25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Template:AMA alerts

Archives

---

1, 2

Archive_1

This user is a recent changes patroller.

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know.

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

I got a tag saying using the sandbox and everything, but the thing is, it was my own user talk page? --NateJay 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when did i "blank out" info of G-Unit. The only think i have done is remove wrong members of G-Unit. --Peterm1991 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As cited by the "Official website" there are more then 4 members of G-Unit. Please do not remove cited content. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, I added a hangon tag to this page, as I don't believe it's a speedy deletion candidate (although it may prove non-notable, it does assert notability, and there are enough unique Google hits to lead me to believe that reliable sources may exist to establish notability. I'm not, of course, claiming that such sources definitely exist . More information on Talk:Barbora Bukovská - feel free to add your comments as well. JavaTenor 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the unsigned note to one of my blocks. I didn't sign because I recall reading once that the vandalblock (indefinite) template doesn't take a signature, but perhaps I was confusing that with the "indefblockeduser" template that goes on the userpage. I think that may be right because Hagermanbot doesn't add signatures to these templates. But on balance maybe you're right that on the talkpage it's better to sign. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you may be right. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing false claims, unhelpful?

The article has no fact basis and there was no reason for reverting my edit.

I saw you reverted this page. It is suffering some vandalism at the moment, but I have been trying to build something useful there and a couple of my changes got lost. Is there anything wrong with this version? I welcome any advice on what should/should not be included. When I figure out how to do it I would like to a table of local details as featured on other town pages. Thanks Steevc 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry that some of your edits got lost in the revision of that article. That can some times happen when reverting multiple vandals. I hope you can find them. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've restored them and taken the opportunity to improve the page. Steevc 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 4 members of G-Unit, just becuase there on G-Unit Records doesnt mean there part of the group and check Talk:G-Unit#G-Unit_Members. If you knew anything about G-Unit you would know this. --Peterm1991 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have an idea. If you can cite this supposed fact then you will need to do so. I will be adding a "citation needed" tag to that part of the article. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Not sure if I am contacting the correct person but i have recently had a message that has informed me that my article is a copyright infringement of an article on AOL's Website.

I would just like to point ou tthat the article is not copyrighted by AOL and has been used by many other official sites.

I, Being a G-Unit fan, find it very informative and it should therefore be left on the website for people whi wish to find out about G-Unit.

Thanks HSKHAMESH

Please do not add copyrighted material to articles with out first getting the approval of the copyright holder. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not me. I'm the one who reverts the page back to normal (it was like that earlier). Apologies for "Piss off".--Dlae 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about that image up there at the moment, though (I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia)...--Dlae 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why have you reverted my edits to Peterborough? 84.71.131.180 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. There were two IP vandals with almost identicle IP's. I must have reported the wrong one. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I've blocked the other IP. Keep up the good work. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize the proactiv page, I also believe that the edit should not have been reverted because there are many products of proactiv besides the 4 included.

Hello. I noticed you reverted my cleanup of Q Television Network. I felt much of the information it contained was outdated and/or unencyclopedic. I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you feel otherwise. Please visit my Talk Page for more info and to share your own thoughts. Thanks! Gay Media Matters 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fubar, just trying to get a handle on all this crazy talking business...

I just updated the Lego in Art section of the 'Lego' article, which you or a colleague reverted. It may have been reported unduly as'self promotion'.

While I was indeed adding information about my own company, I was also correcting and disambiguating various other inaccurate or vague information in that section. Reference to my work already existed in the section (and has now been reverted) that is vague or innacurate, which was primarily why I edited it. Additional information was also valid, accurate, and of broad interest. I removed various irrelevant points and links that were not, and also improved the grammar or, and clarified the content of, other material covered under that section. I also clarified or corrected numerous specific innacuracies (now reverted) with reference to terminologies used and to technical processes.

All of these improvements can be verified by following the associated links etc.

