User talk:Excirial/Archive 2

Excirial


	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

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.

Hofstra University

Thanks for the NPOV correction. I've been trying to work with the page for some time, and it seems that IPs just keep dropping in press-release style stuff on a monthly basis. Mbisanz (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill chris g on AIV

I do realise that the username blatantly attacks Chris G (talk · contribs), however, AIV isn't UAA. He has been blocked, but I just felt that it really wasn't necessary to report; 2 edits to Canberra, an article unrelated to Chris G, to me just don't "indicate a vandalism-only account". Spebi 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well, next time i will just take the long, bureaucratic route then, either by reverting four vandalisms, or by waiting till he is blocked due to a personal attack/user name violation. This time i just cut an edge since i was certain that it was a vandal only account (Cant blame me for expecting that based upon his actions/username). But if you ask me, taking this long route is just a long way to the same result. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you do anything, I'm just sayign that at the time when I removed your request, I felt that 2 edits didn't indicate a vandalism-only account – obviously, I was wrong. I wasn't suggesting that next time you wait for things to happen. I'm sorry for bringing this all on you. Spebi 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Generally taken offensive user names create a high risk level for vandalism (EG: Bad faith against a username). Personally i believe that a bad faith username counts as a vandalism on it own, which leaves space for two additional vandalisms. When that threshold is reached, i simply report them. (Note: ONLY when its clear vandalism such as blanking, adding clear proficiency lines, or intentionally adding wrong information.) It might be a little fast, but after reporting 500 or so vandals, it kind of became clear that this is for the best in 99% of the cases (It saves myself and my fellow vandalism partols some work) :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I doubt any bad faith vandal would create an account attacking a particular user and then use it for making constructive contributions, but then again, it might occur. Spebi 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

True, that's why he received two warnings before i reported him. Im just a little more.. lets call it wary, when encountering names that match some kind of rule violation. If those vandalize, they get less warnings from me then a normal vandal. :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

O.O

Dang! You are a vandal reverting speed demon, you are! My hat's off to you and your fine work. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Blushes) Thanks for the compliment! :D --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For the cleanup of vandalism of my userpage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, glad to help :)

Vandal warnings

Good work at AIV, where I've seen a few of your reports today on my travels. However, but I too am uneasy about the "you've been reported" warning you've been leaving - I knew that a similar template had been deleted in the past, and then I found the link to it on this talk page! My worry is that it could encourage some vandals to go on the rampage before they're blocked (which, if AIV is backlogged, could take some time). Another point, whilst I'm here, is that shared IPs will often change user, and so a "final warning" from a couple of days ago wasn't necessarily issued to the same individual as the one currently vandalising e.g. Special:Contributions/24.63.198.207. If there's a history of vandalism from the shared IP, of course, I'd be inclined to start the warnings higher up than level 1, but personally I wouldn't find it necessary to jump straight in with an AIV report. Other wise, carry on! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right that there was a previous template that looked a lot like the one i am using. In fact, mine is just a modification of the origional template, which i found on the page of a long living vandal. I mainly use it to denote that the user has been reported, since leaving a vand4im on the users page (Telling them its the ONLY warning they will get) is rather silly (After all, i need to give a warning, even if he already received a final). However, since you are the second user that tells me not to use it, i will simply shelve that template for now.

Second, a shared IP indeed doesn't have to be a similar user, yet i deem vandalism to be vandalism. Each user gets AT LEAST two warnings from me, and those two warning cases are incredibly rare, as most previous vandals get three warnings from me. Standard non warned users get 4 warnings before getting reported, unless its 100% clear that its destructive vandalism.

Now you might wonder why this user got a level 4 warning at once. This one was actually a special case. My lupin log was about 3 updates backlogged, and in those three edits i noticed this particular user making multiple vandalism edits. For speeds sake i decided just to issue a level 4 warning, instead of three separate warnings. Hope this explains why i issued a high level warning at once :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the points made on board about the template. And I'm not criticising your high-level warning of that vandal; the other admin thought it necessary to block, I personally would have left it longer before blocking / removing the report to see what happened as there were no more edits after your warning, but maybe I'm getting soft in my old age! Happy editing. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Hello. Your recent edit on Conservapedia is wrong. That line you deleted is correctly sourced. Flor Silvestre (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for this. I deemed this a rather weird edit, which didn't seem to fit the context of the article. However, now i have a look at the entire article, and not just at the Diff, it does make sense. Thanks for notifying me about this, and apologies for the inconvenience caused! :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

