU}}.

Cell phone coverage in Vermont

Your point about cell phone coverage is extremely important, one that I missed! Thanks for improving this article! Student7 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. I am able to connect using broadband when I take a break at work, but I am one of those in VT who is still not covered. I had read the same Free Press article, and I don't actually believe the numbers are that high, but I wanted to make sure to clarify that! :) -- Whereizben - Chat with me 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

69.233.150.38

Hi! Being fairly new to WP, is there anything that I can/should do to help with instances like 69.233.150.38? Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was the guy who de-PRODded six articles in just about two minutes. I don't think there's anything much that you can do when an article's PROD tag is removed, except to propose it for deletion under WP:AFD, if you really feel strongly about it. That and try to reason with them. The other day DGG de-PRODded an article I had tagged. So I wrote to him, and he said he thought this particular person (an associate professor at NYU) is already "notable". But when I nominated the article using AfD, DGG actually did some research and changed his vote to (neutral), instead of "keep".

I've noticed a couple of people (including Spacepotato) who apparently monitor the list of articles proposed for deletion, then run around removing the PROD tags to make the deletion process more difficult. I guess I have to assume good faith. But some of these guys sure seem to be gaming the system.

If I figure something out (like what to do about it), I'll let you know, Whereizben. In the meantime I'll just try to grin and bear it. DavidCBryant 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ghhrtvvd

Whereizben, what is Ghhrtvvd and why did you redirect it to Blackrock? I have never heard of Ghhrtvvd, which sounds vaguely like a sound my dog makes. (Sarah777 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah777, I meant to actually request that Ghhrtvvd be deleted (and I have since done so), Corbenk had moved Blackrock to Ghhrtvvd and I moved it back and forgot to have the redirect removed. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben. Yep I'm a FireFox too and yep it overlaps. This is something I'm thinking about. "Why?" - I ask. Does it overlap in that Microsoft browser...what's it called? I just don't know. I removed Windows Messenger and !puff! went the browser and also Outlook Express. Damned if I'm going to re-install Messenger just to get that rubbish back. (Sarah777 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If you can change it, do so. Maybe you could tell me how to compose those Userboxes??? I try to copy them but often even the words used don't seem to appear in the text/code. I'm a bit illiterate when it comes to code'n'stuff - is there a tutorial? I 'edit' Userpages and knock out bits to see what happens - not a very efficient learning technique! Regards (Sarah777 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, copying stuff from other user pages is a lot of time the easiest way to go if you don't know what you are doing. As far as making userboxes: Creating a new userbox and here is Wikipedia's all purpose tutorial with links and formatting info: Tutorial. I hope that helps! -- Whereizben - Chat with me 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your two cents

Thank you for adding a voice of moderation (or trying, at any rate) to Talk:Surrender of Montreal (1760). Unfortunately, I believe that Mike McGregor is deliberately distorting and obfuscating the question into one of French v. English bias, despite the fact that I've cheerfully added to hundreds of articles on French defeats and British victories. I'm also fairly skeptical of the input of the community at large, very little of which has schooling in military theory, science, or history. Frankly, I'm not sure why someone would cling so hard to one line of text and an obnoxious Infobox that mentions a siege which never happened. Ideally, this should be dealt with through discussion or within the confines of Project:Military history. Cheers, Albrecht 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please

This page M107 .50 caliber appears to be the same exact text as this page. I am not certain what I should do about it. -- Whereizben - Chat with me 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as a copyright violation. Take a look at general criteria 12 you can mark the pages as a problem and someone will delete them in due course. --pgk 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the explanation and the help! -- Whereizben - Chat with me 19:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can ask, if I'll be able to tell you anything is a different matter. I may not get around to answering since I am now looking at the images that user uploaded and most seem to have inconsistent licensing information. --pgk 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the adopt a user stuff, I'll see if anyone else knows anything... --pgk 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations

How was that a personal attack? I asked why it was reverted. Where are the references which the current information is based on? An it keeps being reverted to Whereizben version? That sounds fishy to me, where are your references at?

