User talk:Bovlb/Archive 2008-03

Adoption

Hello Bovlb! Would you like to adopt me as a Wikipedia user? I have been on wikipedia a while but have been discouraged in some areas and would like someone who I can just ask a lot of questions to and get answers from. Thanks!--DerRichter (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Please add {{adoptee|Bovlb}} to your user page. Do you want to talk about what has discouraged you? Or how you would like to be able to contribute more? Bovlb (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Actually I have a ton of reading to do right now before my public policy class starts, but I will be back later probably this evening pacific time in the US. But as a quick overview, I edit a lot of Austria related articles and am actually in the middle of probably my biggest project ever with List of crossings of the Danube River, much of which I am still in the process of translating. But that is going quite well. I also review my recent changes a lot, and revert some vandalism or edits with no citations. Part of what I have developed as a wikipedia philosophy so far relates to: if it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.. I have also edited a lot of high school pages, and as you may know, they are riddled with vandalism and unsourced additions. I kind of regret getting involved in high school pages, such as Bellevue High School (Bellevue, Washington) where I reverted some additions which were unsourced and used bad grammar, as well as which removed sourced information. Then, the IP address reverted my edits and started to attack me personally on the talk page, and I have pretty much avoided it since. I don't know how to confront people who accuse and revert, especially when I was really just trying to include all of the sourced information. I cannot really contact this person, and they want to talk about me on the article's page. I almost considered quitting over this, just becuase it is as if I can do nothing to satisfy his/her wants. Anyways after probably overreacting I have tried to diffuse the situation, give suggestions for how to edit better, and requested they talk to me on my page. I know high school pages are of the least importance to wikipedia, and probably have the highest vandalism, but that is why I started out editing them as a new user, just so I could get better before moving on to more serious things. Thanks a lot and talk to you later! --DerRichter (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of crossings of the Danube River is a nice page. A few suggestions:

• Would it be better as Crossings of the Danube River, or even Bridges over the Danube or River Danube bridges if there's no possibility of including fords and ferries? At the least they would be good redirections.
• I think you would be best to use a decimal point instead of a comma in the distances. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Decimal points.
• It really needs an overarching graphic, whether an annotated map or something slicker.

It can be frustrating to see the same problematic edits made again and again. Sometimes you just need to step back and accept that, "If it's the right thing to do, then somebody else will do it." Obvious and persistent vandalism can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Low-level harassment can be reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, escalating to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But many things just come down to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There are many pages that just seem to attract low-quality edits, like high schools, towns, celebrities and sexual concepts. Also with celebrities, people rush to add the latest gossip with no concern for verifiability.

You are my first adoptee, so I'm new at this. I have kids, so my online time is a bit unpredictable, but I try to check in at least once a day. Bovlb (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the suggestions. Ill make those redirects now and look around about the page name move. The commas I definitely need to change. I agree with the graphic thing too. I think that Image:Danubemap.png would be the best, but will look around for more too. Thanks again.

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Meetup notifications

History: [1]

The notice keeps showing up on the upper right hand corner of my screen. It is not a pop-up banner, but rather a message built into Wikipedia that I cannot disable even though I keep trying to hide it. Do you know how to fix this problem? Felix the Hurricane (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! This would be the Geonotice, and is a function of your IP address. There are instructions on that page on how to get rid of it. Bovlb (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bovlb I think that took care of it, the notices are not showing up any more. Felix the Hurricane (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alec J. Spalding

Hi, I received an OTRS email from Colin Scott regarding a photo of Alec J. Spalding. Have you uploaded this photo yet? If so, please point me to it so that I may add the OTRS link. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been a little busy. I hope to get this done soon. Bovlb (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I took care of it for you. howcheng {chat} 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Self-limiting_administrators

Thanks for the note. Sorry it took a while. I basically think it's OK, but others may feel put upon. I don't know what would promote buy-in by others. I'm pretty much a 1RR type person anyway as I ascribe to WP:DGAF. If I feel like I've acted in anger with a block, I put it up for discussion at WP:AN/I. I'm a big believer in consensus and discussion and not acting out of haste or anger. . The only time I would take umbrage would be if someone deleted an article unilatereally that I was trying to rescue. For that the course of action would be discussion, WP:DRV, WP:AFD. So I guess I kind of adhere to this already. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Bovlb...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption?