SEFI

If you are the one proposing to delete the SEFI entry from WIKIPEDIA, please explain to me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraaffErik (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at your own talk page, as the person in question already left you a response there. My addition to the article was leaving a cleanup message, as it looked like it REALLY needed a cleanup (Have you examined the looks of the article after you created it? It was quite messy, to be honest) :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BRObrAH

so all im sayin is this

There are fires in every direction and whenever the authorities catch those who have done this, the culprits should not be afforded a trial; they should be fucking impaled and left outside to feel the burning in their eyes, and the embers in their lungs as a small taste of what they have coming to them these are words of a wikipedia editor, i guess among others, i found, would you consider that "haterade" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DatDoo (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but that was not the reason i reverted your edit. Have a look at the diff. I think that check it out brah...SHIT IS HOTtttT!!!!!! is pretty obvious vandalism, dont you think? --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RC cleanup

Hey Excirial, I see you a lot at RC patrol. You're definitely one of the finest vandal fighters I've come across. I'd give you a barnstar but it's too clichéd. So I'm just letting you know that every revert and report is really appreciated. I'm sure you will be a great asset with the tools one day. Cheers! Spellcast (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And all your aiv reports have been great, I see an admin in the making! --Chris 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Becomes tomato red) Not so fast people, i didn't even recover from blushing from the previous compliment! Well, what can i say? I think: "Thanks a lot for the compliments, and glad to help!" Will fit in here just fine! I love doing this vandalism patrol, and perhaps i will issue an RFA someday. Not yet, since my account has been only 1 month old (Even though i have been around since March 2006 on IP level, but not exactly active). Perhaps some time in the future, when i have encountered more of the wikipedia guidelines. Im still quite green on those, and i want to make sure i know them more thoroughly before i request adminship :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it'll be given to you before you request it. Then again, you beat me to almost all of the reverts I've been trying to get my hands on, so maybe you'll beat them to the punch-promotion! Unlike most things on the net where you do something constructive and half the populace disagrees with your actions - at least with this, the ones that disagree are those who's actions you revert, :). Anti vandalism is great stuff, I'm glad to have the opportunity to do this form of voluntary work, and I hope you make strides with it as well! Happy editing! :D (Terra Xin (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

How nice to finally have a word with you! I have noticed you several times when being on vandalism patrol, as you beat me to the revert several times. Initially i thought you were a part time reverter, but that idea kind of changed when lupin kept reporting that a revert was issued before me by Terra Xin. It never occurred to me that you might actually be a new colleague! So welcome, Welcome to the wonderful world of Vandalism Patrol :)

Now, as i have been slacking with saying hello for the past few days, im not going to leave with a small message simply saying hello! First of, good job reverting vandalism so far. Its always nice to see other people doing so. Second, i notice that you already managed to find Twinkle to help a bit on your anti-vandalism duty. If you like twinkle, you might also like Lupins anti vandal tool. For me, its the secret to my reversion speed. If you haven't tried it yet, you might want to give it a go

Last, i noticed that your user page states you want a template to make it better. As a little notice in advance, you cant steal mine... Because you have my permission to use it in case you want to (Well, as long as the little "Omega Purple Template - Excirial 2007" bit stays in tact.) In case you would like it, i will have to warn you that it consists of multiple pages that are dynamically included into other pages to create separate sections you can edit. Its pretty easy to adapt actually, but if the sheer amount of HTML would be a problem, feel free to ask for my help any time you want :).

Well, that's long enough i think, Kind regards, and happy editing :D --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've been seeing you for more than 6 hours on Recent Changes list...You are so active that you never allow me to revert an edit... :-( Fortunately or unfortunately you are faster than me:-( This is yet another barnstar for your accomplishment... Add it to your awards page... *Mugunth*^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

6 hours??? Whew, i really lose track of time when reverting vandalism. Sorry for beating you with my speed, but i will give you a little hint: If you want some extra speed, install the Lupin Anti Vandal tool into your Monobook. It seriously gets my vandalism reversion speed trough the roof. Anyway, thanks a lot for the star, which will certainty get a nice spot in my rewards section. And of course: Happy editing to you :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions on RC Patrol

Wow. Just Wow! Pedro : Chat 15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

:) (What else can i do here then smile, and say: Thanks for the compliment! Much appreciated!) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see a lot of your warnings. I just blocked a user you warned and followed back to your page, and had a quick nose at your contrib history. 10,000 edits - mega impressive. I've only got about 6 and a bit thousand, but there we go! Pedro : Chat 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For gods sake! ;)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Dammit! everytime I check out the recent changes page, which is most of the time, you are always there! Reverting, warning, it's unbeliveable. I believe you deserve this and a lot more for your tireless work. I can see an admin in the making;) It's great to know that users like you or Gurch are always reverting, and not going down without a fight. Well done mate, keep going and if you ever have an RFA I'll definatley vote for you! Cf38 (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew, what's up with the sudden compliment hailstorm? If this goes on i wont stop smiling or blushing till Next week! No seriously, thanks a lot for the barnstar, and of course for the compliment. Well, what else can i say? Lets just keep it at: Happy editing to you, and glad to help around the Wiki :D

