User talk:Ginkgo100/Archive03

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Admin coaching

As it's been a while since you signed up for admin coaching, I am just checking that you still wish to receive it. If so just add you name to the "Unassigned" section of the coaching box, and you'll be assigned a couple of coaches as soon as they become available. Let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done so. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Your coaches are Firsfron and Steel359. Exactly what form the admin coaching takes is up to you and the coaches to decide, but a general piece of advice I give is to set up a user subpage (for example User:Ginkgo100/Admin coaching) to keep coaching discussion together. That prevents things getting split up over three talk pages, which can get confusing! Let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I got your note, but it looks like we both finally got our coaches. Best of luck! -cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got my message within minutes of posting on your talk page! Thanks for the reply. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ginkgo! I've left a message for you on User:Ginkgo100/Admin coaching. Looks like we'll be getting to know one another. I'm excited to be working with you. See you on the AC page! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Love

Have I told you recently that I love you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) .

Ah, thanks. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry I reverted so quickly. The article tends to get "believes..", "claims...," "alleges...," "contends...," etc. added to it on a regular basis. The first couple I saw were:

"In the process, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received authority to direct Christ's church, and perform baptism and other ordinances from resurrected beings who held the authority anciently. According to this belief, John the Baptist..."
"The term Plan of Salvation is used to describe the LDS belief of how the...

I didn't scroll down to see if there were others.

I felt the first was sufficiently neutral. The first already said that LDS believe in the introductory sentence to the paragraph, so there, usually, is no reason further clarify that the paragraph is describing the belief in more detail.

The second - I thought, "oh, adding another add 'belief' phrase" and then didn't review the rest but clicked edit on the prior version I had read.

Looking more carefully, the second could definately stand improvement. I would probably use: ""The term Plan of Salvation is used by the LDS Church to describe..." but yours seems find.

I admit I am sometimes quick on the trigger on a couple articles; the CJC article for example averages about 7-10 edits a day; many of which are like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. So anyway - sorry for not assuming good faith. Hope you will stick around - as the article could use some editing - and I find it difficult to edit the topic without adding OR. --Trödel 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem... I didn't revert your reversion because I don't believe in edit wars. I'll watchlist the article. I still think my edits were good, but I'll leave it to you to decide whether to add them back -- since you have been involved longer, you have a better feel for the consensus the regular editors have reached. Thanks for your response! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- I thought you might be interested in what got me to look at the article in the first place. B-) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I guess you already knew about the type of attitude I tried to explain above. I'll read the article tomorrow again with fresh eyes and try to incorporate your comments. I have also purchased a couple books that could be used as references for the article, as that is one of the issues I have with the article. --Trödel 04:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the compliment --Trödel 02:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mourne View

WP:V definitely is one of our core policies, but I interpreted "not enough verifiable inforation for its own article" to mean "there is some verifiable information, so the topic could merit coverage in a parent article". If that's not what you meant, well at least you thought my solution was reasonable (-: Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse Me.

The user with the following IP address: 169.233.70.50 has been making false, unverified edits, some of which are EXTREMELY offensive. I would just like to bring this to your attention as no moderator seems to be aware of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.20.248 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I saw only three edits, all of which have been reverted. According to Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability, any editor may remove unverified statements, and I see you have done so. Kudos for being bold! If this editor or any other in the future makes edits you think are problematic, consider contacting them on their talk pages, and don't forget to assume good faith.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I am not an administrator/sysop, just another editor. =) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Read my comment......please do not be so hasty to critisize... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.238.193.118 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, but without context I have no idea what you are talking about. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Spurious comment removed;

User 132.238.193.118 was just a crude vandal. See this diff for an example. -- Loadmaster, 2006-10-10

Thanks, but I have replaced the comment. It does no harm to my talk page. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Input on schizophrenia page

Hi Ginkgo100,

Many thanks for your comments on the schizophrenia page. I have replied to your comments and would appreciate your input.

- Vaughan 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I have replied on that page. This is a frustrating process, especially when all parties are not equally cooperative. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

Dear Ginkgo100,

I am writing to you in thanks for clearing up the vandalism that was done to the Insert (band) page. Being a close friend of the band members, I was horrified to see the disgusting changes that were made to the page, and I was frankly in a state of shock at who would be crude enough to do such a thing (considering I was the one who created most of the page in the first place). I'm not one to speculate much, so I'll just leave it at a profuse thanks, on behalf of Insert, for preventing the soiling of my friends' reputations.