This sounds like

False Accusations

I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user. This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack. I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk here. He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only there was no "high-resolution copyright difficulty" as Terryeo alleges. False accusations are a method of personal attack. I think that this needs to be explicitly addressed in Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate (but related) question regarding this topic; a user has repeatedly accused me of personal attack for leaving a civility warning on their talk page (not unwarranted), though I have reminded them of the seriousness of the accusation and that the template is certainly not in and of itself an attack (that is their only "basis" for accusation). I am not sure of what I should do here; is their some proper action I can take to get the user to stop making false claims against me? Thanks. Shannernanner 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them that you welcome an RFC to discuss your conduct and his. That usually puts and end to it, because the bullies who behave badly generally know they are behaving badly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeEyes99 (talk • contribs)

Cougar

You said: I removed the link you added to Cougar because it doesn't seem to be a truly relavant link to Cougar as a whole, since it was only about one small section of Iowa. If you disagree and feel that it should be relavant, please talk with me, or discuss it on the Cougar Talk Page

Actually the link I added is simply the entrance page to a number of pages six) on what is known on cougar pages in Iowa and the surrounding states and some good infomration on tracks safety etc. See http://homepages.dordt.edu/~mahaffy/mtlion/mtlionshort_intro.html

We are also the neighboring state to the nearest populationss dispersing males (SD mainly) and on a corridor that has produced about 5 dead or captured cougars. But it is a little less general that some of the others and you also removed some like the Ontario Network so I will not argue too much.

If it was you, thanks for the correction on bogus 37 cougars taken into captivity in Wisconsin. It did give me a good illustration to show to my classes about peer review. However, I was impressed that you did change it after I told you of my letters from the Wsconsin DNR. And thanks for doing this quickly. It restores a bit of my faith in your encylopedia. I also appreciate you telling my why you removed the link I added.

Mahaffy 22:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC) James Mahaffy[reply]

I inserted the header to move this down, and I want to reply, so hopefully over the weekend or on Monday I will! -- Whereizben - Chat with me 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- James, I did not catch the bogus 37 cougar reference myself, although I did notice it. One of the things that I, and many, many other Wikipedians will do is watch all of the recent changes, which is how I noticed your link. Then after I changed the Cougar page I went to see what other changes you had made (by using the link on the left under toolbox, labeled User contributions). I then noticed that you had added that line to [Eastern Cougar] which is what I believe you are referencing, and that another user had removed it, and eventually completely cleaned up that section. If he (or she!) had not done so, that would have been my next step. I am getting more and more experienced at this, but as things go, I have relatively few edits - Whereizben's Edit Counts - you can check this for anyone to see how many they have at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate But so anyways, I am glad that you have some faith restored, and that I was able to be an example for you! -- Whereizben - Chat with me 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi there; I see that you have a userbox asking for adoption, though you do seem to be managing fairly well on your own. I am an experienced user, and would be happy to adopt you if that be your wish; look at my userpage and let me know. I am based in the UK, and I see that you are in the USA. This would produce some time-difference problems, but I am on line every day, usually from 8 to 12 pm GMT, and you should therefore not have to wait long for answers from me.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I am feeling better and better about things, but I don't want to do something the wrong way and irritate people, so I thought it would be good to have someone that I could go to for help. So I would like to finalize this, I don't figure we need to go through the whole offer thing, but we can if we need to. Thanks! And I like the Greedo userbox... -- Whereizben - Chat with me 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Vandalism

Just how is [1] edit vandalism? I assume you are familiar with WP:ATT, this is not vandalism, a lot of those "names" for the cougar on the page are not cited, as so users have a right to ask for citations, these are not given on the cougar page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.105.151 (talk • contribs) 1738 13 March 2007