WTF

What are you talking about you weirdo? I just reverted vandalism, check before you warn people pal. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, never mind, i accidentally added it back, sorry. But you should still check my edits. I'm a veteran at wikipedia, and would not do that on purpose. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :). Sorry im giving out kind of high warning levels, but there are a lot of vandalisations at this time, which means im not exactly lenient with warning levels. The last messages on your talk page were all warnings, so when i replied i just saw warnings, which wre pretty recent. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow you are fast!

I just refreshed and saw the vandalism made to 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery and noticed you had already reverted before I could even press 'rollback' on Twinkle. Damn you are fast! nice work.--Vince | Talk 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats kinda thanks to Lupin, who gives me a little neat diff that immediately shows if there is vandalism or not. Thanks a lot for the compliment though :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I used to do everything by hand with newbs contributions in one window, templates in another, and user pages for warnings in another, but I recently switched to Twinkle. Would lupin work with twinkle, or replace it?

Lupin and twinkle work along just fine, Personally i use lupin for reverting and warning, but twinkle really shines when reporting vandals to AIV. Personally i never used twinkle to its full extend since i was a lupin user before i ever used twinkle, so i dont really know its full potentional, but as i always say: The more tools to revert vandalism, the better :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try and it is very helpful! Thanks so much for turning me on to it! I noticed on many occasions I would revert an article and check its history and see you had beat me to it :-) Thanks again, --Vince | Talk 09:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:DatDoo

Blocked. Weird. Used to be a positive account. Blocked for just 24 hours to prevent further damage. Pedro : Chat 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pretty weird indeed. I was just going trough his previous contributions, and he didn't strike me as being a vandal. Even his vandalisms were not that serious at all, but annoying nontheless. I wonder what got into him.. Perhaps hes just bored now. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like he might want to appeal the block. I feel the chances are slender. Pedro : Chat 09:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cold Lake

Vandalism? I've added a reference --Born Again 83 (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A valid reference to a website that is called anus.com ... Ok, i did seriously not expect that. Sorry for the revert and the warning, but the link you added had a sky-high vandalism probability. I reverted your edit back in, and striped the warning(Feel free to remove it altogether if you want). Sorry for the inconvenience, and happy editing to you! :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem --Born Again 83 (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Hi Excirial,

I noticed that you reverted my recent edit, which had me restoring a long-standing inline comment in the Wikicode that another user had removed, to Super Mario Galaxy. Given that the edit was marked as minor and my purpose for restoring the (invisible) comment was explained clearly in the edit summary, I was just wondering if I had missed a discussion somewhere about inline comments not being appropriate or what have you that led you to revert my change. Thanks! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

About a couple of AIV reports

Hey, be a little bit careful when you're reporting to AIV. In the last hour or so here you've reported two vandals as editing past their final warnings without that being true. Here you reported one at 13:44 who was only given the final warning by you at 13:44 and hasn't edited since just before the warning at 13:33. This one you reported at 13:15 as breaking the final warning but the final was issued at 13:15 by you and the editor hasn't edited since 13:14.

You look like you do a good job with the AIV and recent changes patrol, but just keep an eye out so that you're not reporting inappropriately like that. Thanks and keep up the work, Metros (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

These two reports are both valid, abeit for different reasons. The first edit received a final warning at 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC). This is easily within the 1 week hostile period i personally maintain. Also, this IP had numerous previous warnings and a previous block, which also factor into my decision not to take any chances for future vandalism. I agree that this one was perhaps a bit to hasty, but seeing there were 9 previous edits from that IP on the same article, i assumed that this were 9 vandalism edits. Not entirely correct though, but i don't have the time to check each and every edit, especially not if my revert reason was clear vandalism