Just looking for some friendly advice. Get back with me via the talk page if you're available to adopt me. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [2]

well, for starters i'd like to start archiving. i'm spending a lot of time on vandals and welcomes. is this a good direction? i did the adoptee template you suggested on my user page. what kind of contributions hold significant weight when nominated for adminship? holler back. InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 18:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive your user talk page? I use MiszaBot, which seems to work well.

Different people have different criteria for adminship. You may want to review some successful and unsuccessful requests, and also the guide. I think most people would look for an appropriate balance of mainspace and project/user edits to show that you contribute both to the encyclopedia and the community. Your mainspace edits should be a mix of maintenance and content generation. Vandalism-fighting alone would be a warning bell for some voters because they want to feel that admins know how to contribute content (and what it's like to see it deleted). At the same time, you should be able to show that use of admin tools is both a natural extension of contributions you're already making and a rôle for which you've already demonstrated relevant good judgement and knowledge of policy. Blocks in your history are not a bar to adminship, but you need to be able to explain them, and also be up-front about any disputes or controversies you have been involved with. Bovlb (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and always include edit summaries, and ensure they are always civil. Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh Dude

So, all this stuff happened because I inserted some hidden text to warn vandals on Pythagoras. I know, it was dumb. But, I accidentally posted on your user page when I went to reach out to you. As you can see, it was reverted by the guy that won't leave me alone. Anyways, just wanted to give you a heads up. :p --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 02:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes. There is some precedent for invisible text like that on commonly-vandalised pages (have a look at the source of Beauty, for example), but I don't think that was the right message. Bovlb (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 31 hours. Bovlb (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for layin the block down! InvisibleDiplomat666 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel unworthy. Bovlb (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

History: [3]

Thanks for your quick response to my "Help Me". Sometimes it is hard to spot the obvious - so thanks for doing that for me 60.234.242.196 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bovlb (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

adoption

Hey man, can you adopt me? Just get back to me on my talk page.WilliamMThompson (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

causes

Well, I have been an avid reader of wikipedia for a while now, whenever I wanted to know something, wikipedia would always be my first point of call, and I would think that that would be the same for a lot of currently registered users. As far as my experiences go, so far I have joined a couple of projects, then I have been accused of being a sockpuppet (what the hell is that?) of someone called User:DangerTM, but all in all, since Yesterday I have had a pretty good time.WilliamMThompson (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is "an alternative account used deceptively". There's a lot of it about, either to evade blocks or bans or to vote twice. Some people get a little over-zealous in trying to detect new persona of banned users. I wouldn't worry about it. See Incorrect sock puppet accusation. Are you finding your way about alright? Bovlb (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most people have been really helpful, and a lot of the time people want to accept rather than condemn.WilliamMThompson (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)

History: [4], [5], [6]

Assuming you remember your posting on my talk page: The problem was that they refused to attempt to "collaborate" with me. There was nothing wrong with my tone initially, but they simply would not deal with what I said from the beginning. I suggest you read the entire thread there (assuming that you haven't is the closest thing to a benign explanation of your comment to me). Ted Watson (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [7]

I have not read the four essays you indicated, as I do not see that anything you said was truly relevant to the situation. I deny that there was anything whatsoever objectionable to my tone in my first posting at the talk page indicated above, but was a calmly put forth point by point defense of my edits. Neither Edokter nor Ckatz ever dealt with those points, but instead posted statements based on the assumption that their "edit summary" stated objections to my edits were valid, in blatant defiance of my arguments (in the debate sense of the word only) that they were not. As I said there, the former essentially lied by indicating that dubious words were in my edits when in fact they were not present. Well, as I conceded there, one of them was once, but in the context in which it was presented, Edokter's problem with them did not exist for it, and that also means that none of them were in one of the two allegedly "speculation" edits at all. They were out of line, and repeatedly, which causes frustration which affects tone. I continue to await a response to the complaint I filed about their behavior. Ted Watson (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well I can tell that this is going to end well. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser

What is a CheckUser? I read the term and I odn't quite understand it.WilliamMThompson (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CHECKUSER. Whenever you use Wikipedia, the system logs various things including your IP address. Normally this information is kept private, but a handful of administrators have a special privilege that allows them to review these logs. This is typically used for investigating sockpuppet accusations. It really only suggests physical colocation, so the results are not 100% conclusive in either direction. The term "checkuser", depending on context, can mean the privilege, someone with the privilege, the exercise of it, or the resulting report. Where are you seeing this stuff? Bovlb (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to follow the investigation into my account, and by doing this, I am finding out a whole new set of terms and guidlines. It's really helpful. And probably it will benefit my reputation when I come out of this accusation unscathed. Thanks.WilliamMThompson (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point me at where this investigation is taking place? I feel like I'm working in the dark here! Bovlb (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the user's talk page and I noticed this when I went to apologise for inadvertantly calling someone a homophobe. I followed the leads to this talk page. There are other links of course. User:Rlevse is the user who originally blocked danger.WilliamMThompson (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Hmm. Tricky.

I think the best thing for you to do is to stop chasing this issue, and simply concentrate on editing some articles. This may seem utterly unfair, but I suspect you'll find that the more you dig around and protest your innocence, the more people will simply take this as confirmation of your guilt. Once humans get an idea into their head, they are remarkably resistant to having it proven wrong. Demonstrate that you're a productive and non-disruptive editor and soon no-one will care whom you're a sock of.

One more point ... How do I put this? ... I think you may want to choose your words more carefully when interacting with other editors. Unfortunately, it's even more important to adhere to our policy on civility when you feel you are being put upon by others. An example: I don't want to make inflamatory claims by calling anyone a homophobe, but that is what I think.[8] As a writer, you should know about paralipsis. I know you apologised, but if you're sincere about retracting it, then a gesture of good faith would be to strike it out of the page with <s>...</s>. Another: something that could easily fall into the shady category of "slander" [9] Wikipedia has a strict (and fairly strictly enforced) policy against making legal threats, and this skirts close to the line. Regardless of whether the original comment was slanderous or whatever, this response pulls you away from the moral high ground.

OK. That's all I have for tonight. My bed is calling me. If I have failed to explain myself clearly, then I can have another go tomorrow. Bovlb (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and try to avoid citing blocked/banned users in support of your arguments.  :) Bovlb (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do all of those things that you mentioned, and I will put it to the back of my mind.WilliamMThompson (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could you protect Cone Mills Corporation like you did for the Cone sisters. It just got selected as a DYK and sure enought, it is being valdalized already! Just like Reese Witherspoon is by 66.67.218.186 and probably by others coming up. I appreciate it - it certaining solved it previously. I believe it is just high school kids vandalizing the articles they see on the front page. Thanks again. --Doug ^talk 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... I don't think it's our current policy to protect DYKs proactively, and I only see one anon edit recently, so I'm not sure it's justified right now. Sorry. I generally look for vandalism from at least 3 IPs in the last 24 hours. You can get a rapid response for protection requests at WP:RFPP, without having to wait for one specific admin to login. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki help

Thanks for your reply. I have responded. Timneu22 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response, thanks again. Timneu22 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response; I'm not doing anything different than I do on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response; thank you again for helping to troubleshoot this... Timneu22 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The mystery gets deeper... your sample code is in my EditPage.php verbatim. Timneu22 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help attempts, but like you said that last shot-in-the-dark didn't apply. I have two plain-vanilla wikis with no customization to things like EditPage. Neither of these take me to the section. :( I just don't know what it could be. Timneu22 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response, thanks again. Timneu22 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Another response, thanks again. Timneu22 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-page creation

As you may have noticed, or not, I have been doing some serious crime fighting. how would I create a sub page on my user page?WilliamMThompson (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SUBPAGE#How_to_create_user_subpages. Basically start by creating links like User:WilliamMThompson/Sandbox.