Hi! First off, I don't mean any offense with anything that I said, and I want to let you know that I did warn you, but I did not even revert what you had done. It does seem like you are fairly familiar with the wikipedia polices, so can I ask why you have not signed in or signed your comment? You do have a right to do as you wish, and ask that things be cited, but I can assume that UtherSRG removed your citations b/c while it is proper to have citations, it is odd to ask for citations for each one of those names. It might be more proper to put {{fact}} at the end, and to put a note in the talk page stating that you would like sources for all the information. And your tone makes it sound like there has been some debate on the issue of citing those names, but I do not see anything on the Cougar Talk Page for discussion about the matter.

So to sum up, please considering getting a username, please always sign your talk entries, and if you disagree, please bring it up for discussion on the talk page. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert

I see that you have reverted this edit without waiting for me to answer you. I would, however agree that a description of a future event relating to a fictional character does not need to be included in an article about a real person. At least not without a lot of clarification, particularly regarding the reality or otherwise of Captain America.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else recently added similar information in today, I have added a {{fact}} tag to it to see if someone will actually add a citation or further clarify exactly what is going on, and if it is really relevant to Stephen Colbert and not Stephen Colbert (character) which is what the first editor suggested... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing

I agree the source information was still inadequate, so I have reverted and left the editor a note asking for more complete information. If you see problems like this that is normally the best approach, most respond well if you point them to the relevant policy and explain the need for proper sourcing, however if they revert you I'd suggest you ask for some third party input rather than re-reverting (and potentially starting an edit war). FYI if you need to refer to an image without including the image itself just put an extra : infront of the Image tag. i.e. [[:Image:Edward Speleers.jpg]] is Image:Edward Speleers.jpg --pgk 23:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the information and help, I will do just that for sourcing and for tagging images when referring to them in the future! Have a good day. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake

Sorry, the blanking of the page was by my little sister. I was only trying to revert it to its original state. -- Cheers! :) Zazzer 16:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk for the reply. And please try to keep it where it starts, at least if we talk again! Thanks! :) -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

I want to make certain that I am doing the right thing if I propose this image for deletion as Unencyclopedic. From reading the user's talk page and looking at his contributions, it seems this image was added for his use on his page, not because of anything else. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 16:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. :) Xiner (talk, email) 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will just propose anything like that in the future for deletion. Have a great day! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 16:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey Whereizben! Whats up? To answer your question about the fact that I was born in 1991 and yet am a CE in the Canadian forces, well, you see, I was a very lucky candidate, because I am actually in the reserves, where they will except anyone the age of 15 or up as a junior member of a squad or corp. I have gotten a little ahead of myself and took a college course really, really early and I ended up with a degree. So I was given a position in the reserves, as a junior CE member. Hope that clears it all up. -- Cheers! Zazzer ^(talk) 23:18 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, sorry I never replied before! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inacuracy

The inacuracy of Wikipedia is redicilous. Minnesota has cougars and bobcats, alot of them. Get your information right. A simple internet search of sightings in Minnesota will tell you that. What kind of website is this if YOU can't even get your crap right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.228.38 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For someone who wants to make personal attacks about inaccuracy, I suggest that you first take the time to check the spelling of your posts. I am not saying that there are not cougars or bobcats in Minnesota. The problem with your posts is that you did not source the information at all except to say that the info was from, at least in part, "personal interaction with farmers" which is distinctly against the Policy on reliable sources. You are more than welcome to add information about anything if you source it properly. I removed it because it was not sourced, and because of the wording of your edit summary, and I posted a reminder onto your talk page to let you know what I had done, nothing more, nothing less. If you would like help, please read the information I did post, or ask questions, or put {{helpme}} on your talk page. DO NOT make attacks on editors, ever! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 165.155.200.148

