User talk:Patstuart/Archive 2

Re: Help with User:IHaveAColdThatsAwesome

User (IHaveAColdThatsAwesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has made several nonsense edits, and now claims that addition of Category:People who carry swords and lots of people to it is not vandalism (see talk page). I don't have the authority to make him stop, but the edits seem not-so-coincidentally silly. Comments? -Patstuart 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on this editor's Talk page and commented on the CfD debate. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

o this is how 2 comment

why did u undo my changes..all accurate and i currently attend Vernon Barford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswisskid (talk • contribs)

Concerning this edit: [1]; people often vandalize their school pages on Wikipedia. The comment about only being able to attend Vernon Barford by being part of the "program which the Five Amigos are a part of" - and then to mention each "amigo" by name, sounds like silliness. 99% of the time when people add names to their school page (and in a context which sounds like mockery), it is just them trying to put themselves on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if this was a true edit, but you can understand my skepticism. Thanks. -Patstuart 04:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

List of British things

what makes you think it is not appropriate for wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaedo (talk • contribs)

I think you understand why. But if you don't, it's because the page should a) be a category, not it's own page, b) it's too broad even to be a category (see WP:CFD), and c) it adds nothing to the value of the encyclopedia. -Patstuart 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of Lady Sovereign

Quote: "rv - may be a good edit, but repeated vandal has lost credibility". In my opinion the user whose contribution you reverted is as credible as anyone else when it comes to the article about Lady Sovereign, the user has as far as I can see not been engaged in vandalisation of the article. Thus I think it is unnecessary to remove information that neither appears to be slanderous nor false. - Chsf 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apologize - the problem is that the user was vandalizing other articles, so I assumed their edits to this one were vandalism. Please feel free to put it back. -Patstuart 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Global warming

Hi. Would you care to participate in the discussion at talk:Global warming about how alternate views can be included? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've included something; I hope it's of worth. :) -Patstuart 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning to 169.132.18.248

This IP is used companywide and shared my _many_ people. How can any potential blocks be avoided as such? (Please reply on MY talk page.) Thank You 169.132.18.248 19:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. You'll have to pardon me if I was a bit overzealous with your IP address. However, the IP-INFO returns no reverse DNS, so we have no way of ascertaining that this is a multiple-user IP. Second, this address has a history of both vandalism and adding in commercial links. If the IP were a regular user, it would be banned by now. I will downgrade the warning, as it may have been overzealous. However, please realize, that if the IP continues to vandalize, it will be blocked, if only for a period of time (usually between one day and one week - though admins go easier on public addresses.) I will add this discussion to the top of the page; please don't remove it if you would like administrators to see it. -Patstuart 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, Thank you. Can you please elaborate what IP-INFO is? Secondly, how does wiki normally treat shared IPs that cause a problem? Thirdly, what does your 'downgraded' warning represent, and where can I see it? Fourthly, if the IP is blocked, will it block any logged in users from editing from that IP, while they are logged in? Please respond on my talk page. And thank you again. 169.132.18.248 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1)You'll notice a box at the bottom of the screen that says This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. In it is a link with IPINFO as an option. It often tells us who the IP is registered to (e.g., a school district, a business, etc.) In your case, it comes up with nothing, and only provides a top-level ISP, which is useless.

2)Wiki goes very easy on IPs, only blocking for a short amount of time (I personally think they sometimes go too easy). I've seen repeated users who only vandalize be blocked 4 or 5 times. They go even easier on verified shared IPs. You'll probably get a 48 hour block for the first offense.

3)It means I took out the "spam4" template and put in a "spam1" template (if you read the history of this page, you'll see that my warning at the top used to be much harsher).