The Second report is also quite easily explained. Initially i gave a level 1 warning for a clear vandalisation. However, seconds later this user vandalized exactly the same article with exactly the same line. As it was clear vandalism then i decided to issue a level 4 warning. Another few seconds later i saw the same person with the same vandalisation, so i issued a level 4im along with reporting him. What went wrong then? It seems that VoaBot managed to get in between ths cycle. Instead of my vand4 warning it placed a level 2 warning, discarding my level 4 one. When i came back just after that, i still knew i placed a level 4 and just placed a level4im and reported, without checking if something happened in between. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The first one is a shared IP at a school, so it's generally policy not to block based on "stale" final warnings. It's very likely that it's not the kid who did the previous edit and it's also very possible that another student was the one to check and see the previous final warning, so whoever was editing today never saw that previous warning.
As for the second one, I know what it's like to be "beaten to the punch" especially by a bot like that. Metros (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a second look at this article which appears to have been deleted again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Devonshire? Perhaps a block? --CyclePat (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Cox

Patrick Cox - Hello, I noticed you took a look at my edit to this article yeaterday. I have now finidhed doing a write up on the fashion designer, so I would appreciate it if you could take a look, read my note on the discussion page and give me some feedback. Look forward to hearing from you, thanks. Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the article is done, it certainly complies to all Wikipedia's speedy deletion guidelines. In fact, i rather enjoyed reading the article, as its clear, informative, and about a topic i know very little about. The only little side note i wish to place on the article contents is the user of weasel words.

In short, a weasel word is a word that expresses an opinion about a statement within the text. In the text you wrote i noticed these words a few times. For example: "A staggering heel". For the first person a 9 inch heel might be staggering, for the second it doesn't have to be. However, the weasel words aren't that much of a problem to be honest. The only reason that i am commenting on them is that they are somewhat frequent, so i assumed that a little push towards the guideline might be helpful. Altogether i think you created a very nice article. Thanks for doing so :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to My userpage

Thanks for dealing with it. I still don't know why it happens, but I'm glad people like you are there to deal with it. Thanks, Mootoog (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Border thingy

Hello!

Erm..just a quick question how do you get that border and navigation bar? I would like one. If you could message me back on my talk page please that would be brilliant!

Thanks in advance

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Can you block user Franki walton? He called us a-holes in the sandbox and thats screwed up. If you can, please block him. Thanx. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Mix FM (Malaysia) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted to revision on 05:54, 1 January 2008, those WP:NPOV contents are added yesterday. Wikipedian 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job on doing so! It looks MUCH better this way. Warning striped(Voided) Feel free to remove it altogether if you want. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work cleaning up vandalism, it goes a long way in improving Wikipedia's credibility. DuckeJ (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help, its a lot of fun to do so. And thank you for dropping by and leaving a friendly line like that. :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Normally im not dropping a note on these kind of things. However, i just had to let you know that was the best line for removing a Semi Protect i ever saw. :)

(cur) (last) 13:58, 14 January 2008 Slakr (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism": rm semi - seems the dirty socks have found their way to the laundry for the time being [move=sysop]) (undo)

--Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, you should see some of my block durations. I'm sure the school vandals here in the US scratch their heads when they see the word "fortnight" :P --slakr^\ talk / 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block this user

You warned this user that you would block them if they vandalized once more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.112.134.34

I just reverted several more vandalisms by this guy that he just did. He has done it a lot of times since you said that. Could you please block him permanently?

Every edit in his list is vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.112.134.34

He messed with a list of museums article and that's my sore spot I guess. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto with: User_talk:194.66.96.132 and their contribution list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.66.96.132 Pakopako (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV report - [1]

It would have been easy to add a first warning see - Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, as it is, you haven't met the following criteria in the AIV instructions at the top of the page - "The vandal is active now, and has vandalised after sufficient warnings to stop.". Please respect the Wikipedia:Vandalism guidelines. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 • Talk • Contribs)

Thank you, but i already knew that.

I have been reporting to WP:AIAV a lot longer then today, and i know that reporting without warnings is a "No-Go". However, the nature of the vandalism meant it would slip past all the vandalism filters. Hence, it was some major luck that i ran into this persons edits, as they would have normally gone right past me.

Why i didn't just add warnings then? In this case, it was a matter of time. Personally i had a meeting at (Report time - 5 minutes) which meant that i could not watch this users activity any more. I ended up just filing an AIAV report with the reasoning that 1.5 hours would be recent enough to see this user return, and that if he would have kept up his previous edit rate, the damage could be extensive as it would go right past the filters. In short, this was more of an "Keep an eye out on this one" then an actual plea to block at once (Even though i believe that two of these offences should be enough to warrant a block).