Yeah, I do believe that the 165.155.200.148 IP address is actually Johnny the Vandal because of his trademarks: creating accounts (like John G. Hephaestos or Hephaestos the Bastard) by impersonating Hephaestos, attacking, stalking or harrassing other users (like Hephaestos, Arwel Parry, RickK and Pgk) and incorrectly changing formed dates to 1976 to music-related articles (like System of a Down, Crass, Social Distortion, Death by Stereo, The Offspring and Pennywise). His edits like that are similar to a Johnny the Vandal-like. For example, if you see a user vandalize an article by saying something like "I am Hephaestos and I say Crass formed in 1976", that would be him. So, feel free to report the IP, I don't see a reason not to. Alex 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:72.94.188.92

It was protected for 24 hours and expired, I believe. I'll remove the tag. --DanielCD 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I was just curious! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Thank you so much for pointing those out to me...now I feel silly. Anyways, thanks a lot. I hope you have a wonderful day! ^_^
Saber girl08 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for my review. I do chat a lot...I guess I should work on that. I was wondering, are leaving smiles for people okay? I didn't know, because somebody else told me I was spamming. Anyways, have a wonderful day.
Saber girl08 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For starters, please use a : to indent when you add more, even if it is to your own, and please ONLY mark an edit as minor when it is truly minor. Adding several lines is not :)

Onto the meat of my response though... I assume you are talking about this. I do see where mikka is coming from and I tend to agree. To pull word for word "It is one thing to smile on an occasion". I agree completely with that sentiment. Please use them sparingly. Using them a lot does seem like chatting for the sake of chatting. And I do also agree with mikka's comment about welcoming users. I use a welcome page for AFTER someone has made an edit, and I tailor the welcome page to their edit, i.e. if there edit is vandalism, I do a welcome with a warning message, otherwise just a welcome is good, but ONLY once I have seen them edit. Accounts that are created and then never used are... useless? :) Please let me know if that helps, and perhaps take a deeper look at what Wikipedia is not to make sure you are on the right track. Questions are wonderful though!

Oh, ok. That's a good idea, about welcoming people...I had never thought of that. Thank you ^_^. I will also take care not to give so many smiles. I also guess I had never thought of leaving a message as not a minor edit, since it's not really restructuring the page...but this is also a good idea. Thank you so much for your help, and I will start applying it immediately.
Saber girl08 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I hope that I was not rude at all, I am always worried that I do not come off nicely :) And I obviously don't mean just smiles, but things that are outside the scope of wikipedia is for, as the link above shows. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation Question

I reverted this edit as defamation and left a warning. Is a template like this appropriate to add to their talk page as well? -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should warn the user. Use the Template:Uw-defamatory1 warning (as {{subst:uw-defamatory1|Stephen Colbert}} ~~~~). I'm sure you'll find WP:UTM very helpful in the future. Please remove the tag if you won't be needing any more help. Cheers! - Anas ^talk? 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks! I wasn't sure at what point to ever add the Defwarn template. Have a great day. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations

How was that a personal attack? I asked why it was reverted. Where are the references which the current information is based on? An it keeps being reverted to Whereizben version? That sounds fishy to me, where are your references at?

This sounds like

False Accusations

I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user. This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack. I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User: Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk here. He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only there was no "high-resolution copyright difficulty" as Terryeo alleges. False accusations are a method of personal attack. I think that this needs to be explicitly addressed in Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate (but related) question regarding this topic; a user has repeatedly accused me of personal attack for leaving a civility warning on their talk page (not unwarranted), though I have reminded them of the seriousness of the accusation and that the template is certainly not in and of itself an attack (that is their only "basis" for accusation). I am not sure of what I should do here; is their some proper action I can take to get the user to stop making false claims against me? Thanks. Shannernanner 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them that you welcome an RFC to discuss your conduct and his. That usually puts and end to it, because the bullies who behave badly generally know they are behaving badly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeEyes99 (talk • contribs) 1:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some explanations! First, when a page is reverted, frequently the edit summary says who did the edit that is being reverted to. That is the only reason a page says it is being reverted back to my name, it has nothing to do with me otherwise.