Um, I guess I should warn you not to create pages like "editors to keep an eye on". Some people view those as attack pages and kick up quite a fuss. But I'd expect, given your own experiences with being talked about, that you'd avoid that anyway.

Oh, and sorry to be over-literal (a flaw of mine that makes me a good engineer, but a bad writer), but I suspect that what you've been fighting is not strictly speaking "crime".  :) Bovlb (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a crime, whether the crime on wikipedia is criminalised is another matter. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Which therefore limits the capaity of crime, because crime is what each person sees as crime, I can leave a message on a talk page (which I have been doing) saying things along the lines of "that was a personal attack" etc, and another user may change that. I want people to question. I want people to understand, that wikipedia IS a democracy. Because it is. We may not tend to vote in a democratic way, but the way we interact, the way we can protestchanges, make this place a democracy. And what do you mean "editiors to keep an eye on"? I don't understand. WilliamMThompson (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New editors who get very involved in vandal hunting are often tempted to use their user space to track users they consider to be disruptive. This can generate a lot of WikiDrama, as it can easily be considered to be a personal attack in itself. Imagine that you found out that scurrilous things were being said about you on an obscure page somewhere.  :) I just took "vandalism fighting" and "user subpages" in combination and got worried.

By the way, and I say this without having reviewed your crime-fighting, I find it's wise not to over-label disruptive edits. Better to talk about "test edits" rather than "vandalism" (or crime). Better still if you can treat them as misguided good faith edits. This seems to increase the likelihood that people will stop treating damage to Wikipedia like a game, and settle down to be productive editors, which is better for the project in the long-term.

As an aside, one thing I'm still working on is how to ask people not to make personal attacks in a way that they're likely to accept. I recently added an epigraph to my user page that seems to express it, but it feels like overkill to post that on someone's talk page.

Is Wikipedia a democracy? A hierarchy? An experiment in anarchy? It's (a project to create) a free encyclopedia. Issues of governance are subordinate to that. Bovlb (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical languages

History: [10], [11]

You'd do well to look into the history of the article and research the situation before you jump in with gratuitous advice to people who've been here as long as I've been. The ip has been trolling on the talk page and rv warring with multiple users (not just me) on the article page and has broken 3rr many times over in the last 48 hours. Just because other editors have better things to do than file tedious 3rr reports even in open and shut cases like this doesnt mean the ip gets to ride his luck and troll unabated. In all fairness, if an admin had blocked the ip when he started his nonsense, we'd not be having this conversation. Sarvagnya 21:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in the field, but it seems to me that what we have here is a content dispute, escalating into an edit war, and not clear-cut vandalism. I know that reporting incidents can be a chore, but we can't be everywhere, so you can't assume we are going to intervene unless you bring the issue to our attention. Regardless, the other editor might be wrong, rude, and a serial reverter, but unfortunately, none of that relieves you of your responsibility to treat him with respect. Telling you this is not gratuitous, except in the sense that I'm doing it for free. If it makes you feel any better, you'll note that I had some suggestions for the other editor as well. Bovlb (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message, and sorry for not being clearer in my explanation. Here is the short story: Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs) was found using sockpuppets to support his own wikiproject and make personal attacks. He was blocked (temporarily) but before the block had expired he came back as DangerTM (talk · contribs). He was quickly identified but since he seemed interested in getting a clean start he wasn't blocked at once. He continued his apparent quest to rule a wikiproject by getting involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and setting up an election (with the hope of becoming the coordinator), but eventually was blocked for personal attacks and disruption. The day after he was blocked User:WilliamMThompson appeared, and the first thing he did was to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and get into the election discussion. Several people realized it was him but again, but he seemed to do some good work so he wasn't blocked. By now he should know our policy on sockpuppets very well, but that didn't stop him from using Tom.mevlie (talk · contribs) and 165.228.1.208 (talk · contribs) (both identified as sockpuppets of DangerTM well before this) to commit vandalism and "attack" WilliamMThompson to make that account look better. All of his accounts have used adoption as a way of trying to find support (I was the one who adopted Tom.mevlie). Let me know if I was unclear in anything. I do think that he might become a good contributor eventually, so I only blocked him for two days.