4)Yes, it can mean a regular user will be blocked, but you can appeal. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. -Patstuart 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What practical effect does that warning have, and how long does it last? Also, the notice you put on top of my talk page, what is its purpose? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks again 169.132.18.248 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The warning lets other editors know that you have been vandalizing. Then the next person to give you a warning ups the ante. Finally, after the worst warnings, you will be blocked. -Patstuart 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For doing lots of vandal fighting. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Go ahead and add it to your user page. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there

I am new to wikipedia, and i was wondering if you have any advice for me about editing and about how things work on wikipedia. please reply Fuzzymonkey9 03:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As per your edit to Template:Schools; a template is not actually an encyclopedia entry; in this case, it goes at the bottom of several different kinds of school (e.g., University, Christian school), and is meant to detail a list of those schools. If you want to add information about a school, go to the page school, and edit there. Thanks. -Patstuart 04:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech and Offensive Edits

Hi, thank your for your comment. I do not believe in removing subject matter merely because it is offensive to some. However, I fail to see how an image of Mohammed, regarding which image we know almost nothing, contributes to the article. In fact, it may very well be misleading, in that if this is one of the few images that can be produced by Muslims, including it in the article may give an erroneous impression regarding how common such images are. Be that as it may, I don't believe in being offensive merely for the sake of being offensive. What is the purpose of the image? It is hard for me not to wonder whether the purpose is really to serve Wikipedia. I hope this helps to explain. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It does clear things up, though I do disagree. I find it awfully convenient that Mohammed has no pictures of him to enhance the article, whereas other religious/historical figures of unknown characature do have them. An image, even if it's historically not accurate, is often a way to visualize a historical or religious figure. Take my count on the following articles; we know what none of these people look like:

• Jesus - 11
• Plato - 3
• Apostle Paul - 6
• Moses - 5, but 2 with his face
• Abraham - 1
• Confucius - 3

I hope, then, you can understand my frustration, as I feel Wikipedia is being censured. Does have a picture on penis really help either (who doesn't know what they look like?). But if it were removed, it would immediately be called censorship. Please understand I am not attacking you, I am just a little frustrated, as I think there's a double standard. -Patstuart 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your feeling that there are double standards. Although it might be nice, Wikipedia articles do not all adhere to the same standards. Rather, the standards that are applied to a given article, I think largely depend upon the somewhat accidental circumstances of who has that article on their watch list and is interested enough to give their input.

In the case of Jesus or Moses, I think it is clear that we really do not have any idea what they look like. So what do the images in these articles offer us? As you said, it is a way to visualize these figures, even if the images are inaccurate. Although I don't think this adds encylopedic value to the article, it may add an aesthetic value to those who wish to have such visualizations--just as a fine cover on a hard bound encyclopedia might add to its aesthetic value, without really adding any specifically encyclopedic value.

Thus, I have no strong objection to the presence of inaccurate images of Jesus or Moses, if that is pleasing to some readers. However, there is another aspect to images of Mohammed. While these might add aesthetic value to an article to some, they may also drasticly reduce the aesthetic value of the article to a great many. Thank you again for your friendly discussion. --BostonMA 00:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather, the standards that are applied to a given article, I think largely depend upon the somewhat accidental circumstances of who has that article on their watch list and is interested enough to give their input. You certainly couldn't be righter about that. Thx. -Patstuart 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

check again

i edited vhikash dhorasoo. i changed his birthplace. i think you will find with a bit of research i was right. he was born in maurutious island. and moved to normandy france when he was young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.6.97 (talk • contribs)

I did double check: [2]. If you can come up with an equally reliable source, then your edits will be more valid. As it was, you had no source, and the reliable internet sources said your information wasn't correct. Second, your IP address has a history of making vandalous edits to FC Barcelona (e.g., replacing the whole text with f*ck barca), so any information you provide is already suspect. But I urge you contribute valid information to the football clubs and to the rest of Wikipedia; your help is appreciated. -Patstuart 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take an action after a review

I think you shouldn't hasten to remove a link before first reviewing it. In this particular case, the link presents objective analysis. Going by your take with regards to NPOV, the Pope's remarks are one-sided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. As a matter of fact, I did take the (unusual) step of downloading the file poperemarksandthetruth.pps (it's still on my desktop). I looked at it, and it is clearly stated from a point of view (as per the statement "the words are not worth quoting in a speech by the pope."). It also seems to be more of an attempt to convince the reader that Islam is not violent than to give an analysis of the speech. I don't contest this assertion whatsoever; in fact, I am convinced that Islam is not the violent religion it is often portrayed as. However, the point of the article is not to convince people that the Pope was incorrect, or that Islam is peaceful; rather, it is to give a simple reporting of the facts. I would similarly delete an article that stated something like, "the Pope may have had a valid point".