As for the personal attack, saying something like "WTF" for the subject and "Why the hell" did someone do anything is not respectful, and is IMHO a personal attack.

And as for sourcing things, you must have an outside reliable source. You would do well to just follow the links that have been left on your talk page, they are truly informative and will help you understand what to do.

And finally, I am confused as to what you are asking. Has someone asked you these questions before or did you find them someplace else? -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga, I AM Rick Ross!!!

I, Rick Ross, did in fact say those lines about "blazing it fat". I, Rick Ross, was on the radio when I said it... I even listed the radio station I was on, that is not vandalism. S on my D. -Rick Ross

   p.s.
   keep it gangsta! bitch.

   p.p.s.
   blaze it fat!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.164.248.185 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is indeed vandalism to remove a cleanup tag without actually doing anything to either clean up the article or to state why the article does not need cleaning up. And the information you added needs to be attributed to a reliable source, and since it was clearly not, I removed it. I do not appreciate the language you have used on my page either, and request that you not use it in the future. Also, please consider getting a username! Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Whereizben,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Mart inp23 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 21:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Friendly Jury Duty

Hello! I thought the link was highly relevant, because it contains an extremely thorough listing of States' laws that excuse Mothers of Young Children from jury duty: http://www.familyfriendlyjuryduty.org/JuryStates/JuryStates.htm

Please reconsider your decision to remove the link to "Family Friendly Jury Duty".

Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.221.89 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there! I just didn't agree with adding it in the location you did and the way you added it. If you want to add a more fully fleshed out section on jury duty and laws for mothers of young children, and use that site as a reference, that would be wonderful! This is all just my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree, and even change this, but just adding a link like that seems more spam like than anything else. Please let me know what you think though! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Flamenco

Your recent edit to Flamenco (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who sees this, I made a mistake while attempting to rollback vandalism at Flamenco - here and was trying to revert it to a prior version. My mistake! :) -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter I of Russia

You have reverted some vandalism on said page. This is in itself great, of course, but by doing so you hid older vandalism. This is problematic, because this way, vandalism can remain unseen for a long time. Please try to view at least at all edits back to the last non-anonymous edit before reverting vandalism. Thank you --rimshots^talk 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for catching this, and I apologize for the mistake. I see that you use popups, I usually use the anti-vandal tool, but may switch. Do you like popups? -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that popups is really easy to use, and that it does what I need: enabling me to revert to a certain point and giving me some other useful links. I have never used any other tool, like the anti-vandal tool, so I cannot say which one is better. I never had any reason to switch. --rimshots^talk 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I may give it a try and see what happens. Do I come across as a raging prick, just out of curiosity? -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As for your curiosity: not in the slightest. --rimshots^talk 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good :) Thanks again, and have a great day! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian Swine Name

Whereizben, I know it wasn't you! Fenian Swine is different to Fenian_Swine? Small world. Is gaillimhConas tá tú? an Administrator? (Sarah777 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well good to hear :) Fenian._Swine is different from Fenian_Swine (But Fenian Swine and Fenian_Swine are the same). A _ in a page name always is the same as a space, as far as WP goes. But it is the . that makes the difference in this case. And yes, Gaillimh is an admin, if you go to their user page and click on User Contributions on the left side under toolbox, you can view their edits, and also view their log, which shows all of their admin activity! :) Hope that helps. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereiz, this dispute has escalated. User:Gaillimh has blocked Mr Fenian. Is there any appeals system? How do I establish the credentials of the blocker - could he be an imposter? There isn't much in his history...less than 500 edits. And only on since 12 December, whereas the guy he blocked has a couple of years. it seems odd to me. How did he become an Admin???

