User:Ronbo76/Archives2

Archives Two edit

Bob Hope's refs edit

Thanks for the list of recommended link types on WP.

I think that what I changed on Bob Hope's article is merely the description of the links, so that users can decide if they want to follow the citation, or not, e.g., I changed the appearance of those citatons at the bottom of the page so that the first change now reads: 1. ^ "100 years of Hope" by Albert Morris

instead of

1. ^ [1]

as it used to, and that someone else had actually created these external links.

I believe that now, you or anyone else can review those citations and use, modify or delete them more easily than previously was possible.

Bob - uriel8 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guideline Violations edit

These edits are not vandalism - but you know this. Stop protecting the vanity articles of friends, it damages the project. If you continue to collude in this manner, in contravention to clear guidelines, this might lead to sanctions including blocking. 24.249.148.22 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)¶

Please be advised I do not protect any friend's pages as you put. A clear review of the article indicates your reversion was contrary to past edits. Ronbo76 05:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This post was inre my revert to Elonka Dunin. Please review to see who is vandalizing the article. My conscience is clear. Ronbo76 05:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronbo, sorry you've been dragged into this. FYI, in terms of collating sockpuppet information on the above anon, language/timing is very similar to this edit[1], as well as the blanking behavior[2]. Let me know if you'd like to be kept in the loop on other connections? --El on ka 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry about it edit

I have no problems with WP:COI inre my revert. I do not need to become further involved as I am on the periphery of the edit regime. I am Recent Change Patrol type editor and do not get involved unless I deem my involvement necessary, i.e., going to one of the admin boards. If you are the subject of the article, my advice to you would be to let the editors who have protected your article or contributed to it, do the reverts so as to avoid conflict of interest considerations. Ronbo76 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

attack image edit

Thanks, someone's already dumped it, and I've blocked the article creator for a week. jimfbleak 07:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article was created by User:penguinsgoboom, tagged by you, deleted by me and recreated by Anksmashpunk, who is presumably the same person. I've blocked the penguingsgoboom account too. Both blocks show up in the respective user logs and the list of blocked ISPs. jimfbleak 09:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch edit

Sorry I missed that one. It upsets me that someone would vandalize Barack Obama like that. Ronbo76 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Andylu edit

I'm more concerned with the vandalism after; blocked and thanks for the heads up. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Paulina Rubio edit

Don't change her album sales from 16 to 13 million as references have been provided. I simply undid another person's change, which strangely enough you didn't notice.

75.6.249.204 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I have a topic in that should move album sales to her discography pages which will cause less vandal edits to the main article. Thanks for the good idea. Ronbo76 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon editors pushing Simone PR edit

If you had checked my history regarding the Simone edits with anything more than a cursory examination, you would have seen what I have done is remove an extensive amount of Pro-Simone POV spam planted by one user trying to game the system through several anonymous IPs. This has been going for a great deal of time.

The Simone information on the Disk jockey page is rife with vanity language. You misstate the "general consensus" of Wikipedia regarding notability. Simone is a disk jockey, but he has by no means achieved the "notability" that would merit inclusion in that section.

I will be editing the Disk jockey article as I see fit, within Wikipedia's standards. Your request that I do not was anything but polite. Eleemosynary 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit Disc jockey again. You seem to be on an edit war on articles involving Mark Simone. The discussion on the Disc jockey talkpage concerns vanity edits which other editors monitor. A general consensus on Wikipedia is that if someone has an article on Wikipedia and fits another article's parameters, within reason, their name and achievements are included.

