User talk:Ayla/Archives/2007

How come you haven't got a welcome message yet?

Hello Ayla! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! PeaceNT 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

First self-post

Thanks PeaceNT! Although I have been using Wikipedia for several years, so far I have only contributed intermittently, and typically limited my edits to corrections, redirections or disambiguations. It is for this reason that I am somewhat reluctant to request for adoption or join a WikiProject. I tend to consult Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the Manual of Style on the fly, as the need arises.

Concerning my current editing experience, I have two questions. Firstly, is there a Wikipedia API available for editors to interface with should they attempt to develop an assisting editing tool? I am aware that a number of tools are already in existence; however, I was wondering whether the API is available to the general public or whether tool developers need to have some form of privileged access.

Secondly, I sometimes encounter a minor disagreement with another editor, such as, for example, the inclusion of the disambiguation link to Papua New Guinea (single) on the Papua New Guinea article, which Normanby appears intent on removing despite my requesting him not to. I believe that this matter is too trivial to be considered a dispute; should I nonetheless request for a third opinion? Or should I go ahead and ask for adoption to get assistance during such (remote) disagreements?

Thanks for visiting!

Ayla 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php for the wikipedia api. Though if you are going to be building an assistant tool, you might want to check to make sure that WP:AWB does not already do the task! (Save you some work and all). As far as the minor disagreement, if you can't resolve it with the editor in question, getting a third opinion is certainly the best way to go. This is especially the case if there are only 2 people editing that article. I hope I have been of assistance, if you have any questions, just post the {{helpme}} tag, or contact me on my talk page. Best of Luck! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eagle 101 for your assistance. I hadn't been aware that the API was already in place (I must have been reading some out-dated blogs). I shall try getting a third opinion as recommended. Ayla 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lasallian universities and colleges

I have recently been performing some clean-up on the Lasallian universities and colleges article, as well as the La Salle, De La Salle, De La Salle College and De La Salle High School disambiguation pages. However, I am getting the impression that maintaining all these separate listings is making consistent editing problematic, since several of the schools are included under three or even four of the lists. I was thinking of merging the duplicated content into the Lasallian universities and colleges article, and leave the disambiguation pages only with a link to this article (and schools which are not affiliated with Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools). Do you think this is a good idea, or is it a controversial alteration? Ayla 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you considered placing a merge proposal tag to receive input from the community? Alan.ca 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but I had never encountered merges being performed on disambiguation pages. I will try putting up the merge proposal tag anyway and see the community input. Ayla 17:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Favor...

Hello, Ayla/Archives! I think that you're a really great editor, so, do you think that you could sign my autograph book, maybe? It would be an honor if you did! See ya later, Ayla/Archives! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess it won't do any harm... Signed. Ayla 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! My goal is to have the largest autograph book in world history!! Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is one ambitious goal. Still, this is potentially the world's largest encyclopaedia we're working on, so you can never tell ;-) Good luck! Ayla 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! Hope you get your wish of having Jimbo Wales's signature fulfilled! Ayla 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for signing my autograph book! Lucky 101. :) · AO ^Talk 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the next entry would be 101 and couldn't resist. Pity about the MfD though... Ayla 11:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

You might remember me from the MfD on autograph books. One small point: wasn't the consensus in favour of removing the "sign book" links from editors' signatures? As of your last post, you still haven't done so. I would recommend that you do so soon as leaving it would most likely draw more contention than it's worth. Ayla 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: Wikipedia:Editor review/Cremepuff222  –  Diff(s): [1]

Hey, all I want to do is become a better editor. I regret having editted my userpage so often, yet there's still hope if I edit about 2000 mainspace articles! Thanks for your tip on my signature, and happy editting! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that there are still editors out there receptive enough to accept a recommendation and act upon it without a long-drawn-out debate over its merits. Anyway, keep it up! :-) Ayla 01:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: Wikipedia:Editor review/Cremepuff222  –  Diff(s): [2], [3]

I passed the recommendation about the signature because I remembered that it had been a specific point of contention during the MfD debate on autograph books, and would most likely have lost you the support of a few editors if you did not change it. As others have already told you before me, the easiest way to increase your edit count is through RC patrolling - although I would also advise you to beware of Editcountitis! Good luck! Ayla 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Inadvertant content removal at WT:AIV

I want to draw your attention to the fact that a recent edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism apparently resulted in the page being reverted to an earlier version, with all recent discussions being erased (see diff). I am going to assume good faith from your side, and mark the edit off as an accident. Please be more careful in the future. Ayla 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flyguy649  –  Diff(s): [4]