I need some advice here as User:Gaillimh has closed the book on this and isn't going to unblock. Regards (Sarah777 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Sarah, sorry I did not get back to you sooner. It appears from what I can see that Jersey Devil has unblocked him, and that the issue was brought up at the admin noticeboard by One Night In Hackney and is now at the request for comments - usernames page. It looks like to me that Fenian Swine with a new username asked at One Night In Hackney's talk page for help, and that (s)he took it from there.

So basically I would have brought it up with an admin for help, and then also had it submitted to request for comments to get a consensus there! I hope this helps for you in the future, and sorry again about the slow reply - we have satellite as our only option for anything faster than dialup (rural Vermont, USA life!) and it has not been working lately, so I am not on much at home, only on my breaks at work... Oh yes, also, you can always check on what a user has done with the User Contribs link in the toolbox, which you seem to know, and from there you can view the logs of a user. As you can see from the preceding link, Gaillimh has made admin changes, I am not sure why his/her contribs don't show farther back than December, but somehow (s)he is an admin. And you can always check list of admins to see who current admins are... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem Tony, I was glad to be able to, good luck with the new tools! Take care -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Planning

Whereizben - I'm puzzled by your classification of my "resource" entry under strategic planning as "vandalism". The site referred to contains a huge archive of articles which are only about strategic planning, as well as links to other resources. The material on that site is certainly useful, certainly a resource, and most of it is free. Am I misunderstanding the presence of the "resource" section? I don't see that the cited site is fundamentally different from other sites which you did not identify as spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.244.187 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please consider getting a username, and in the future please sign your comments with ~~~~ and put a section header by adding == TEXT == before you start typing, this will make it easy for all to view who you are and to view where your comments start.

Onto your question. I am not quite certain which links you added before, since you aren't using a username. By looking at your contributions I only see that you added to Strategic planning after adding to my talk page. Having looked at your current edits, I am tempted to remove some and clean up the formatting on the others, but possibly just remove them as well. Here are my reasons why:

The link you added either be a citation, which it is not, or add to the article. Since that link goes to a commercial web site and does not seem to really add to the page, I would call it spam.
For this edit I am NOT going to revert it, but rather place a {{fact}} tag on it so that someone can add a source that shows what is really the truth here :)
And finally for your last two edits I am tempted to revert them because it seems to be information that is not truly encyclopedic, it seems more like a commercial approach. I am NOT going to revert it either, but I will clean up the formatting by manually removing the numbers you put in and putting # it their place, which automatically numbers for you!

My overall concern is that you have added material which seeks more to promote a specific company or commercial group, which is not appropriate for wikipedia. So please do consider getting a username and read up on the five pillars. And please feel free to continue this discussion with me! (You can add this page to your watchlist so you will be able to tell when it changes, if you sign in.) -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asaba-Colbert

I just wanted to let you that I think I will reverse the edit, I hope this doesn't seem rude. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asabanuevo (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it for now, but have added a {{fact}} tag to it since it is unsourced and unencyclopedic. Please go to the talk page for Stephen Colbert so that we can have a public discussion. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Worms at Heaven's Gate

Since none of the information that I placed on those pages was contained within them at the time of the edits, I don't see how your changes are at all justified, but I can see from this discussion page that you are something of a raging prick and so will drop it. Diocles

Thanks for the nice personal attack. I am not certain what makes you think that I am "raging prick" but what you did add was certainly in many pages. For example, if you look at Vermont you will notice multiple times where it refers to Vermonters, so your statement that "Residents of Vermont are Vermonters" was duplicating what was already there. I will also point out that other editors did remove some of your edits, in large part due to the fact that they were duplicated, done in rapid fire fashion, without edit summaries, and in seemingly random places. If you disagree with me though, please do so politely! I have no problem with civil disagreement, but I do not appreciate the attack. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism of Terre Hill, Pennsylvania