Please stop. Ronbo76 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful in your edit summaries. See WP:CIVIL. If you feel someone is adding their name to articles, please take it to an admin board. I have nothing to do with Simon and as per my previous message to you and asking you politely to stop your edits. Ronbo76 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am not an anon editor. My history pattern is clear. Ronbo76 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No one's accused you of being an anon editor. However, the anon editor whose edit summary you referred to on the disk jockey page has a long history of pushing Simone PR on Wikipedia. I recommend you check some of those edit summaries, as well. Eleemosynary 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem genuinely concerned with keeping edits non-POV, so I wanted to give you some more info re what's been happening with Simone pages. Here are a few of the anon ids that have been pushing Simone PR of late:

69.120.29.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}

68.161.79.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}

68.161.117.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}

69.120.3.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)}

The anon user's most recent edit was a PR MySpace page which consisted of nothing more than a press release identical to the one on Simone's website. When that link was removed, the anon editor went into a histrionic Talk Page fit, blanking comments and claiming that Jimbo Wales was being undermined. This editor is a tiresome nuisance, and I'd appreciate your help in the future regarding him or her:

BTW, I have nothing against including non-POV info about Simone in any article, but there is clear campaign to load up articles with POV PR about him. Eleemosynary 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at all those reported IPs, only one has a warning (a final warning from the user who just editted my talkpage seven times). No blocks. Only the last two have editted Mark Simone and most of those edits seem to be on his talkpage. I wonder if I am missing something here? Doubt it! Ronbo76 06:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings are not the issue. And neither are blocks. The anon user used these four IPs from which to push pro-Simone POV, and to (more often) blank Simone's Talk Page of others' comments. That same user, incensed that more pro-Simone POV was removed from the disk jockey page tonight, was the one you pointed to to buttress your claim that I had an "ownership" issue about Simone. You based your claim on the rantings of an unreliable editor. That, apparently, is what you are "missing." Eleemosynary 06:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I say a user who editted my talkpage seven time? I must have meant eight. Ronbo76 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Disabusing a fellow editor of his own misconceptions hardly violates WP:POINT. Eleemosynary 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nine. Please stop. Ronbo76

Steve Allen edit

Steve Allen seems to mostly be a television comedian, but there are about seven years, as far as I can tell, where he worked on the radio. Unfortunately, like most cross-platform celebrities, the radio period is mostly ignored by editors. --PhantomS 07:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Baseball edit

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Baseball Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love the sport of baseball and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Please add {{Baseball-WikiProject}} to the talk page of the article.
Looking for something to help with? Please see our article to do list or project to do list. You may also be interested in joining one of our task forces, we have task forces for baseball players, Old-time Base Ball, and Little League.

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow baseball editors can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

--Borgarde (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Sanchez article edit

The changes by the anonymous IP were clearly POV and not sourced. So due to the constant vandalized changes, the changes have been reverted and editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. RPrinter 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a safeguard in to prevent anonymous IPs from making changes, yet edits are still taking place. This is obviously vandalism with a personal agenda.. If you know how to implement the safeguard to prevent anonymous changes and to revert the vandalism to previous versions, please do so. RPrinter 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I issued the user a warning regarding the vandalized changes and, again, disabled the editing of the article by unregistered or newly registered users. RPrinter 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I traced the IP and it clearly has a conflict of interest. RPrinter 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I entered the IP -- 12.146.203.100 -- in an IP search, which displayed where it came from. Then I entered it in quotation marks in Google, which brought up a history of where it has been used. It turns out the user posts regularly regarding USC football and its players. I am not sure how to go about reporting it to an administrator, but it is routinely done to block such users. RPrinter 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment edit

I noticed the explosion on the talk page. Rather than delve into what I hadn't been in the middle of, I just checked the major changes between one of my older revisions and the current one and noticed a few things had been "lost" on the way. The edit summary was sort of an indirect flag to anyone who might have had deleted the info, accidentally or not ;-) --Bobak 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub status on some articles edit