Also, another point is that the links fails the WP:External Links category; normally, as a page watcher, it would be my job to delete all your external links, because of the rules stated in the policy. However, this past time, I saw that some of them might be relevant, and though it's cluttering up the pages, I didn't remove them.

I hope you can understand my reasoning. Thank you again for your response. -Patstuart 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reploy. With regards to your comment that other posts violate external link policy, I think you are referring to rich media. However, the policy permits rich media when appropriate. As such, please clarify how would it be your "job to delete all external links". Appreciate your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Please don't misunderstand; I do not wish to make it look like I'm opposing you. So if I sound harsh, please understand that it's only in response to your question.

To pull several quotations from the external links policy page:

What should be linked to

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

Links normally to be avoided

• A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

Rich media

• As remarked above, there is a strong presumption against linking directly to rich media.... In an instance where a direct link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, as in the following examples:

I believe that all of the above apply to your link, with the exception of the first, which I believe does not (please see the context). The rich media part was only an aside. Mostly it's the other two that are a bigger deal. However, it does say that rich media is to largely be avoided, except in special circumstances. I hope this answers your question. -Patstuart 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross-revert

Sorry about that; looks like we cross-reverted on User talk:Nunh-huh. I did not mean to imply that you were vandalizing the page with my automated edit-summary. Kuru ^talk 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. Actually, he reverted first, then I reverted his revert, which would have been OK, except I hit the back button on my browser, so the javascript page automatically reverted my second revert. Actually, you did correctly. I screwed up his page twice. -Patstuart 23:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I am not allowed to edit?

I am really trying to understand why am I not allowed to edit. Moreover, I have received a warning. I am frustated with constant removals of my edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

You have misunderstood my links as spam when they are not. I agreed with your reasoning on the Pope's pps. However, I think other links provide rich information on Ramadan and Muhammad. They are very relevant to Wikepedia. As a user of Wikipedia, I have full right to contribute. Noone can incorrectly judge as SPAM and remove the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Someone else put a message on your page which was a little rougher than needed [3]. I didn't want to remove the message, but I clarified it and toned it down; this was especially so because I wasn't sure if you received the message after not making any more edits (the poster may have erred) - I apologize if this was the case. You may edit, and you will receive no more warnings, unless you try to repost any links to your webpage (or other obvious vandalism) before having a discussion on the talk page, as suggested in your comments. If I see that you make good faith edits, I'll definitely come back and remove the last of the warnings (but don't do so yourself, or someone else will put it back, and you'll just get warned again). -Patstuart 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment. I didn't remove the other links; someone else did. They're not spam, but they fail WP:EL, as per the reasons he stated, mainly concerns of vanity. Again, if you add them to the talk page, and people agree to let them in, go for it. -Patstuart 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Policy

Thanks for your earlier response.

Since we are trying to comply with the Wiki policies and guidelines, I have a question.

The Dispute Policy states:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

In this backdrop,don't you think that anyone who wants to remove my edit should first talk to me on the talk page and request removal?

Thanks Again.

Tahniyat 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Edits that are against Wikipedia policy can be immediately removed; yours appears to be that, as several editors have pointed out. Even controversial edits can be removed: take, for example, this frustrating example of my own, where people will not allow the mention that LDS and Watchtower are considered, by most, to be outside the mainstream of Christianity (which is true; most use the word cult): [4]. However, I can do nothing but add to the talk page, and discuss the changes, hoping for concensus before I add it back in. As a matter of fact, that's what a Recent Changes Patroller is; it's our job to look for changes which are against Wiki policy, and revert them; often this is External links. -Patstuart 01:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tip on Preview. I didn't notice the button. Go Futurama! 08:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh...and one last thing. How exactly do I "join" Wikiprojects? Any help will be appreciated, Go Futurama! 08:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. As for joining a Wikiproject, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean putting up userboxes in your profile? Otherwise, if you find an individual project, sometimes they will have a member list that you can put your user on (e.g., WP:UB), although sometimes not. Perhaps I'm not a good person to ask, but I must apologize, as I'm not quite sure what you need. -Patstuart 08:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Sure. As for joining a Wikiproject, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean putting up userboxes in your profile? Otherwise, if you find an individual project, sometimes they will have a member list that you can put your user on (e.g., WP:UB), although sometimes not. Perhaps I'm not a good person to ask, but I must apologize, as I'm not quite sure what you need. -Patstuart 08:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sp3000"

How about an example? Say...Futurama? It says

List of participants Join WikiProject Futurama by clicking on this link.