Stradiviperius 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Titanium edit

thanks for the heads up on my recent removal of some text on the titanium page (it was preposterous and had to go) you've alerted me to a whole package of Wikipedia ettiquette (and the place to come to find it)

I'll do a more complete job in the future. Hrmph! 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Editors patrolling recent changes (which is what I was doing) do make mistakes, so using informative edit summaries can help prevent unfortunate reverts. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Strategism

Please tell me why this article does not qualify as patent nonsense? Unless I have badly misunderstood it, he is talking about the system in Callisto, which is a moon of Jupiter! This moon is not believed to be inhabited, nor to support any form of life. Therefore, nonsense, no?--Anthony.bradbury 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, having re-reviewed the article, re-applied the speedy template. It really, really is nonsense. Honestly. There is no Country called Callisto. It is the third moon of Jupiter. There is no other place called this. I am not vandalising your change (I hope) just making my point. Please believe me.--Anthony.bradbury 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading criterion G1 at criteria for speedy deletion, hoaxes are not considered patent nonsense. Obviously the deleting admin disagreed with me, as it has already been speedied. We all agree it needed deletion, and Wikipedia is certainly better off without the article! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing wrong to the pokeball article.

Almost all of the article was stuff from the anime, which is non-canon. I only got rid of the non-canon stuff, as it was all considered canon.

Oh, and I'm probably not going to respond to a new message unless it is sent to me directly. Just keep the changes, as the original article was almost entirely based on the anime.

Sorry, all I saw was extensive blanking with no explanation or edit summary. If you meant your edits in good faith, I'm sorry for reverting them. Feel free to change it back, but please give an explanation for such extensive removal on the talk page first. Better yet, mention it on the talk page before you make the change and make sure others don't disagree. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Short bus Racers

Why are you deleting the Short Bus Racers? Go to Kevlarlounge.net and get the facts

So please leave this page up - if Fergie has a page stating who she is, then so should the short bus racers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.122.150 (talk • contribs) .

I am not deleting it myself -- I nominated it for deletion. This will be discussed normally for five days. Follow the links on the article to participate in the discussion -- your opinion is welcome and will be considered. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So why are you nominating the page for deletion? I'm not sure if you are even a legit contributor since I see your page was vandalized more than 5 times

Unless you have a lot of time, you probably should remove the recommendation

Do not edit the page again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.122.150 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks

I would respectfully submit that you have no right to tell me whether or not to edit a page again. Technically, removing the notice that there is a discussion about deleting the article is a type of vandalism called Avoidant vandalism when it is done in bad faith. Since you have been warned not to remove the notice, continuing to do so could be construed as being in bad faith.

The discussion about deleting the page is already taking place. It is out of my hands, so to speak, and I am happy to abide by whatever consensus is reached, even if it is "keep". As I said above, you are welcome to join that discussion. As for being a "legit contributor", the best way to find out the answer is to use the button to the left reading "User contributions."

Also, please sign your comments using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Thanks. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How to you contribute to the discussion page on our site?

Either way - I'm have a very hard time putting in the facts so they can be discussed

Maybe you can help

Here are a couple

Im not sure how to edit these comments, so somebody feel free and step in

Here are some links backing up this discussion that the Short Bus Racers exist

SBR Artwork

http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2714

SBR Stats and videos from racing

http://www.kevlarlounge.net/games.php

SBR has racers from NASCAR

http://www.nascar.com/drivers/dps/edarnell00/truck/index.html

Top Finalist in WCG - Helmakr

http://www.worldcybergames.com/5th/main.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.122.150 (talk • contribs) .

Those links not only did not clear anything up, they made me realize that the person who nominated the article for speedy deletion on the basis of being "patent nonsense" was probably right. You are welcome to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, of course, but I recommend you read WP:IA first. It would also be useful to read WP:V, WP:N, WP:CITE, and WP:RS as well. I know it's a lot of reading, but it will be useful for your entire editing career. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Goon Show Trivia

I have removed your prod and made a comment on the talk page. If you want to talk about it. It's more the word "trivia" than anything else. LOL. --Richhoncho 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You edits at User talk:Mihai cartoaje

Hi there, could you please explain your assertion about his/her "[failure] to complete two mediations and to participate in an RfC"? I have seen this, but am following up as after your comments (which do seem very civil to me) the user seems to feel you are trying to intimidate them. Thanks in advance, Glen 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize for any perceived incivility. My comments arise from frustration about this user's behavior. S/he opened this RfC, but did not participate in it until today. (It was through this RfC that I became aware of the content dispute.) This apparently followed two previous attempts at mediation here and here, which took place before I was involved.