I hope this explains the dubious nature of the report a little bit, and with kind regards,
--Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what your saying. Unfortunatly whilst the Wikipedia:Assume good faith mantra overrides that of WP:Verifiability, vandalism by changing facts is a highly effective, and increasing, means of causing damage. By the time the vandal is reported, too much damage has often been done. The WP:AIV rules are at fault - I got so frustrated by reporting vandals early, that I rarely report things now, that and because I rarely see vandalism happening at the time. The rules are stupid, but I'm prepared to work within them. I didn't think your report had a hope of success - they did watch it for another hour though - [2] Good luck with it, cheers -- John (Daytona2 • Talk • Contribs) 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your right that "Good Faith" and "Warning" rules tend to be annoying at times. Sometimes its so clear someone is a vandal its literally frustrating i need to give them at least 3 (And sometimes 4, depending on the bots) warnings before i can blow them to kingdom come. In those cases like this one, i find WP:IAR the best rule to help me. While this one isn't meant to be thrown around for minor issues(And even then, as little as possible), i find it comforting to know i can evade all the rules if there is a need that requires me to do so. And i think that information mutilation, along with detection evasion and me not being able to monitor much longer, is a valid responce to the question: Why do you use the IAR ruling. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One more for you

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are one of the most phenomenally fast vandalism whackers I've ever seen. Thank you for keeping me so busy at WP:AIV. Trusilver (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Blushes) Thanks a lot for the star and the compliment. I would rather not keep you so busy (That would mean there is no vandalism in the first place), but as long as that situation can still be considered utopian, ill just have fun playing whack-a-vandal :)

Oh Look! - Heres another!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hopefully this will give me a few seconds for making some reverts while you read this because you keep beating me to the punch! Keep up the good work, Tiddly-Tom 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What tool you use? Tiddly-Tom 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Blushes even more) Also, a lot of thanks to you!.

Personally im using a modified version of the Lupin anti vandal tool(Revert and warn) combined with a few modules of twinkle (Report to admins) The modified lupin automatically reverts to the last good version, and fills in half the vandalism report without me even having to type. Only the date header os semi-manual, but that one is locked onto my PC's clipboard. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm using something DerHexer made and Lupins tool for finding the vandlism in the first place. If it could be combined into one tool it would be excelent. At the moment I use lupins to find it - still have to click on diff - then have a special rollback button which rollbacks, warns completely and closes tab - all very, very quickly (you cant see it!). If both were merged, you would not have to insert the date - speeding up the process for you. I have asked DerHexer to look in to it. If nothing happens about it - I may speek to Lupin. Tiddly-Tom 18:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess only warning blocks

Hi, please explain your excess only warning warnings on User_talk:64.80.63.131. A only warning is level 4, which means after one vandalism you should AIV report after the only warning. I would just like to remind you of that. Please answer the question on my talk page.

Thanks,

The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions) (Review Me!)} 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. There are many reasons not to use the only warning notices. One is that they don't work. Another, as seen here, is that they are often not the only warning. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not really usual two people come in for the same issue at almost the same time. I will give an explanation on this one: Personally i use the vand4im to indicate there has been a warning past the last warning. Usually im using this as a reminder to myself that this user has already been reported, saving me the hassle to report twice. Also, i dont deem it just that anything after the last warning is deemed "Void" since it has already been reported to AIV. I have met several IPs that committed over 20 vandalisms)On the logs), yet only received a 4 warning + ban sequence(On the talk). In those cases future vandal fighters tend to be lenient with IP' s that generally cause a lot of reversion work. By marking them with the amount of vandalisms after the final warning, they will probably go down faster due to higher first warning levels.

I understand that this one is especially worse, and the amount of vand4im's looks rediculous. Normally there is 1, at most two vand4ims after a vand4 on any IP. This one however, managed to get up to equal performance with manual vandalism, then i could get with automated reversal; Hence, the insane amount of 4ims! I used to use a custom template to tell a user he was on AIAV, but after a recent discussion with another ditor i found out that this template was removed some time ago, which caused me to go back to my usual vand4im sequences.

I hope this explains the situation a bit, and with kind regards, --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the user answered the question? Do you get this as I certainly don't, too much waffle! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions) (Review Me!)} 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

(Sigh something about being lucky to watch other talk pages)

For the people who DONT understand:

1) User receives level 4 warning

2) User vandalizes again, gets reported.

3) User vandalizes again, warning is already 4, marking as 4im for tracability (tracking Already reported/Warnings not getting lost)

4) IF vandalism.commited.again = true THEN goto 3.