Even though radio topics often get ignored by editors and often don't get past the state of being stubs, we can't start inflating the ratings. Eventually, once the project has become more mature (we are still a very young project) and more people have joined, we will be able to systematically go through the stub-class and start-class articles. At the moment, however, we are not even at the point where most of the radio articles are tagged. Therefore, it is important to tag properly, in order to decrease the work that will have to be done later. --PhantomS 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Ronbo76 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

re: The anon IP edit

I agree. That person obviously has a conflict of interest. Hector M Lopez 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is essentially a vanity article. If a person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then other people should be able to write about that person using proper citations. The same philosophy goes towards external links; if a site is useful enough to be included in the EL section of an article, then others will place it there without being prompted by the site owners. As for the style of this article, it is entirely POV and not written in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia. In addition, it is in major need of wikifying. --PhantomS 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If the person is notable enough, other editors would be able to adopt the article and make it acceptable. However, considering that the notability of the article is in question and that few articles link to it, AfD is probably the only way it will get any attention. --PhantomS 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The blog post is in response to an interaction with Bill. It doesn't seem like a reliable source, nor does it deal with the issues of notability, resume-like structure, or the other unreferenced material in the article. --PhantomS 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to adopt the article and wikify it, you might be able to save it. However, considering the subject matter, you will probably be the only other editor, besides for Bill, who is working on it. --PhantomS 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See how far you can get with web research. If there is enough information to establish notability, then the article will be able to be rewritten using only reliable sources, and an AfD will be avoided. Incidentally, Bill Cherry should know where to find reliable sources about himself, if there are any. --PhantomS 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So far I've only found these, which are not even close to making him notable:

--PhantomS 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please chime in if you have a view edit

There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.

Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.

That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.

It would seem at first glance that all the cities in Southern California could appropriately remain as part of both WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California - it is after all one state! There are many articles across Wikipedia which have multiple WikiProject tags.

We are gathering responses to the following questions on those projects' talk pages:

Do you have a view whether the WikiProject California tag should be removed from a large number of cities in Southern California?

Do you have a view whether city article for Southern California cities should have more than one WikiProject tag?

Please let us know if you have a view! Spamreporter1 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious Edit of John F. Kennedy edit

Thank you for your observations, re the religion of John F. Kennedy. Please note, previous to my contribution, Kennedy showed a religion of Latin-Rite. It was I who clarified it, by contributing Roman Catholic. However, indeed, even that is insufficiently accurate. All Roman Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic. The religion is, therefore, Christianity. To be Roman Catholic or Protestant is to find differing expression or interpretation or branch of the Christian religion. Although to be a Roman Catholic or to be a Protestant is to be religious, neither functions apart from the tenants of Christ, each is a subset of Christianity - therefore, neither is a separate religion.

Should any other contribution disturb you, please be more specific. I am always willing to learn the error of my ways; if only the teacher can demonstrate - with evidence - what he is talking about.

Curiouscdngeorge 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Changes to warnings on User talk:Curiouscdngeorge edit

I looked extensively throughout his talk page history and it does not seem he was issued warnings that would lead up to a level 4. Blatant vandals who remove serious warnings from their talk page would be more susceptible to being reprimanded. I doubt this user is a vandal. As far as the talk page alteration, he is making what could be considered as unconstructive edits; and as far as his editing pattern it seems like he is committing some stylistic errors, spurring conflicts of interest, and possibly replacing information with original research or unverifiable data. I would recommend to avoid the situation for the time being. If you feel the user is not following the advice placed on his talk page, try submitting a request for comment on him. Hope this helps.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Trolls are gettin' sneakier edit

And sometimes stupider

I've seen some weird combinations of those, and normally it's just the hangon tag. Last time I saw this, it was a troll who was copying the same page (which had been marked for db-bio) over and over again with different titles! I just put the unwise ones on my watch list for a day or so, and they normally go away, thank God! :) SkierRMH 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to consider archiving your talk page with a neat little no-problem bot (like User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto) SkierRMH 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited text WABC (AM) edit

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove valid cited text. Ronbo76 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The text in question was not valid, as it did not support the claims made in the article. A single-article reference of a program director's comments does not translate into "official billing." Your warning is superfluous. Eleemosynary 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent help regarding California Gold Rush edit