I am letting you know this because I intend to reinstate the corrected information and consider it would be in peoples best interest if it essentially stayed there. My apologies for not discussing it first, this was my first wiki edit. Also, I hope I'm using this talk page correctly. My apologies if I am not

Please do not add self promotion to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about moving. I'm confused, though, when did I move it? Before your message, I don't think I'd even been to the page in over a year. -BlackTerror 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the section that i was modifying has nothing to do with Russia or Japan, it had to do with Payment Methods. I was editing to say that JCB is no longer supported as of April 1st. I even provided a reference to the news article! No offense, but I was not expecting to have such a hard time contributing. *sigh*

Purgatory Fubar: If you are so inclined, could you please visit this discussion and offer your opinion to the debate there? Thanks. Labyrinth13 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re subsection, Lego in art. You reverted my changes to this section, which has now reverted back to being full of inaccuracies and poor construction - and there seems to be a block on my rechanging them. The changes are under discussion in the Lego discussion page, which if you visit, you should see that my changes were both valid and magnanimous in spirit.

I didn't vandalize the proactiv page, I also believe that the edit should not have been reverted because there are many products of proactiv besides the 4 included.

142.161.170.196 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you removed the folkestone forums link from the folkestone page, and not the onfolkestone forums link. Seems a tad unfair that whilst one gets to stay the other doesn't. Especially as Folkestone Forums has a portal that is being built up to include photographs and information on the town, and has members such a town councillor and up to date information on the towns development. EuphrasiePontmercy 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tell me, what's wrong with my sources? or why do you delete valid text?

That block has expired. If the editor wishes to edit anonymously now, that's fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my father's (Francis Lee) profile, as we are doing research into his autobiography and he wished his wikpipedia article was updated, so that people can gain an insight of his life in full on here, before he releases his autobiography. This is all true information i have added this morning, after my friends had vandalized it yesterday on my account. If you do believe any of it to be untrue please contact me with what you think is untrue before deleting it and my father can verify it as truth. Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikky88 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to have issues with others as well. See your talk page for further discussion. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed all the official Myspace links to the former members of Shed Seven

Please do not remove these links to official sites - the "links to avoid" guidelines state "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" and nowadays many artists/bands do not bother with the upkeep of a separate website and their official Myspace page is their only current web presence.

As the original band has split these are the only sites now maintained by its former members. Jud 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links normally to be avoided sections 2,10 and 11. There is nothing "official" about a MySpace page. I could have created the pages. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also have created any artist/band's official website (please don't suggest deleting them all). The guidelines make an exception for links to pages that are the subject of the article - if it is stated that it is the artist/band's official page, I can see no reason to doubt it, however if you require a written statement from each band member concerned I am sure that could be obtained. Jud 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should end this debate.

"Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked." Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that links to personal Myspace pages are unreliable, however I believe the above exception should be applied to the official music pages of an artist or band if this is currently being used as their official website and can be verified as such. Jud 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to be verified. But even then it still violates WP:LINKS Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that an increasing number of British bands /artists are using their UK Myspace music pages as their only "official" webspace, (I don't know if this also applies on the US site) and there are already many links to bona fide "official" Myspace pages in Wikipedia, so perhaps it is the Wiki guidelines that need to be updated? Jud 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to WP:RFC for policy change. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has already been discussed at great length on the appropriate WP:LINKS discussion page and the general consensus seems to be that links to official band sites on Myspace are allowed as there is not a blanket ban on external links to Myspace sites, just to blogs. It is also pointed out that the guidelines (it is not actually Wikipedia policy to delete all such links) are not set in stone, and that common sense should be used in interpreting them. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the site it may be used as a link, and the fact that it happens to be on Myspace should not be the sole reason for its deletion.Jud 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS has not changed. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not familiar with the term "MOS", please explain. Jud 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS = Manual of Style. "This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus." Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm being accused of vandalism here. I am fixing the links to pages, and you keep reverting them, which results in double redirects and broken links. Please explain to me why you keep accusing my helping as vandalism. Closetoeuphoria 18:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who accused you of vandalism? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the revert on my Talk page. Happy editing, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YW. :). Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change I recently made to the Megaminx page I belive is helpfull. [[[1]]] I rerouted the web site becsue I wanted to make it easier for the users to find the web site link. The present link just rerouted the user it another web site which i changed it to. I relize that I bypassed the geocites web site all together.

I don't understand all of the copyright laws and I know the people at wikipedia take them very seriously. You were correct to fix my mistake if I am breaking some sort of copyright, but I belive I wasn't.