I have reflected on Mihai's behavior since I left those comments, and I think more compassion on my part is called for. I do not think these are "bad faith" edits. The content in question is clearly upsetting to him/her, and the occasional removal of the content without discussion, while (in my opinion) improper by Wikipedia's consensus-gathering standards, is easily reversed. I continue to welcome attempts to discuss the section in question.

--Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Balloon Animal

Ginkgo100 is there a policy regarding links to foreign language websites? This Wikipage is one that often gets people to post their personal website/advertisement. But there is now a link that is in Russian. I suspect that it is an inappropriate link, but since I can't read Russian I don't know how to proceed. Balloonman 21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to keep links to foreign language sites. When in doubt, you can usually remove external links that are problematic (e.g. sites require registration, blatant spam, etc.) For more information, read WP:EL. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Sorry, for the delay in letting you know, I had a few things come up just after promoting you as I was leaving this message. Make sure to have fun using the new tools to help improve the project. Be conservative with them, and see if there is a better solution that can de-escalate a situation instead of blocking or re-reverting for example. But as you get comfortable with them jump in and help clear out the backlogs. Other than that, have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 21:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I had noticed that the new tools had appeared in my interface. :) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done Ginkgo. -- Steel 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! Please ask if you have any questions about being an admin. Good luck! (aeropagitica) 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations ~~Gecko~~Ginkgo! If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me (contact me because I'm cooler!). Nishkid64 21:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Much congratulations! --Fang Aili ^talk 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ginkgo! You're going to be a great admin! I was glad to help out in some small way. The !voting indicates what pretty much everyone already thinks: you'll do a great job. If you ever need anything, please let me know, and don't be a stranger. Good luck and best wishes! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm already making mistakes -- just see below! Ah well, that's really not a change, as I made plenty of mistakes before, just like all other Wikipedians. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; mistakes will happen. The magic of Wiki is that almost any mistake can be corrected. Nice to see you already using your tools. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all

Thank you for everyone who participated in my RfA. I appreciate the support and it was a good experience. I especially want to thank my admin coaches, Firs and Steel. Cheers to all! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OOPS!

Thanks for responding to my concerns. Having reviewed it more carefully, I see you are indeed correct. Please allow me the time to wipe the egg off my face before you have a well deserved belly laugh at my expense. --NDM 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No belly laugh! On the contrary, I think you are showing a fast learning curve. Don't be discouraged, every editor makes mistakes. Just review my talk page for a few. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

71.131.11.144

Might I ask that you review 71.131.11.144's edits again (contribs)? He did add a promotional insertion after the final warning, all it was missing was the hyperlink: [6]. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, another admin blocked him/her already. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed that very last line in the last extensive edit mentioning his site. My mistake! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries, cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Du Maurier" deleted

Hello, I tried to create an article about a new cigarette that was just released in my area and it was deleted as spam and I'm wondering why because the topic I am writing about does exist.

This article read like an advertisement for the product. It was deleted under Criteria for Speedy Deletion as blatant advertising (G11). If you recreate the article, please be sure to word it in such a way that it conforms to WP:SPAM. It would be good also to read about neutral point of view and notability. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RMS Aquaculture

So, why was this article unilaterally deleted unannounced multiple times with no explanations? --164.107.92.120 12:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There were explanations, both in the [log] and at Talk:Parma, Ohio. The article did not make a claim as to what makes this particular store significant, which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion. I didn't write the speedy deletion criteria but I follow them because they are based on community consensus. Please read these criteria, particularly A7 (that's #7 under the "Articles" subheading).

The speedy deletion is also justified under G4 (that's #4 under the "General criteria" subheading) because it is a recreation of deleted material. The article was deleted twice by other admins on 22 May 2006. I stand by this deletion based on the above criteria. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article was good enough to keep. At its height, the company had a green house, a store in Middleburg Heights, stores at two locations in Parma, one in Willoughby, one in Strongsville, an online service a la Amazon.com but just focused on pet sales, negotiations for a fish farm in Mexico, etc. It's been around for over a decade as well. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to be like an encyclopedia and catalog human knowledge, than we shouldn't be delete happy. --Hemto 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a claim to notability, then you can take it to deletion review. However, you should review WP:V and WP:CORP to make sure it meets verifiability (official policy) and notability (guideline) criteria. The cold truth is that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not facts. And as for being "delete happy", I'm actually not -- I'm a moderate inclusionist/mergist, not a deletionist. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely an inclusionist then (NOTE: I usually use university computers, so I don't necessarily speak for everyone who uses this IP, and with 58,000 students at OSU, who knows how many of us edit and use this computer lab!). Anyway, I wouldn't rule out good reasons for including the article in the future, because the business is still operating and so could always grow and achieve some kind of notoriety as it continues to exist. Were I to assign any significance, I would say that their main (super) store in Middleburg Heights has to be just about one of the if not the largest single tropical fish store around. We can see what happens over the next few years, but I think there's a reasonable chance that a new and improved article should make a comeback! :) --164.107.92.120 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lakeshore Edit