Add your name to the list of participants

Go Futurama! 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I typed in Wikiprojects Futurama into the search box, found it, and located something called list of members, or something like that. And here's the link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Futurama/List_of_participants. Simply add yourself to the bottom of the list. That simple! -Patstuart 08:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From grandia01

hi, can you please prove to me how the st. barnabas bible is a forgery??or is it just plain easy to say something like this from you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

From Gospel of Barnabas: "The Gospel is considered by the majority of academics (including Christians and some Muslims) to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud; however, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam." I'm not sure that language could be any stronger.

Second, please avoid personal attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and conform to the 3RR rule (WP:3RR). Thanks. -Patstuart 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

i will wait for your reply.just a friendly advice for next time:don't edit someone's lines if you have no proof of what you're saying,these are basic editing rules mr. good-editor.in the meantime go do your research(which you didn't obviously do before)and prove me to the truth of what you're saying mr. devout christian(even though i highly doubt that a noble being like jesus-peace be upon him-would approve of your manners and rudeness).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

in reply to your "proof"

1)no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas. 2)just because "some" scholar denied it doesn't mean that what he/she said is 100% right because you still didn't provide any logical stand-alone proof.for example:just because bush said that iraq had wmd's,does that mean that iraq really had wmd's?? 3)who are and what are the histories of these "scholars" that you mentioned??not a single name is given... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

Thirdly,did you even bother to see ahmed deedat's debate with jimmy swaggart??even if you dont like jimmy swaggart,you should see it atleast for your logic before lashing out with such talk!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

First off, please understand, I am not trying to make an enemy out of you. I am trying to explain what I wrote. It is now twice that you have personally attacked me, and more times than that that you have simply been rude. I would appreciate if we could keep this discussion on civil grounds.

To explain, I actually took that quote right from Gospel of Barnabas on Wikipedia. That was not my own quote. Someone else wrote it. Secondly, when I called it a quackery in the edit summary, I was mimicking something that someone else had written earlier. So I am certainly not alonen in my position. If something is controversial, it is standard procedure that it is discussed on the talk page before it is added. This happens often; it happened with one of my edits earlier today. Please respect this. Thank you for your patience. -Patstuart 10:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe that you are slightly mistaken in your facts. You have stated "no muslim scholar denied the authenticity of the gospel of st. barnabas." This is a blanket statement, and I find that highly doubtful. http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm, a non-partisan site, describes the text as solely adopted by Muslims, and completely rejected by western scholarship. Thus, it is not "some scholar" who says it's wrong. If anything, it is most of any scholar who says it wrong, with some notable exceptions in the Muslim world. -Patstuart 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your clarification.but there are still some logical holes in your last thesis nonetheless,besides,you didn't address some of my points.anyways,im not going to keep on going any further with this,i have more important things to do.i ask god to show all of us the right path.thank you for your constant contributions to wikipedia.have a good day!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs)

If you wish to have a discussion on the talk page, I am certainly prepared to back up my statements with reliable sources.

i ask god to show all of us the right path. - that is my prayer every day. Let us, then, do our part, and pray to listen, rather than speak to be heard. God bless. -Patstuart 10:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not like Richard

It's not my fault that you wikipedia guys don't like me. Richardkselby 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits like [5] this are absolutely your fault. -Patstuart 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bring it

<Comments removed at user's request>

What would you like me to say? It's not like I've done anything to harm you, or anyone else. The person above made several bad edits, and was warned for them. Not blocked. Warned. As for you, I don't know what I've done against you. If you have a problem with the fact that I've reverted some vandal edits, please tell me why, because, Wikipedia wouldn't even exist if it weren't protected from vandalism (trust me, people are trying it all the time). So if I've harmed you somehow, please let me know how. -Patstuart 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he was only here to troll, Pat...he was trying to get a reaction out of you. When you find you're dealing with someone like this, the most effective response is often to just report him to WP:AIV and ignore him.