Wow. My sincere apologies. I thought I started my comments by using the plus tab, but that shouldn't have affected any other existing comments. Assuming I started my comments manually, perhaps I didn't have the page all the way down. I don't know how that happened. I'm on anti-vandal patrol all the time here. I'll definitely ensure that doesn't happen again. Thanks for pointing it out. Humbly, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the formality of the tone in my previous post, but day after day of vandal-fighting tends to make one frigid even in cases where the good intention is obvious. Actually, something very similar (article being inadvertently reverted to a past version) had just happened to me here; I used the section edit feature but ended up distorting the entire page's content. Maybe we should drop a note to the developers if it happens again. Ayla 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flyguy649  –  Diff(s): [5], [6]

reply on my talk page. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'd rather know about anything I do that screws up than have people seething quietly. (Like that ever happens). I'll keep an eye open for other inadvertent screw-ups. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flyguy649  –  Diff(s): [7]

My userpage

Thanks for the revert! I didn't notice that, since I was still RC patrolling. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be of help. The vandalism number has already been updated. Ayla 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

St. or St

Re your edit to the ST article (see diff), I wanted to point out that the correct spelling of the abbreviation for "Saint" is always "St" (sans period), and is in fact sometimes referred to as a contraction. The abbreviation for "Street", on the other hand, is typically "St."; however, the period is sometimes dropped. You may wish to consult with the Abbreviations article. I am only mentioning this in case you should come across the abbreviation again. Ayla 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Damifb  –  Diff(s): [8]

Thanks for your comments. I will consider them the next time. --Damifb 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Serious question: what about Mr or Mr. for "Mister"?

--Damifb 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The same rule would apply to "Mr" for "M[iste]r":

In formal British English it is more common to write abbreviations with full stops if the word has been cut at the point of abbreviation but not otherwise: for example, Street — "St[reet]" — becomes "St.", but "Saint" — "S[ain]t" — becomes "St".

— Abbreviation, Periods (full stops) and spaces

In the United Kingdom, most Commonwealth countries and Ireland, a full stop (in the US and Canada, a period) does not generally follow the abbreviated form, which is in line with standard practice for abbreviations in those countries. The US usage, with a period, is likewise in line with standard American practice. See the history section of the article on Abbreviation.

— Mr.

Mr A. Smith - Mr is the contracted form of the title Mister and A. is the abbreviated form of his first name.

— Talk:ST

Note, however, that in American English usage, it is commonplace to add the period for practically any abbreviation that may be interpreted as a word. I believe that the policy on Wikipedia favours choosing the usage which matches the context of the word. For example, one would find St Aloysius' College (Sydney) (even on the school website), since Australia, being a Commonwealth Realm, abides by British English. Conversely, see St. Joseph High School (Westchester, Illinois) (and school website) for an American example. However, this 'rule' is followed rather loosely, either out of ignorance or out of negligence, so unless the article is specifically dealing with the spelling of the term (as in ST), I would recommend to avoid entering into squabbles over it. Ayla 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Damifb  –  Diff(s): [9]

Thanks. My doubt comes from the fact that in Spanish any abbreviation ends in a full stop.

--Damifb 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That would make Spanish similar to American English in that respect. Although I don't think it was the case that either language influenced the other - this is pretty much an arbitrary standard. Ayla 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Damifb  –  Diff(s): [10]

Re: Request for clarification

I would like to inquire what are your justifications for blocking User:On Wheezier Plot. He has not received any warnings this year at all, and none of his recent edits appear to have been disruptive. Am I missing something out? Ayla 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Messedrocker  –  Diff(s): [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] are some examples of him displaying considerably incivility and removing parts of people's comments, for which he has received numerous warning (permalink of talk page at time of request for clarifaction) and he has not improved. I am convinced that if people want to be contributors, they at least have to display a level of respect for other editors. On Wheezier Plot has failed to do so. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The evidence you gave me dates back to July 2006 at latest. Do you realise that, on WP:AIV, the majority of administrators dismiss any reports of vandalism which are older than 24 hours? In the absence of more recent activity, it appears that your block was punitive, not preventive, in is thus in violation of the blocking policy. I am thereby asking you to kindly reconsider your decision. Ayla 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Messedrocker  –  Diff(s): [17]

In any case I was misled when I made the decision to block him so I have unblocked him. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for consenting. Cheers. Ayla 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Messedrocker  –  Diff(s): [18]

Brian Reddyb

Thanks for your handling of the Brian Reddyb issue. I'm glad an admin finally had the common sense to see through the hoax and take corrective action. However, I was wondering... do you think it might be prudent to run a checkuser on Sanchezsteamer? Even though I'm almost convinced that it's the same person as Reddyb, the evidence is not conclusive, and I would prefer if we could avoid risking complications being raised in the future.

Regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for investigation movement, personally I've become somewhat sceptical about the effectiveness of such noticeboards, especially following a recent case I was involved in where several admins on WP:AIAV refused to block a blatant and persistent vandal because of (what I perceive to be) a ridiculous loophole in Wikipedia policy (see [19], [20], and [21]). I only pursued the Brian Reddyb issue because I knew it was a clear-cut case from the beginning. Notwithstanding, I sincerely wish you the best of luck if you believe in reviving Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Cheers. Ayla 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [22]

I beg to differ re the Sanchezsteamer claim. I do not know who that is, nor do I care. I think a checkuser should be run on Ayla and PrimeHunter I suspect they are the same individuals and are behind the malicious vandalism of the Rednex page. Thank you for your unabated interest in Rednex

Rednex and related products, created by Janne Ericsson, Örjan "Öban" Öberg, Pat Reiniz and Brian Reddyb, are copyrighted and trademarked by Brian Reddyb Company and used under license. Licensed by Rednex Studios Licensing, SE. All Rights Reserved.

Kindest Regards Chiefofmsiss1 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [23], [24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Brian_Reddyb Kindest Regards Chiefofmsiss1 20:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User with four edits, starting July 3 after previous sock was blocked, seems extremely familiar with WP policy, and has posted a bizarre copyright notice. I suggest an indef block for sock puppetry. Jehochman ^Hablar 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [25]

I have issued a request for a checkuser against Chiefofmsiss1 on grounds of evasion of the ban. It should not be long before the account is blocked. Ayla 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [26]

Checkuser confirms. Jehochman ^Hablar 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [27]

Copy that, over. Chiefofmsiss1 08:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Durova  –  Diff(s): [28]

FM104

I was just reading you addition regarding sockpuppetry on the FM104 talk page. No arguments there; actually I was a bit interested when I reverted one set of the sock additions and the user, who had apparently ever made four edits, seemed familar enough with Wikipedia to suggest that I was a bit quick on reverting edits in general.

I'm not quite sure what their eventual aim was. The Adrian Kennedy phone show does exist, although the title used by the station is the FM 104 Phone Show, but it is presented by Adrian Kennedy. And in itself, I think it might deserve mention in the article. The station is one of the bigger independent stations in Dublin, and the show does get mentioned elsewhere.

However, the reason I reverted the edits was there was a clear NPOV problem, especially in the use of the word Skanger. (I think I might have muttered "You can't be serious" at the monitor when I saw it. :O) ). I honestly think that there was some agenda there, although maybe just a joke.

Anyway, your last edit was reverted by a sock and there has been one edit to that section by an IP. I am not entirely happy about undoing the IP's edit, as it might be good faith, but if the section is removed as it is the edit of a sock, which is the proper thing to do, then the IP edit, whether well-intentioned or not, would have to go. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also initially reluctant to remove the Adrian Kennedy Phoneshow section indiscriminately from the FM104 article since, as you said, it might deserve mention. However, keep in mind that the information was added by a user who is not only banned, but who has also been the cause of an elaborate and long-term hoax which started all the way back in October 2005 and was only finally stopped this month, after ample discussion and propagating to the rest of the web. Even if the user decided to change his ways and start contributing constructively, why bother setting up four accounts? Thus, I am unwilling to leave any of the information unless it is independently verified by another editor.

Regarding the edit by the IP, I am of the opinion that it should be ignored; firstly, no matter how well-intentioned, it remains too minor a contribution (only involved changing the starting time of the show) to justify debating policy over it; secondly, it was performed after the sock puppetry was brought to light - I am assuming that the IP acted in ignorance of the case. If some editor unrelated to Brian Reddyb decides to reinstate the section, then the IP's contribution may be effected again. Ayla 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flowerpotman  –  Diff(s): [29]

Replying on talk page , but in broad agreement. :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flowerpotman  –  Diff(s): [30]

(Reply to your message) I was up late last night for non-Wikipedia reasons, and I decided to revert the last edit by the sock, with the unfortunate, but I agree, unavoidable, collateral damage of removing what seemed to be a good-faith edit. I'm pretty much in agreement here; if someone adds information about the show with sources, then that's fine. I know I have heard bits of the show while in Dublin, but all I know about it is that it isn't my cup of tea.