I would like to know why you edited my page on LCI-- signed harpman69

I assume you are talking about Lakeshore Collegiate Institute. First, it is not "your" article any more than it is "my" article; see WP:OWN. My edit had to do with improving neutral point of view by removing unverified statements. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about refering to it as "my" article, I was a little ticked off because my school librarian saw the article and ordered me to remove it. Instead I improved on it slightly, and I'm quite proud of it (as it's my first article, or should I saw the first one I've written). Coincidentally, I believe what angered her the most is what you removed.

Looking up deleted contribs

Since you were such a great admin coach before my promotion, I'll ask you my first syspo question after promotion. =) Is there an easy way to look up deleted pages in a user's contribs? I ran across an abusive editor who did nothing but create attack pages. Since these were speedy deleted, I could not check to see how many different pages had been created -- I could only look up the history for the one I deleted, because I did not know the names of the other ones. Do I have to just rely on other editors' talk page warnings to get an idea of this history? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. As far as I'm aware, there's not a good way to look up deleted contributions; the system is set up so that a user's deleted pages don't appear in their contributions so that a page can't be easily re-created by that user. That said, there are ways around this. Like you said, you can go thru the talk page warnings to track it down. If the pages are really recent, you can check the deletion log and search for the user's name in your browser (if he's the only contributer, the edit summary might say "and the only contributer was NameOfUser"). You can go back and check older edits, too, but after a few pages, that gets old. So it really only works for newer deletions (like in the past 24 hours or so). Sorry, this probably doesn't help very much. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It does help, actually; at least I don't feel like I'm missing something obvious. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Help and ideas needed

Hi,

Sorry you've been spammed, but I hope you'll find for a good reason . I've noticed you are active around the recent changes arena (normally having beaten me to a revert), and I'm currently looking for help with a new project. I would like to harmonise all the warnings and templates we issue, with goal to creating a standard look, format and content to the messages. Even if you use VP, VS or any of the other vandal tools out there, I still feel this is worthwhile. Please visit here for further information, and leave me a message if you're interested or tell me to get lost ;) if you haven't the time. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry I thought he did, I would rather be safe then sorry--Sea dog .M.S 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why?

What is the difference between this post and the one you deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_Is_Fun —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spnashville (talk • contribs) .

The difference is in the point of view. Math is Fun has a neutral point of view. Please see WP:SPAM.

Protect

Please protect duhman008's talk so he cannot edit it. The Fox Man of Fire 21:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Duhman0008

Thanks for getting in touch about the user. I fully respect your decision, I'm just of the opinion that action needs to be taken to stop the user from removing the warnings before the situation gets out of hand and blocks are issued for disruption. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm following not only my interpretation of policy, but also the practice of other admins in not blocking or protecting for removing talk page warnings. Although I am of the opinion that this is inappropriate, I follow consensus (policy, practice, & agreement) above my own opinion. If this user or any other becomes disruptive through vandalism or personal attacks, please feel free to list them at WP:AIV. Thanks for your reasonable comments. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:3bulletproof16