BTW, there are actually more than 1000 administrators. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the good point. I will heed the advice from now on. Thanks again. -Patstuart 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is looking out for me, though, thanks. lol. -Patstuart

Nice job.

I think it's good that people like you spend time patrolling Wikipedia attempting to remove malicious edits. However, though my recent edit (of the British International School in Cairo page) may not have been appropriate, it was more-or-less a response to other vandalism of the page. Of course, I was indeed in the wrong, but nevertheless I think you should check slightly more carefully the context of the changes sometimes.

I know that adding such comments detracts from Wikipedia's attempts towards achieving accuracy, but I honestly couldn't resist jabbing at the poorly spelled (and puntuated) edit made by one of my peers claiming he had an IQ of 360. It was apparent what I was doing if you were to carefully read the comments I added, which directly referred to other vandalism.

Oh, and that part about them not having aptitude tests was entirely true. They are currently accepting pretty much anyone who can pay the fees in hopes to sufficiently expand the student body before moving to a new campus. Hence, we have a lot of sub-par students as you descend the years.

Thanks, and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.225.148 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for understanding the changes I made. What susualy happens is that changes to pages come at a lightning speed, and the only thing I can see at a page is your two edits: [6] and [7]. You are right; if I'd spent more than a few seconds on the page, I would have seen the ridiculous comment about a 360 IQ, and taken that out too. From now on, it looks like I may have to revert less edits, even if it means more vandalism, in the name of being thorough. That being said, if you see vandalism from now on (it's very common in high school pages), feel free to remove it.  ;)I will remove the warning from your IP. -Patstuart 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A Complaint for your Consideration

I reverted your edits out of deference to the rules. Your additions were unsourced, which means they run afoul of WP:RS. Please do not again state that his son is homosexual without a source. I don't doubt the fact, but the it isn't against the rules. Secondly, it was clearly a POV edit (i.e., the words "His father's voting record on gay rights issues is poor"). If that were reworded, it would be OK. Please also understand, that I changed the wording as a recent-page patroller, not as a regular editor of the page; I revert pages when they go afoul of policy, not when I don't like the edit. I personally don't care if the man has a gay son; if he does, let it be said, but please, let it be proved with a source, and stated in a more NPOV fashion (e.g., "Knollenberg's voting record is largely against the gay cause").

I am glad to allow dialogue, but please let us take it to the talk page. Giving me a warning was not at all appropriate; if you have an issue, please state it in a kind manner. -Patstuart 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment that Congressman Knollenberg's son is homosexual is now sourced. You state that "[y]our additions were unsourced", as though more than one substantive revision was unsourced. In fact, the only other substantive edit was sourced, that being the reference to Congressman Knollenberg's record on gay rights issues. That edit is not a POV edit because it is a statement of substantiated fact, so I will not change it. I note that your deletion of my material resulted in the reinstatement of prior unsourced comments that seemed to reflect political bias. I feel, therefore, that you have operated in accordance with a double standard, not the Wikipedia rules. As to the warning that I sent you, I think that is an appropriate response to your unexplained, wholesale deletion of material of substance, particularly when you failed to engage me in dialog about the issues you had with the material that you were deleting -- and particularly since you had deleted my material twice.

Thank you for adding a source. But please keep in mind this quote from WP:VAND: Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement. As a page patroller, we occasionally make mistakes, and confronting us in gentle language is much preferable to giving a warning. Thank you for your time. -Patstuart 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We were not in a "content dispute" You thwarted the opportunity for a dispute by twice deleting my material without engaging in any dialog with me. In fact, I would have welcomed a content dispute involving healthy dialog.

Be advised that you breached the following Wikipedia policies by deleting my material:

Assume good faith

Assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Civility

Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed.

Editing policy

Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.

In the absence of dialog, which would undoubtedly have included an expression of your intent, it was perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that your deletion of my material was vandalism. Below is the definition of vandalism, as well as a category of vandalism that matches your action.