Clear? --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? No. Just wait for admin to block them. An only warning is just that - an only warning. It should not be used more than once. It even says on it that it will be the only warning they will receive. If you just want to bug them while they are still vandalising, try pointing them to the sandbox lots of times instead of being wrong about what you're doing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't said why you did so many excess only warning warnings! Just a simple reason is required, and please don't do so many next time! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions) (Review Me!)} 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes i did: Also, i dont deem it just that anything after the last warning is deemed "Void" since the user has already been reported to AIV

In short: Im adding a warning for each offense, regardless the reporting status or the amount of warnings. No single editor ever looks at the user contribution list, let alone doing a diff of the edits they made. All the offences should result in warnings should be on the talk page, to give a complete image of the user. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions) (Review Me!)} 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for the unusaly high number of warnings was due to a particuarly quick vandal and a backlogged AIV Tiddly-Tom 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for tagging 163.153.126.41. The district reports that the student involved has been identified and is taking appropriate measures. NERIC-Security (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up on this! I never heard that any school vandal ever got caught in person, so this is quite an interesting thing for me to read. Lets hope that this one learns that vandalising doesnt work, and that he eases off on wiki now. Thanks again, and happy editing to you :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Found this a few days ago - might be of intrest as it explains the process. Tiddly-Tom 07:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they get caught and disciplined on a fairly regular basis. I've been doing my best to let the reporting (non-bot) user know (usually by e-mail) when this has occurred. The problem that I see with the current process when the defacement is coming from a school, is that tagging the page of the offending IP only lets the one student know. The station involved is typically not used either by teachers or school administrators, so that they never find out that they have a student who has vandalized Wikipedia. Once they do, most take (imho) appropriate action. The key has been getting the information to the district administration (which include their technology staff). NERIC-Security (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't believe a friend that you could edit any wiki page - we tested it out and were in the process of changing it back when our internet crashed. Good looking out though it's cool you guys fix problems so quickly. I wont change any more pages :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.49.37 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. No damage has been done, and its always a big plus if someone drops a line, instead of vandalizing further. So, thanks for the message, and feel free to edit around, as long as it are quality edits, and not random lines :). Kind regards, --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Noor Jehan

If you look at the history of Noor Jehan, I was undoing a deletion by vandal Stuti16 (contributions) who had been busily blanking sections of the article. So I didn't write the section you don't like - it was in there before. I've re-reverted to put the article back to how it was, but you may like to do some rewriting. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Excirial/recent2.js

This was originally posted in the article space- I have moved it to the title above. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, No wonder it didn't work as intended! I completely forgot that i needed to add "User:" before the page title. Im pretty sure you saved me at least 30 minutes of code staring to find some non excistant bug. Thanks a lot for doing so!. --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-vandal tool development

Hi Excirial! Welcome back, and Happy New Year! I see you've started doing your own development - I wondered when you would. I've a couple of ideas I'd like to bounce off you. One is to ditch all the hard-coded trusted users and use a PHP query to pull each registered editor's contribution count; any editor with over, say, 200 edits can probably be trusted. The other is to get MediaWiki rollback working for non-admins who've been granted the authority. Either I'm missing something enormous, or this simply doesn't, and can't, work at the moment. Comments please. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip, nice to hear from you again!

First off, i have to warn you that im pretty much a novice coder. I can read and understand any language from Perl to VB.Net and from X86 assembly to C++, but my own programming experience is below average at best(And even then im exaggerating). Have a look at the history of the script i edited, the comments are going to cause a fews smiles from you i guess :-). On the rollback issue: It actually works as intended on Lupin, its actually one of the functions that i value most in it. It seems to work by scanning a page history for the first non-rollback editor, then opening edit mode and automatically clicking save (I didnt look at the code, so this is mainly a guess).

On the ideas list, i would love to hear what you have in mind! I had some ideas myself, here is a little list of what i thought of:

1) Adding a link that submits a UW-4 vand warning, and my personal Excirial/AIAV to save some time (Rather personal/already done).

2) Add a link to the block log that allows a user to view the users block log (Would be great if it worked with popups). If a user is a repeating vandal, its easy to see this and report them to WP:ABUSE

3) This one is actually one i really want to pull off some day: Currently Lupin tracks all users that already received a warning for the duration of the session. My idea was to log these users to a text file, which lupin will automatically mark as hostile once an edit is found. Variations of this would be manually marking an IP as hostile, a bit opposite of the current safe list you have, but pretty handy to keep an eye on sneaky vandals.

As a little sidenote to point 2: I'm currently trying to develop a (Semi) automated bot that will scan the blocked user list(Perhaps just the Diffs), and then check each new user there for the total amount of blocks they received, and if the last few, say 5, blocks are received within 6 months. If that would be true, the bot would make an automated report to WP:Abuse to have the account investigated.

In all due honesty COREVA-Bot(Counter Repeating Vandals) is still heavily in development. Actually, thats to a degree that so far i only have a basic layout what it should do, and a name. I have no idea when, if ever, it will be done, but it seemed like a nice and useful start to learning some proper coding.