Was wondering if you had any comment on this user's current unblock request; by the looks of things, the edits he was reverting were pretty POV, and there's a heavy suspicion of sockpuppetry at the article. On the other hand, he also has two prior 3RR blocks on his log (granted, they're pretty widely spaced). Whether or how much those factors change your decision is your call. Luna Santin 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally it was a bit of a tough call, but in my opinion the edits did not qualify as vandalism, and this was a content dispute. The user is clearly familiar with the 3RR rule based on previous blocks, and did not try a dispute-resolution process. However, as blocks are to prevent disruption rather than to punish, I will support another admin if they want to unblock. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The other user was purposley adding false information to Wikipedia. When his edits were reverted, he simply reverted them back without even putting an edit summary. The user in question is also a new user, and 8 of his 10 edits are to the page where the 3RR occured. There's also alot of suspicion of sockpuppetrey, as the article seems to attract many POV pushers and trolls. bulletproof was aware of 3RR, yes, but he was also aware that he can't be blocked for reverting vandalism.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a close call. =\ Asked around a bit on IRC, one person I usually think has good opinions was suggesting that while the older block looks incorrect, the current block does look on the mark. As he said it, "Removing incorrect information != removing vandalism. He needs to understand that. He should have sought wider input, not kept reverting." All in all, I dunno either. I think he's a good contributor, but I also take 3RR seriously. Tough to call it. Luna Santin 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the sock is blocked. [7]. I see no reason that a user in good standing should be blocked for reverting a sockspuppet. I suggest a unblock but it is up to you. ;-) --FloNight 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I declined the user's request to be unblocked on the basis that (a) a POV dispute is not simple vandalism; and (b) the sock didn't appear until after the 3RR rule was violated. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Just felt like mentioning it wasn't a "dispute", it was blatant disregard for 3 Wikipedia policies. I'm not critisizing or anything, but users being blocked for enforcing WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V and not to mention WP:IAR is part of why I dislike administrators.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 02:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, talk about totally missing the point. You sure showed him, blocking him for making Wikipedia better. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the welcome.CorkyGilbert 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome for the welcome. =) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism Notice

Hey, to User_talk:172.209.115.6 you added a level 2 vandalism warning, which I have since removed and replaced by a level one, as it is a first offence and may be a shared IP. Please note also it was my account listed as reverting the vandalism. Please reply to discuss - if not, I hope you understand. --ReviewDude 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If your account was listed as the one reverting, it's because we both did it at nearly the same time, but yours was saved first. The software doesn't notify users of edit conflicts if they are identical edits, so I didn't realize you had the "credit". It's really no big deal; I sometimes go straight to 2nd level warnings depending on the severity of the vandalism and my mood at the time. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid this was happen, but did not know how to reword it. I only meant that if said user were to check the history (unlikely, but still) and saw that someone other than the reverter had 'warned' them, it may b confusing. I'll try to ignore your patronizing tone when referring to 'credit' for the edit. But hey, that rhymes. Anyway, level two (stricly in my own opinion) should probably only be given out after a level one warning :-P. --ReviewDude 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to be patronizing and am sorry you interpreted it that way. Also, test warnings need not be left in order per WP:VANDAL. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it had to be, I'm saying it should be :-) Anyway, thanks for responding! --ReviewDude 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yung Kanuma

FYI, I've indefinitely blocked the troll who created Yung Kanuma twice so it might be better to unsalt that article. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kramez

I had just userfied this person's vanity page and was about to give a last warn when you issued a block. I'm going to undo the block because I don't think we gave him a very good opportunity to consider the userfication. If he does it again, of course, all bets are off. NawlinWiki 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no prob. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

and, after reviewing User:ArmadilloFromHell's point that even the userpage seemed to be a personal attack, I reinstated the block. Sorry for the confusion. NawlinWiki 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No prob again. =) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Worldhunt

Hello! I have just blocked the above user for 2 days for vandalism, blanking comments and pesonal attacks. If you think that I was too forward in my assessment of the situation then I can unblock. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's borderline, he should know better by now. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on your successful bid to become a admin. You've definitely done great work on the Denver and Colorado articles, so I think you absolutely deserve it. Good luck with your new position. Vertigo700 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical

Hi there,

I made edits to the Sutton Bonington Campus Page that you found unworthy and I have received your polite censure.

However, the University in its turn is making anonymous changes to the page that are blatent forms of advertising and are clearly not 'neutral' either.

My comments were very mild considering what a miserable, isolated prison this place can be if you are a postgraduate as I am (appropriate then that it used to be a prison camp - it still is for many). I would have liked other potential postdoc and PhD applicants to be aware of the shortcomings of this place when the uddergrads go home out of term. I believe that they should be allowed to make informed decisions regarding their choice to be here, rather than being suckered in by the marketing department without a clue that they run a significant risk of jacking it in part way through as anyone with a sense of ambition is likely to.

Some of removed comments have been factual but were not great advertising, they can be validated and are verifiable in published documents ('most of the student dissatisfaction....'). These have been removed. However, the University can get away with fanciful statements of opinion (e.g. the synthesised research philosophy statement) that exist nowhere else.