Thanks :) Keep up the good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.125.245 (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for bringing that up. I turnes out that two of the links are java links and deleted per Links normally to be avoided section 8. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you reduce the font size of your signature? It is too big. John Reaves (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu

Medium. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu

Large. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu

It could be my font, most people have it. Monotype Corsiva you can get it here http://freefontlibrary.com/ or here http://register.free-fonts-online.com/index.aspx?s=frzfonts&f=1723217&pop=2&c=16300&reftrid=27dc9fd3-d9cd-4c90-acf1-43f24cfa1141&fn=Google-206319368[monotype%20corsiva%20font]Broad. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That small one is fine, the others are all too big. John Reaves (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it as you see it. It looks the same size to any one who has this font. Maybe I will change it up abit. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be this one? Twentieth Century Poster1. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other font is much nicer. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalizing Lisa Garland's page, the Plant that grows in Silent Hill is White CLaudia, which is the drug that Lisa is using during the game. It's NOT PTV, it's White Claudia. Look it up.

White Claudia is the plant, PTV is derived from the plant (like poppy plant to opium) so the article,PTV is correct. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you reverted the KJEF article, which redirected to an article about a TV station (KPLC) that had no mention of (or relation to, as far as I know, other than proximity) KJEF, back to the redirect? JMyrleFuller 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KJEF has been incorporated into KPLC. No further article is needed. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect. The article should no be there. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fubar

I have attempted to alter what appears to be an advertisement for a company that intends to start production of a new motorcycle bearing the Indian name. My changes appear to have been reverted, however. Their advertisement is misleading in that it claims their company was founded in Springfield in 1901 by George Hendee and Oscar Hedstrom. These facts only relate to the original Indian company, which ceased manufacture of motorcycles in 1953. I wish to either delete this advertisement altogether, or replace its data with "Founded 2004, Key people Steve Heese and Stephen Julius, Products - new motorcycles bearing the Indian name" (data obtained form the company website). These changes would, I belive, maintain the wikipedia ethos of being factual and neutral. Can I ask that these changes be adopted? Similarly, the link to this company on the external links section needs to be explicit that this link relates to a new motorcyle not yet being manufactured, and not to the original 1901-1953 Indians. Regards, TIM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article as it stands now is correct. DO NOT delete content from this article again or vandalize it again or you will be blocked from editing. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! That's twice in one day... :-\ CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC) YW. :) Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You deleted my entry to the article pertaining to the film fracture. I changed the article because I had just seen the film yesterday, and Anthony Hopkins character is NOT a structural engineer. A prominent airplane model is shown in his office, as is the construction of a plane at the beginning. At one point his secretary anwsers the phone "Crawford Avionics". Also, given the fact that the character resides in a palatial hilltop LA estate it is fairly safe to say that his level of affluence surpasses that of a structural engineer.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.52.175 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins) is a structural engineer. That is his profession. So the article is correct. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:17, 29

A company is turning this history page into an advertisement for their products, which bear no relation to the page's subject matter apart from the fact that they also have two wheels. Preferably their advertising copy should be deleted, however I have instead proposed changes which allow their material to stay but avoids implying that this new company has any connection whatsoever to the Indian company of the classic era. I hope these changes can be adopted. Regards TIM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just saw your response to my earlier suggested change on this page, in which you state "this article is correct as it stands". This is contradicted, however, by the company's own website which states that its key personnel are "Steve Heese and Stephen Julius" (not George Hendee and Carl Hedstrom), that they have been operating since "2004" not 1901, and that they are in "North Carolina" not Springfield, and they are not even making any motorcycles yet. The advert on this page appears to be a shameless attempt to cash in on the reputation of the Indian motorcycles of the classic era - a company and products which their own bear no relation to. I was under the impression that adding such material for such a purpose was "un-wikipedian" and ought to be removed. Please advise me if my impression is wrong. Regards, TIM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.120.8.67 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

redlinks in the article Hong Kong action cinema are deliberate to allow the articles to be created. do not remove them. thanks.

also please feel free to delete the senior boots article if you consider it advertising - i simply responded to the merge request on the talkpage.

Red links are not needed. If some one want to created an article thats fine but one should avoid red links. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]