The one thread that seemed to run through the sock edits was an attempt to disparage the show or the listeners, so anything that seems NPOV might be worth keeping an eye on. I will keep an eye on the page for a few weeks. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the FM104 page solely as a result of tracking the sock puppeteer; thus, I am unfortunately unacquainted with the station and the show, and cannot determine the validity of what had been written. However, given the apparent popularity of the show, I am hoping that it will eventually get mentioned again by another editor who would be able to give a NPOV account. By the way, following a reversion by yet another (newly-registered) account, I requested for the page to be semi-protected, so it should be stable for now. Thanks for your help in handling this issue. Ayla 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  –  Posted: User talk:Flowerpotman  –  Diff(s): [31]

Retroviralreddy

To be honest, I must admit I was impressed with how quickly you discovered the edits made by Retroviralreddy. May I ask how you uncovered it so quickly? Is it that Javascript add-on that helped you? Despite being annoyed by the level of your responsiveness, one cant be anything other than impressed. Muchos besos Retroviralreddy 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nopes, it wasn't Twinkle; in fact, I've removed the tool for the time being. Well... I could tell you my source, but wouldn't I be spoiling the fun by doing that? Ayla 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure a bit of adhoc testing will allow me determine how you did. I certainly have some a list of possible reasons and could easily circumvent them. Interesting that you used the word 'fun'. Although you present yourself as some sort of heroic guardian protecting the sacred objectives of Wikipedia, it is quite clear that you rather enjoy searching for suspected sockpuppets of Brian Reddyb. I guarantee you that if there were no more Brian Reddyb related accounts you would be disappointed. You like to feel like a latter day Sherlock Holmes. No more reddyb make Ayla go crazy. Retroviralreddy 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What word other than "fun" would describe the perverse motivation behind an individual who persists, for two long years (and at the expense of hours of discussion), to perpetrate such an absurd hoax? The only 'enjoyment' I derive from tracking and blocking you is the satisfaction of seeing a task I started through to the end.

To give you a tip in advance re Sanchezsteamer: even if the strings of the sock were pulled by a colleague of yours, meat puppetry will not tolerated on Wikipedia either. There is little chance that you will succeed in convincing anyone that the issue of the Rednex producers was "talked about in parts of the media" (although the scenario does somewhat remind me of Durova's prediction in The dark side).

Let's face it: you're a banned user. Of course, you always have the option of appealing the ban to the Arbitration Committee, but the evidence against you is (in my humble opinion) solid, and there exists little to no chance that you will get the ban overturned.

So, here's my recommendation: go ahead and disappoint me. Abandon your present socks. Steer clear of anything that involves the 'legendary' Brian Reddyb. Pick up an entirely new line of editing. And please, try and make it something constructive this time.

Ayla 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Once again you prove successful at uncovering a Brian Reddyb confirmed sock puppet; this time under the name of Beebop1 . Yes, I ClandestineStoichkov am also connected to the said puppet, but now wish to move from the destructive to the constructive. I wish to commit to the changing of my behaviour from this point on, with the aim of contributing to the greater good of Wikipedia. Thus, I will no longer create hoaxes such as the now infamous Rednex episode. I will use this account as my principle editing account for complete transparancy, although do not expect to contribute meaningfully for yet another while. Once again congratulations on your investigative work and I recommend that in order to maintain this new found sense of goodwill and reconciliation that you do not put forward ClandestineStoichkov as yet another suspected of Brian Reddyb. Best Regards, ClandestineStoichkov 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope that you are sincere in your declaration. Technically, as a banned user, you are still prohibited from editing Wikipedia; however, in the spirit of good faith, I shall be turning a blind eye to the creation of this account. Happy (constructive) editing! Ayla 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

(Added own username)

  –  Posted: User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval  –  Diff(s): [32]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ayla! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ^∆ 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought someone was back.... :O)

I thought our old pal was back, but it seems to be an accidental inclusion when someone reverted the Saddam Hussein article to an older version. Anyway, I fixed it. [33] FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! However, given the above posts, I'm optimistic that we've seen the end of the Reddyb story. Ayla 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)