I had hoped that Wikipedia was independent, a consensual encyclopedia and not just a saccharine marketing tool owned by the 'people in charge'.

You are a great disappointment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alphabettispaghetti (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

The edits in question are here and here. I wasn't even the editor who reverted them, although I did advise you on your talk page to read our WP:NPOV policy. In addition to that, I also recommend you read Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whisk ferns

Hi Ginkgo100, was patrolling CSD also: [8]. Very impressive pickup. Wish I had your botanical knowledge. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could fake it! =) No, I just suspected there might already be an article, so I searched for "whisk fern" and got that article. Thanks for the compliment though! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tit tape deprod

What happened was that I was on newpage patrol, and the article didn't seem legit, so I prodded it. But then I checked out the contribs of the page's creator and thought, "Hmmm, maybe this isn't what I think it is..." And then a Google search turned up some relevant hits, so I deprodded. Basically, I jumped the gun a bit and didn't quite assume as good of faith as I should have, but I've learned my lesson. Thanks for checking with me, though. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did the same... which is why I ended up renaming rather than prodding. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just dropped in to say thanks for the message. My first 2 days as admin have been quite busy. Am enjoying the tools. I guess the novelty will wear off in a while. Anyways, you know where to find me if you need help in anything. I would love to help clear any backlogs that you find. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm still in the novelty phase, too. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

From Trödel

Thx - see my thank you project here: User:Trödel/RFA --Trödel 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Watchlisted. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ABC Backup

Hi

Please restore article about ABC Backup

I will update information

Best Regards, Sergey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkk2006 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

After reviewing the article content and the proposed guideline WP:SOFTWARE, I am declining to restore the article. Please review the guideline and let me know if you have evidence that this product meets the criteria. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Sorry.. looks like it may have transcluded incorrectly. See WP:RfA now :) — D e on555 ^talk_Review 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

POV in Biological Value Article by repeated POV Pusher.

Yankees76 erased all my valid references I added into the article and then retroactivlet replaced it with his false references and POV sentences.

Yankees76 shows no sign of stopping to continuiously revert my edits over and over again!

The references in the article are junk refernces that do not back up his preferred version.

The article should be a neatral. Not POV. Adding invalid sentences with invalid referecnes is POV or even worse vandalism.

Please review the history and make an honest judgement. I want my useful and quality references back in the article not BLANKED. Thank You. 63.17.55.215 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a biology background, but I am not familiar with "biological value" of proteins, so please help me with understanding the content of the article. How is the measurement of nitrogen in the body made? Is it tagged somehow, maybe radiologically or by fluorescent dye? Thanks. I am reviewing this cluster of articles to try to get a feel for whether they are NPOV or not. So far I am troubled with some of the sources, which do not appear to be all that neutral or reliable. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ginkgo100, this is the same user I've been complaining about on the Requests for Investigation Board and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the last three days. Here[9] and [10]. A casual glance through the edit history of the article shows swift and illogical changes to any edits on this article by anon, usually sourced with references that don't actually support the claims they're attached to. Meanwhile, I've been patient, spent much time backing each disputed claim with a verifiable refernce, only to have the user revert it and then complain, not only to you but to Glen S, an adminstator that I've worked on bodybuilding and nutrition articles on with in the past. I understand some of my tone may be uncivil, I'm doing my best to bite my tongue here. Yankees76 04:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately the incivil rhetoric on both sides made it hard for me to figure out who's who in this content dispute. I must note that civility is important even if the other party is incivil (i.e. don't stoop to his level). That said, I think there are serious issues with the anon user's sources and POV. You should seriously consider opening an RFC. And be very careful not to violate WP:3RR; it would be a shame for you to be blocked over something like this. (Actually I think you guys did violate 3RR a day or two ago but I chose not to block.) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I appreciate the leniency. I was in the midst of starting an RFC when you tagged my talk page and got my attention. I've also been trying to contact the original author, however he's left Wikipedia since Sept 14. I regret that this has now spilled over onto your talk page. Thanks. Yankees76 04:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I chose to get involved! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just added my info back. I want to get in the game. I never new Wikipedia was this fun. Please overview and word my sentences for a NPOV per WIKIpedia's guidelines. I have enjoyed my conversations with Yankees76. In all seriousness, I hope the article will be updated and improved (better written sentences along with references) for a quality Wiki article. I look forward to mine, yours, and everyone's contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology&oldid=83786196