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It is, and needs to be, removed from the encyclopedia."

"Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."

On the basis of my interpretation of your action as vandalism, my warning was completely appropriate. You could have avoided this entire situation by engaging in dialog rather than a wholesale, gratuitous deletion. I am well aware of the special policies pertaining to biographies and I am anticipating that you will attempt to rely on the following portion of that policy. "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles...." Though I initially failed to include a source for one aspect of my material, that aspect -- the sexuality of Congressman Knollenberg's son -- is not necessarily controversial. If you believe that it is, then perhaps that is why we are not able to see eye to eye on this matter. Motility2002 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ma'am (or is it sir?), I have told you several times that I made the changes in error. I will remove the warning from your page; but recent patrol editors make mistakes (see the userbox on my user page); it is not something we are proud of, but it happens occasionally. I have apologized for it. Now please, this is not an issue worth getting worked up about. I have apologized, I believe you see my point; so I ask you to listen to your own advice and assume a good faith edit. So let's not argue about this any further, unless you have something briefly to add to my comments. Thank you. -Patstuart 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you must have intended the above response for another editor. You never said to me previously that you made changes in error, and you never apologized. Motility2002 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

re:Wikiprojects Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sp3000"

How about an example? Say...Futurama? It says

List of participants Join WikiProject Futurama by clicking on this link.

Add your name to the list of participants

Go Futurama! 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I typed in Wikiprojects Futurama into the search box, found it, and located something called list of members, or something like that. And here's the link Wikipedia:WikiProject_Futurama/List_of_participants. Simply add yourself to the bottom of the list. That simple! -Patstuart 08:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

So I just edit the page so that my name is on the bottom...no asking anyone. Cool! Thanks

Go Futurama! 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

An apology about the actions of Profilio

I am personally apologizing for the actions of the user 'Profilio'. He is a relative of mine who was trying to attack me by attacking others. He succeeded in some respects, seeing as I have spent most of the day explaning the situation to get the ban lifted from myself. Again, I am sorry. Personally, I find the phrase 'wikinazi' an insult in so many ways I can possibly list them all here. To reiterate, I am terribly sorry. If you need more explanation as to why I am answering and not Profilio, firstly read my talk page, and secondly know that he won't be coming to this site again. Infolithium 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted by all means. To be honest, it comes with the territory of bieng a page patroller, so I wasn't horribly surprised or offended. It's obvious that people will get mad when their changes are reverted; just take a look at my talk page above. ;) Good luck, and stay long, contributing often. -Patstuart 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Patstuart. I just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I really appreciate it. Imaginaryoctopus^(talk) 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I know there's nothing more irking than when a user you've warned decides to turn against you, as if you've somehow wrong them by reverting their edits. That's why I gave a test3 (and also because of other vandalism) right away. -Patstuart 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi pat-- When adding vandalism warnings, please be sure to go in sequence ({{test1}}, test2}}... This way, the case at WP:AIV is much more powerful. Thanks, and keep up the good work AdamBiswanger1 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that with IP users, it doesn't seem to matter much what order they go in; the admins will give them a similar (and often short) block every time. So sometimes I'll skip them for IP users,, or for blatant vandalisms. But I'll keep your advice in mind. Thanks. -Patstuart 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VAND: "There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used successively." I've also noticed that there are some templates like test4im (or even bv) which seem to imply that some of the previous edits can be bypassed. Finally, there's the issue of vandalbot; how do you treat additions from that one? that being said, I will def hear your advice; I have been a little quick recently.