Hello, I did not vandalize the Terre Hill page. I simply added information relavent to the towns culture. I live in this town, and the section that i added is very important to the life of this town. We are known for our special events, and it is not an advertisement, it is simply stating what happens here and information on events. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstyer (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2007 March 28 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that the links that you added were not consistent with WP policies on links. I also warned you about removing a speedy deletion tag from an article you created, which is not allowed. I see that you have contested the speedy deletion notice, but I would ask you to read up on the five pillars of wikipedia to understand better about what content is and is not allowed. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

Why did you give 205.221.92.9 yet another warning after I'd already given him/her a final warning? Badagnani 14:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you had just given it, I was going through quickly. I removed mine, substituted yours (which I have been told by many editors to do), and created a header for yours. Hope you don't mind... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate links for External Links

Hello, As per your discussions, on the Destinations Guide for the 'A Taste of Cuba' video, I disagree at as being considered as spam, if I knew how to add the video content directly then I would have done it. It is a video promoting the island as a destination and links to the Cuba Tourist Board. Perhaps wikipedia should allow to link the videos directly within the pages? Reagrds Norman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khinester (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your comments, and please remember to sign them next time using ~~~~. Second, I don't believe that video should be allowed within the articles, that would be a huge hassle for people who don't want to view the video or don't have the connection speed to view video. As for linking to anything, including videos, please see this guide on external links and you will see that links that wikipedia is not just a collection of links that it must actually add informative and factual content. Also, anything that has a bias such as a video promoting anything is NOT allowed. Please in the future read more thoroughly the links that I and others left for you, and you will discover all of these points. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user - DavidYork71

I just reverted this edit by 149.135.88.17 because it looked identical to this edit by DavidYork71 who you recently blocked. Can you run a checkuser to see if this is the same person? Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whereizben. Unfortunately, i don't have access to the checkUser tools. You can try at WP:RFCU. I suggest you just revert for now unless it gets too much. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty six (film)

Hi, you reverted an edit today on this page using a bot and described the edit as vandalism. It wasn't my edit, and I don't have any opinion about whether it was a good edit, but it didn't look like vandalism to me.. Zargulon 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted at least 30-40 edits by 213.219.44.247 because they have been link spamming WP in the past with links to their own web site, channel4.com. They were blocked today yet again for doing this. I was using twinkle by the way, not a bot :) Have a great weekend. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that it is "their own web site"? It's the website of a major TV channel in the UK and prima facie seems reasonable to link to. I'm just interested, not questioning your judgement that the link is inappropriate. Zargulon 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the whois and seeing that it is Independent Television News who makes content for Channel 4 and then looking at their contribs and seeing massive adding of links all from Channel 4. Since I am not an admin, I have had to bring it to WP:AIV and admins there have agreed with the evidence to block it. I basically saw it as being akin to someone from an IP address from say Time Warner adding links to CNN, and adding tons of them. I guess we also differ on what links should be added, I feel that a fairly minimal number of links should be added, and while some pages had no links, other pages had many external links already, and then links were pasted to the bottom, which doesn't seem to help add any content. You are right though that it can be hard to differentiate between the good and the bad, but I don't view someone who adds dozens of links to what appears to be their own work to be in good faith. Just my thoughts though :) Have a great day! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! The whois evidence changes my perspective.. I agree with you now. Zargulon 22:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me :) Have a great day! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user name - Linkinpark122669

I was not aware that my username was bad, and like most people I didn't read the policy because I assumed that it was basically saying no profanity and the like or a bunch of legal stuff. I apoligize for my incompetence. Some other possible usernamesthat would be acceptable would be: sithis122669, firestorm122669 and that is all I can think of right now. Linkinpark122669