Thanks for your recent help reverting vandalism on the California Gold Rush article. As you may be aware, the California Gold Rush article is set to be the Main page Featured article in about 48 hours, beginning at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007. You are probably also know that Main page articles typically undergo substantial vandalism beginning about now, peaking during the Main page appearance, and continuing for some days thereafter. Assistance from all who have helped in the past with this article is very much appreciated during these next five days or so! NorCalHistory 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but, sorry, I don't know how to adjust that template either. NorCalHistory 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for another independent check edit

Hi. I'm getting into quite a heated discussion here, and since you were quite objective the last time I asked you for advice, I'd like it again. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you. I just think that "from Texas" includes people who grow up there, but you don't think so? Xiner (talk, email) 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've offered a compromise. I think other people were too nice to say that to me. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be this helpful all the time, or I'll call on you for advice more often. Xiner (talk, email) 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, Ronbo, but while it's very much frowned upon, blanking one's own user talk page is not technically against the rules. The edit history is there, so the person can be blocked upon further misbehaviors. Xiner (talk, email) 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism. Drop a {{uw-vandalism1}} on his talk page. Forget about the problem with his blanking of his talk page, but if he breaks any particular rule more than three times, it's time to report him to WP:AIV. Xiner (talk, email) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR if you're simply placing a new warning on his page. If you undo his blanking of his own talk page, then you'd be violating 3RR. But not if you're citing him for a new vandalism. Xiner (talk, email) 02:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Malicious IP edit

FYI: 141.157.198.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for 1 day by User:Newyorkbrad. John Reaves (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to checking the contribs of this IP user. Ronbo, you were too nice when you described him/her to me! I wrote up a nice paragraph but I see John's been more efficient than me. Xiner (talk, email) 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you know, Ronbo, that when I read your messages, it can take up to a minute for me to fully comprehend what you say? I really like the mental challenge, love it actually, but obviously this one got the better of me. Xiner (talk, email) 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Ronbo, if you could help out with Polar Bear, that'd make my day. LOL. Still waiting for the Powers That Be to rule on my 3RR report on Dixie Chicks. Xiner (talk, email) 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're dealing with a CS/Edu major who is working on Polar Bear, where an argument erupted over whether it is a land mammal and whether a species of brown bear -- the Kodiak Bear -- is in fact larger. Xiner (talk, email) 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Impressive bear. Xiner (talk, email) 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, I prefer The Eye of Jupiter. Xiner (talk, email) 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at my monobook.js?

Kate Mulgrew edit

Is there a PC way to handle what is happening? Is there some channel this editor should explore beyond the scope of merely reverting an article? He has made comments on his IP talk page User talk:84.140.110.137. But how do we really know who anyone is? ZueJay^talk 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If its really an issue, I hope he posts to the board. The info is not negatively presented in the sources cited or in the article. There are so many other potential sources for the info - just Google "Kate Mulgrew adoption" and quite a bit comes up. Oh well. Thanks again. ZueJay^talk 05:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. I just think if we assume good faith, there's no reason not to tell the editor. ZueJay^talk 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well...glad CyberAnth weighed in. I hope we can get the editor to understand. I was also concerned about the sockpuppet thing, and the fact that if this person's claim on ID is true - what the heck's a politician blatantly editing WP for? ;)
And I'd be darn proud to have a wife who stands firm in her convictions, and seeks to pursue discussion, over a polarizing issue. ZueJay^talk 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll be trusting CyberAnth on the Bios as well; didn't just address the issue and walk - continued to review the page. I'm glad we came into contact on this - I feel that I can trust you to point me in the right direction again if I've got some issues I'm just "lost in the sauce" on. I have family members who were "adopted in", if you'll excuse the phrasing; it is easily a difficult subject. ZueJay^talk 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's has been an issue in my family as well - it runs in the paternal line. All this chat has made me want to "ramp-up" Ms. Mulgrew's bio to a less basic article; she is a remarkable woman. Now, just to find the time... And you can have Chakotay if I can keep "Katie", as one of my former roommates used to refer to the Good Captain. ZueJay^talk 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)