Your comments would be much appreciated at the link provided. Aboviously Yankees76 believes his preferred version is NPOV. He is obfuscating the facts. His loose references have no merit in proving which methodology is more accurate. Wikipedia is about the facts. Not original information from unsourced sentences. I agree the whole article needs to be improved. I am making an effort to source my facts. I will go back to my local library to obtain more references. Thanks. 63.17.58.67 05:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop claiming what I believe on my behalf. I'm challenging you to provide a source that says BV is more accurate (burden of proof lies with the user looking to include the edit - that would be you) - so far that source hasn't been forthcoming - or at least not one that was written in the last 70 years when both PCDAAs and BV were both being used. And have you read any of the references I gave? I went as close to plagarism as possible in pulling near exact sentences out of each reference that supports any claims so that anyone could plainly verifty them - all for material written mostly by Quadzilla99 or expanded on by me. How is that POV? If you want to talk about loose sources, please double check your D.M. Hegsted source which you're using to claim that "BV is more accurate to both the PER and the PDCAAS for the measurement of protein utilization in humans" - complete without publication or year. No search on Google turns up anyting for "D.M. Hegsted" biological+value+PCDAAS. Surprising since he was a professor emeritus at Harvard School of Public Health. So I'm guessing that you found this source tacked on somewhere else, and even might be using it out of context. Anyays sorry again Ginkgo100, but I could write a page on the errors contained in some of those edits. It scares me to hear that anon has enjoyed their "conversations" with me. Yankees76 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read Yankees76 summary edits. So yes he believes his preferred version is NPOV. That is why he removed the POV Dipute Tag. Actions speaks louder than words. Thanks for not removing the tags this time Yankees76. I am straight up. I want this article overhauled. It delights me to contribute to articles and have conversations with people from around the world.

Paste this on a search engine and click: Methods of Estimating Protein Quality D.M. Hegsted. The facts are good and relevant. 63.17.58.67 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no comparison of PCDAAS and BV in that paper and certainly nothing that verifies the claims you've made - I guess that's because it was published in 1971 18 years before PCDAAS was established. This the same as you arguing that Sega Genesis is the most advanced gaming system on the market today, and then posting an article from 1992 as proof. The facts are not "good and relevant". It's a great comprison of BV, NPU, PER and Chemical Scores, but it's outdated and not applicable for this discussion. Yankees76 13:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the article talk page. If you want to comment about a user's behavior, you can comment here or at WP:ANI. If you want to comment about the article's disputed content, it's better to use the article talk. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You're probably aware that I've commented on the WP:ANI.[11] on October 23. Thanks. Yankees76 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical Marimba League

Hi Ginkgo!

Thank you so much for the warm welcome and help with the Classical Marimba League post. I do have a quick question. The user named 'Aecis' recently posted on the CML page that it needs 'cleanup and wikify'. I'm not sure what this means. I went ahead and added a paragraph to add some substance to the page. Though, I'm not sure if this is what he/she wanted or not.

If you could, please let me know how to make the page acceptable or go ahead and make any appropriate edits.

Thanks again for all of your help. That's cool that you used to play marimba! Any favorite pieces that you remember? I look forward to hearing from you.

~All my Best~

Classical.marimba 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wikify" means "to format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia" (see Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify). Essentially, the article links to very few other articles. For that matter, few articles link to it also; see "What links here" from the article page. I don't think it actually needs that much clean up (editing for tone, clarity, typos, etc.) but it does need expansion. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Certified Fraud Examiner

Quick question... how do you put a vandall warning on somebody's page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) Revision as of 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

The quick answer is to type {{subst:test}} ~~~~ on their talk page. This is a benign warning that assumes good faith. If you're interested in more stern warnings, start by reading WP:VAND, especially the part about what is and isn't vandalism. I just warned the user who vandalized Certified Fraud Examiner. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical Marimba League update

Hi again,

Thanks for all of your help and guidance with the CML page. It looks great! That's wonderful that we can add a picture of a marimba. I went ahead and tried to expand the article. I hope this is what you were looking for. If not, just let me know. I'm always happy to accommodate.

Again, I thank you for your assistance. I'll talk to you soon!

~Best Wishes~

Classical.marimba 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put this article on my watchlist so I will be notified of any future changes whenever I log on. I removed the section on Noah Taylor because it was not really encyclopedic and not neutral in point of view. Your next recommended reading is WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, our core content policies. And, hey, we're equals here. I have more "wiki-savvy" (gained from experience) and technical abilities (as an admin), but really we are both just editors. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Marimba Thanks!