I just wanted to let you know that it could certainly be an issue over the fact that linkinpark is (obviously) the name of a well known band. Please just follow these instructions for changing your username to change it to any of the new ones! Also, there is no need to apologize at all, I just wanted to let you know! Cheers, and welcome! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the welcome. It seems like it is taking an awful long time for me to revert or report compared to other people. Is there a faster way to do it? Download a bot maybe? And, is there a faster way to report somebody who is really active? I couldn't do it through a button. I just went to edit and manually wrote everything in. Thanks! Sentineneve 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem :) There are some good tools. You can't just get (well really, create) a bot without a lot of edits and a lot of programming knowledge, but you don't need one either. There are several tools, some you need approval to use, and others you can simply "get". I occasionally use vandal proof and new page watcher but I mostly use twinkle and the anti-vandal tool, which don't require you to install anything on your computer and making reverting, warning, and reporting all a breeze! Let me know if you need help installing or using any of these, or if you need help in general! :) -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defamotroy conent

hi, wondering what i did wrong? i think you wrong bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.152.117.201 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your contributions show otherwise, as does the fact that you were blocked twice recently. Please contribute helpfully instead of adding nonsense and comments that defame people! Thanks -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright infringement

My apoligizes, I thought it was amusing and just as relevent, if not more so then the link to the picture that compared filesharing to communism...albiet I admit it didnt need to be on the top haha. I'm sorry. Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.99.113 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that random links are not wanted, even if they are funny. They need to add some value. As for the link to the picture that compares filesharing to communism, I have removed it as well. When I get the time I actually intend to sort through the links there, because it seems like many of them are not needed at all. Thanks for pointing out that link though! Please feel free to sort through those links though and see if any, or even most, can be removed based on these guidelines. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP: 63.138.131.178 Block Request

This user has vandalized many articles, and has received many warnings for their actions. I am requesting a block on them. [2] Their talk page.

Bballoakie 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have posted the below comment on your talk page as well!)

I am not an administrator so I can't block anyone, but I did report it at admin intervention against vandals which is the proper forum for SOME block requests, and Anthony Bradbury did block them for one month.

If you would like some tips on how to do recent changes patrolling more efficiently, and about to create links and what not, please just let me know! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate the tips. Thanks!

Bballoakie 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links for external links are the entire web address, for Wikipedia pages, they are everything that is after the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/", so for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whereizben" then "User_talk:Whereizben" (without the quotes) is the link!

Internal links are as follow: [[Link|Text you want to appear]] or [[Link]] in the second case, the link is the actual text that appears.

External links: [Link Text you want to appear]

I like to use Lupin's anti-vandal tool and twinkle, they make it easy to find recent changes, then to revert the changes, warn users, and and report the users, and they don't require that you install anything on your computer (as long as you have Javascript enabled that is!). Let me know if this helps!

Also, use : to tab when replying, you can use several to tab over several times and it makes things more readable, like on here (IMHO). And finally, make sure to use the "Show preview" button before you post so that you can see that things look the way you want! Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any tips on automated warning messages, i.e. a decent list of them, a .js that will put them on talk pages automaticly, (so long as I save the edit, i.e. opens up the users talk page and puts in a warning relevant to the action I took upon their actions, and I just have to submit it). Bballoakie 04:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing that I use for automated messages is twinkle. It can't be completely automated because there is such a wide variety of warnings to give, so it needs human interaction for most warnings. Obviously something like page blanking can be recognized by a bot, but having the computer understand that you removed words because they were just vandalism versus being npov versus spam is much harder. Give twinkle a try though, I think you will like it! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

What the hell does this have to do with anything Myspace?

It looks like you're blindly reverting any change.

The text in question:

I am wondering why almost all the people that I have spoken with recently don't know that the plant tobacco does not produce nicotine not even a little and if they removed this toxic man made chemical and just sold cigs without it very few in the smoking community would be dying of cancer. tobacco does not cause cancer nicotine does. I think its about time to take a few million people to washington to have this very toxic chemical banned from the USA. I have spoken with a number of doctors and all agree there is NO use for nicotine on the planet.PLEASE let us all ban together and do something about it.(Sptscrds 12:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)) [edit]

Enlighten me.