And, btw, congrats on the adminship. What are the differences? Are there more buttons for functions available? -Patstuart 04:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's always this rule, of course...which means use your judgement. But as a general rule, for garden variety vandals, I'll run them through 1, 2, 3, 4 -- giving them a clear chance to change their ways between each -- before I'll go to WP:AIV. The exceptions are (a) when they start out by spewing profanity or equally offensive comments in an article or (b) when they either start or quickly move to personally attacking other editors, then I'll start at test2 or test3 or blatantvandal. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just know that there are some great editors who used to be vandals and learned to love Wikipedia once they witnessed the great community we have here. So, being heavy handed can scare away a valuable contributor. But, I agree with you that most have nothing to contribute. AdamBiswanger1 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed that edit

The citation is still a bit sloppy, but he's in the right ballpark. I did this google search and came up with this document, which he appears to be citing. It's entirely fair to say "www.hrc.org gives Knollenberg a score of 1 out of 8 LGBT-related votes." "poor record" is arguably POV; "1 out of 8" is simple reporting. Although in this particular case, most reasonable people would agree that 1/8 qualifies as poor in your typical score card -- as long as we're very clear about who said it, and that it's not Wikipedia editorially stating that someone has a poor (or good) record on anything. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

P.B. Pilhet / Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hey, Patstuart! Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it. -- 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It sure does promote happiness. :Smiles back: -Patstuart 20:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coin flipping

Hey, if you read further down the page, you'll see a link to a MathWorld article on this. So I guess it must be true. Now that I think about it, I'm guessing maybe the triples can overlap, so that "TTHT" is an instance of "TTH" coming before "THT." Then, the chances of coming up T after TTH is 1/2, while the chances of coming up TH after TTH (resulting in THTTH, so that "THT" comes after "TTH") is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, or half as likely. The article doesn't really explain it, but there are some sources at the end of the article. Good luck. Jinnentonik 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Heh. I have no arguments about this revert of my revert of my revert. :-) I was trying to be fair-minded about it. God only knows what the "reasonable" number of "critical" sites is. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm glad. I'd hate you to get mad that I reverted your reversion of your reversion. But yes, if you ask me, the site already has enough sites that hate Westboro. -Patstuart 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV: See {{adminbacklog}}

It's just approaching the point where I'd say there's a backlog. My rule of thumb is there'a a backlog when nothing has been cleared in at least 30-45 minutes, with 10 or so in the queue. (But my guideline might be a bit high). When you think it's gone on too long, uncomment the {{adminbacklog}} tag at the top of the page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It has only a few admin removals in the past 1.5 hours; now there are about 15 names. If the admins don't want to ban them, that's fine, but they usually remove the names if they're just getting lazy. -Patstuart 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, definitely looks backlogged now. I try to be really conservative about using that tag because I don't want to be a pain in the ass if someone is just taking some time to work through the list. After 45 minutes of no deletions, it's pretty clear there's a problem. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aeropogetica (or whatever his sn is) is handling them right now - he's just not updating the AIV page. Prob because I messaged him right before you told me about the tag. -Patstuart 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV

There's a backlog on the page of over an hour and a half. I don't think any admins are watching it. Your'e the first admin I found who's contribs clearly show you're online. Just a request, a suggestion. -Patstuart 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nvm, Jim Douglas just showed me how to uncomment {adminbacklog} -Patstuart 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I have cleared the backlog with the assistance of a couple of other admins. Night! (aeropagitica) 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

G'night??! I guess you're from overseas. *checking*.. yup, England.-Patstuart 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Article

You messaged me earlier that I have edited some Christianity article, which i would like to tell you I have not even visited a "christian" article weblink on wikipedia. Only place I have edited is the article "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale." Singh27 11 October 2006.

I have checked your history section, and I haven't found any messages that I left. Unless an administrator has rolled back the history, I believe you are mistaken. Perhaps I messaged an IP address that you were using. In any case, I can't respond to a message that I don't know about posting. Thanks. -Patstuart 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem...

I'm just annoyed that I got an edit conflict on WP:AIV trying to get him blocked because you were doing the same thing!

I've been trying to figure out how to get rid of his very first edit, Talk:Iteroparity. I think an admin will have to delete that page. You'll see the problem if you click back and forth between that talk page and the corresponding article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, just blank it. -Patstuart 03:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that'll do it...the page itself will still exist, no? It shouldn't exist at all because Iteroparity is a redirect. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's the thing: I don't think it matters. And it might not have been a redirect way back when. It's not like anything will hurt because there's a blank page rather than no page at all. *Sounds harsh, but means the message in kindness*. -Patstuart 03:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I tried; it's not working. Probably not important. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I didn't mean the page would go away. I just meant that there would be content on an empty page. -Patstuart 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)