Kind regards,

--Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points: By MediaWiki rollback, I meant what's on offer here. Maybe you missed the great debate about it all? The value is in faster operation, nothing more, but we both seem to have an interest in that. This way of doing rollback has always been available to admins, but now it's been opened (on application) to ordinary users with good track records. What bugs me is that Lupin has both modes of doing rollback, but the fast way doesn't work for me from within my tool, even though I have access to it from ordinary history pages. I think I can see how to code it, but it needs half-a-day I don't have.

I think keeping a blacklist as a file may be difficult from within pure JavaScript. Maybe you could do a bit of initial processing on script startup to pull the list of the user's last 1000 contributions and extract the user names of the people you've reverted? Philip Trueman (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip,

Im currently working hard on Coreva, which means i haven't been around on Wikipedia itself to much. I indeed missed the entire rollback debate, as i have also been on a short 1.5 month wikibreak. Your indeed right that keeping a blacklist as a file wouldn't exactly work, and personally i think that parsing the last 1.000 edits every time isn't the most server friendly, or even easiest thing that i can do.

This is actually where Coreva comes into play; im already busy implementing the means needed to extend its functionality beyond my current request. One thing that i am currently working on, is a watch list with IP's that have been recently unblocked after committing vandalism. This data can be extracted from the special:block page that im parsing already anyway, so it should prove to be little extra work. By storing this data into a SQL database its easy to generate a list of IP's and usernames that will be unblocked soon, and then store those on a special page much like the badwords page that is currently used by Lupin. This way it should be possible to watch recently unblocked vandals for say, Unblock date + 2 weeks to spot repeated vandalism. Let me know what you think of this :-)

--Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

archive box

Actually my posts have been on archive box and WikiProject Templates for 10 days. I would think that this is long enough for anyone to give input that was going to. I was hoping to avoid this whole fiasco by having some input, but unfortunately, only one person answered as you can see. Please feel free to comment on it, and invite all you know. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your User Page

While reading trough the AIAV history to see who blocked my school vandal (You did that, thanks for that) i stumbled across your account. What i kind of noticed was this line: Hey there! This userpage is pretty bad right now, so feel free to suggest any changes to me or go ahead and make them.. If you are interested, you can use the templates i designed for my own user page. It should be simple enough to do so, so if you feel like it / like the design, go ahead and use them :). Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage is very well designed. Are you sure it's OK I can borrow some of the designs? jj137 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Feel free to take whatever part you need of them. I don't mind if you take a part, all of it, edit it, give it a different color, add things, remove things or anything else. In fact, do with it what you like.

Just make sure you copy the entire structure at first, since the main pages load sub pages (Example: The main page which contains all the interface HTML loads a separate "Content" page to make sure that editing the text can be done without having to deal with a;; the HTML). Also, make sure you rename those subpages with your own names, since i dont think you want Excirial/Content as your content page. Have fun with it :)

Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) jj137 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Religious Research

I've indicated three publications which have noted the organization. You have the article listed for speedy deletion for non-notability. I could definitely see where you might propose an AfD as controversial, but the A7 criteria for speedy deletion seems a bit of a stretch. Please comment at the article's talk page. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page as requested. Just a gentle nudge that way :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD Walter Cuming

Hi. I just wanted to let you know I removed the speedy tag on this article because Google actually backed up the text of the stub enough that I didn't think speedy applied, although of course you may want to AfD it. On an unrelated note, I noticed your generous offer above re: your user page layout. If you don't mind, I'd also be interested in borrowing it - mine looks like this, and could only be helped. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I ran a (Really) quick search on it myself, but unlike you, i didn't find anything that made me think it was notable. Just an issue of speed i guess. On the user page template: Of course you can use it! I originally designed them for my own user page, but anyone who wants to use them is free to do so. As above, do with them what you want, as long as you don't claim you made it. Optionally you might want to consider leaving the bottom div that states "Omega Purple Template - Excirial 2007" in tact so that people will know where to find the unmodified version. And apart from that, i always like to hear from people who would like to use the templates i made. At least that means its generally appreciated which is something that just nice to know :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello EXC!

Thanks for your polite and positive message. Receive my best wishes of good health and prosperity. MusiCitizen (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Scene (fashion trends)

Hi there, I declined the speedy on this one because, poorly written though the article is it doesn't meet the A1 criterion. This states that A1 (nonsense) is suitable for:

an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.