Hey there,

Again, thank you so much for your help. I look forward to learning more about editing on future articles. By the way, is there anyway we're allowed to put one of the marimba pictures from the CML site on this article?

Talk to you soon!

Classical.marimba 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can upload images provided you follow the image use policy. In a nutshell, the creator of the image (the photographer for photos or designer for graphics) must release the image under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License. Wikipedia only allows freely licensed images. Note that these licenses do allow commercial use. If the creator agrees, follow the instructions about uploading images. Be sure to select the correct licensing tag. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Ginkgo100, I beleive that there is a pretty good chance that anon above (Biological value dispute - IP starting with 63.17) is actually in fact User Messenger2010. Have a look at this edit by Messenger2010 [12] and compare it to this [13] and this [14]. Messenger2010 has made reverts to the Biological Value page, and made and edit to the discussion on the talk page [15]. Why is this important? Because of this: [16] and this [17]. Because of this I would like to request a WP:RFCU. Before I do I'd like your opinion. I don't want to waste Wikipedia resources, however if you look through Messenger2010's edit history, you'll notice a pattern of edits are so similar to 63.17, on both topic, and viewpoint that it's impossible to ignore. I would also like to potentially head Messenger2010 at the pass before this "third party" user enters the dispute even further on the BV talk page. Yankees76 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've found my proof. Please click on this link [18], scroll to the bottom to the section "Soy is NOT a complete source of Protein". Messenger2010 is supporting 63.17.51.115 as they "gang up" on Greenman. To me this looks like a WP:RFCU is in order. Yankees76 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow this goes deeper than I thought. It's a near Wikipedia wide purge of anything that mentions Soybean, soy protein or PDCAAS in a positive light - this goes way beyond merely the BV discussion. As a responsible Wikipedian (and I have only an interest in this because I work in sports nutrition industry - not because I care that much about the topic), I can't let this misinformation be spread here - there must be views that represent both sides here, and one view is being systematically removed. I've started this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010. I will work towards getting a WP:RFCU within 10 days and stopping this nonsense. Any impartial opinion or advice you can give is always welcome. Yankees76 04:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And just so you don't think I'm a nut - I now have this on my talk page. [19]. Yankees76 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do use the Wikipedia processes for these investigations. This is not the job for just one admin. I seconded your requests for page protection, but I did not protect them because I am (slightly) involved. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So a Request for User Check is probably not required then? I realize that just one admin won't do here, however I've been complaining about this user - first for simple harassment on my user page and then for the complicated reasons above for 4 days. So far you're the only admin who's done anything considerable. Thanks for seconding my request to semi-protect the pages. I feel it's a good solution that will keep newly created users and IPs from doing further damage until this can be sorted out. Have a good weekend! Yankees76 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sudhun

I got your message concerning the above and that it be given to dispute resolution, it is hard to resolve something if no one goes to the discussion page, also I would like to say that deleting a whole section on Sudhun rebellion in 1954 is vandalism it is not a dispute. Please reconsider.

02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Trueblood786

Please read WP:AGF and WP:DR. In my opinion it does not qualify as vandalism. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets and semi-protection

Question from a new admin: Neither the sockpuppet nor semi-protection policies mention what to do in a situation in which an article is being disruptively edit-warred by a number of socks. I would like to semi-protect the articles in question to prevent the socks from circumventing the 3RR and generally being disruptive (with edit summaries such as "Checkmate" and an account created to parody the other party in the edit-war). The socks are all blocked, but the puppetteer most often edits anonymously with a dynamic IP that always begins with "63.17". Semi-protection for the articles in question seems to be called for, but I am not sure if it is allowed in this situation. What would you do? (Relevant pages are Biological Value, Designer Whey Protein, PDCAAS, Soy protein, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010.) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 02:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if you can demonstrate that the socks are all puppets of one puppeteer then that individual is breaking the three revert rule and can be blocked. If they all originate from an IP range then that IP range can be blocked in order to cut the vandalism off at the point-of-origin. This looks like x.x.x.0/24.. Be careful with this as you can hit innocent editors as well. Specific IP addresses would be better. Semi-protection: "A page can be semi-protected by an administrator in response to vandalism from multiple anonymous or newly-created accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution.". I hope that this is of some assistance to you! Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Smile

If I could hug you, I would. Instead I'm going to take a break (See the ANI thread). One thing though, I found this exceptionally insulting. Can you say say something to him in my absence? Thanks much. -- Steel 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)