Best wishes Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will ruminate. Bovlb (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hey, I have just come off my block. It gave me time to ponder. Do you believe me when I say that I am not those two users? In response to the vandalism etc. I was going to say something along the lines of: "I don't think it would be wise to add to their page "test", because it will probably just reafirm them. If someone writes "FUUCKKKK" on a talk page or blanks an article and puts the afformentioned word in instead, I think it would be counter productive to call it a test." By test, do you mean test in the sense that they were testing wikipedia? Or test in that they were testing their own ability or what they could and couldn't do. If you could reply on my talk page, that would be great. Thanks. WilliamMThompson (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [12] [13]

I think I am somewhat different to the person mentioned on the ANI, but as you may have noticed, I have two templates that I use for vandalism. They are not templates, they are just words with an image. I change them, and I have been changing them a lot, you can look at them here feel free to make any changes to them, but I use them at different points. If I notice a lot, or even few, prior warnings, I use the one with the red hand. Otherwise I use the information i. I have changed the information one, it now has test edit etc on in. Thanks. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was not attempting to draw a parallel between you and the subject of that thread; the case is clearly very different. I just thought that it might be instructive for you to see some of the attitudes on display in the responses. Sorry if that was unclear.

I think your first notice could go a bit more softly, make a bigger show of assuming good faith, and talk less about blocking. Persuading people to be productive is our first line of defence, not blocking. I'll see if I can come up with specific suggestions for re-wording later. Bovlb (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.I just wanted to add that I have cracked the 100th main namespace edit mark. I am currently sitting on 102, I took your advice and spent a half an hour editing the crusade of 1101, how would I get on suggestbot's list for pages that should be cleaned up. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See User:SuggestBot/Requests. Bovlb (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

I am currently the target of an edit war. I started at first to redo my edits when they were removed for no reason. I was given the advice to place references, which I did, but then every edit I had done about the perticular subject was removed with the reason given that it wasn't related to the articles, which it was. I tried to redo my edits again, but then was accused of starting an edit war, where soon after many different users started accusing me of various things. Most of whom I can see on each other's talk pages. They removed one more of my edits that had valid information and references and stated the removal as "Fanmade Bootleg" or something like that. I went on to the editor's talk page and gave him all the info to prove that it was not a "Fanmade Bootleg", and asked him to put the info back, since I was warned of the 3 edit rule. He then immediately removed my comment from his talk page.

I decided not to continue to talk to any of the editors involved and try to seek help in the situation. I need an opinion on whether you believe they are correct to continuously remove any information about the topic, or whether I am in the wrong. I can give more info if you are willing to help me with the situation. TheWrench (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [14]

Reply

History: [15]

It is challenging becuase you have to find the hidden link to find the secret page. They are usually created for fun. Any comments?--RyRy5 talk 03:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [16]

Yes it is.--RyRy5 talk 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [17]

I'm glad to help.--RyRy5 talk 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Prod templates

Thanks for your note. I had no idea that template existed - or if I knew, I totally forgot. I'll add it to my list. Thank you! - Philippe | Talk 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Perhaps now that I have gotten a better feel for the wikipedian community, I should be leaving your tuition, I am removing my adoption notice from yours and my user pages. No doubt that our paths will cross eventually, but for now, goodbye. Having a conversation on one page really irritates me by the way, not reflection on you as an editor, I just keep forgeting to check your page, etc. Byeeeeeeeeeeeee. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [18]

It was helpful, and I thank you for it greatly, now I want to try going on my own. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: [19]