I suggest you either Prod or AfD the article instead. I realise that there's no way it would survive AfD and this may seem an academic exercise, but A1 is really only for articles that read "gdhfdtwer74587trgkjnw5-98456" and the like. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, A1 was perhaps not the best tag for it, but you have to believe me when i say that it is never going to become a frontpage article. Unless im mistaken the exact same article was deleted by another administrator earlier this day (It looks awfully similar to something i CSD'd earlier). Also, the user who posted the article, has quite the history for posting nonsense pages, which makes me believe that this article will receive no improvement (Im surprised if anyone will ever look at it in the first place ^^). However, i don't mind having it stick around. There are way worse articles out there, and this one can be considered readable in a sense. Anyway, thanks for coming by, and dropping a note on this one. I always appreciate feedback :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

query re: vandalism warning

What was the meaning of the vandalism warning you gave me on my talk page? You didn't appear to actually revert the changes, which were clearly good faith changes. --Lquilter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yipee a yee.... First my anti vandal tool won't work at all, and now i hear it does work, but just not as it was intended to. Well, lets just say that i have some technical problems over here which caused the vandalism warning. The actual edit was meant to take the personal information of wikipedia. WP:BLP states that personal information should not be on wikipedia, so i decided to remove it. The idea was to leave you a quick note explaining what i did, but it seems that instead of dropping the message i wanted, a level 1 vandalism warning was issued. Sorry for that. Ill repair the mess that caused this as soon as possible :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's working even worse than you know. I was adding a category about an academic discipline to an article about a academic journal. No BLP information involved whatsoever. --Lquilter (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Im not completely certain what is wrong over here, but i got a diff showing you added personal information to the article. I have been working in my monobook just before this happened, so i think i might simply have messed something up there. Guess ill just reset it. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball RJ

Was the page deleted before? Can't find the link in the deletion log. The speedy tag should be re-placed on the article if so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at this revision: [3]. It was deleted a few times before, but at this time it looks more or less ok. I think it passes the guidelines for now :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping tabs on Agent007ravi (talk · contribs) and am doing an investigation on the activities of MangaRJ (talk · contribs) and Laxfox620 (talk · contribs), who appear to be single purpose accounts. Do they strike you as puppets by any chance? The article in question has images with licenses that say the artwork is self-made. What to do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that User:MangaRJ is a single purpose account for sure. The account has begon on the article we have been discussing seconds after its creation, which is one of the ways to recognize a sock puppet. As for User:Laxfox620: i think he is a semi vandal account who just wandered in this article. And last but not least: Agent007ravi. I cant really say anything about him. Its an established editor who has a user box stating he is part of the DBZ project, so he might just as well have wandered in to improve the article. Maybe an admin can run an IP check on the sock and his account, but i don't know if there is enough proof to do so.

As for the images: I think the only way to deal with them is tagging them for deletion. they are indeed copyrighted, but the problem is that its edited copyrighted material, which means that they can't fall under fair use. I think ill just tag them all, will be done in a minute :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A little update on this one: I went trough the article and it ended up being a whole lot of nonsense. I simply filed it as a nonsense page with CSD, and it has been removed now. Oh, and the images are also gone. Guess all is clear now :). Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

MangaRJ : Im sorry for recreating the dragonball RJ page evry time i wont do it anymore sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuangM (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad online petition

please see my comment here. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. I obviously endorse the images in question being shown on Wikipedia. See my contributions to Talk:Muhammad/images, where I actually link to the redirect in question. Redirects to article sections are perfectly valid. If you want to speedy the redirect, establish consensus to remove the article section first; otherwise, there are no grounds whatsoever for the speedy tag. If you want the redirect deleted anyway, feel free to submit it to Rfd. dab (𒁳) 12:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We are slightly out of sync with the comments here. Already responded on your user page before this was posted. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I know, there could be better titles. Feel free to create more concise redirects. This isn't really important until we decide to branch the section into a dedicated article, which won't happen for at least some time. I suppose the redirect will be found by Wikipedia's search feature if people type "Muhammad Wikipedia online petition" or similar into the search box. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Beast of Jersey

I have removed your tag on the above as it is a factually correct, although brief, article. I don't have the time to improve it to any great extent but I have added a couple of links. Please check before adding speedy tags.Paste (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work adding those links. At the time of the tagging, this article simply classified as an attack page, and it still is not the best article considering the WP:BIO guidelines. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack even when first written as it was factually correct article about a well known murderer in Jersey! Paste (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf Jameel

Hi there, I've declined this speedy: a quick Google search shoes he seems to be notable [4] and I'm sure sources can be found. I've put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article, if it doesn't improve you can always take it to AfD. Or better - add the references yourself! I've done this quite a few times with articles with Asian subjects, it strikes a blow against systematic bias. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Kim, and thanks for the heads up on this one. I have to admit this was one of those "Leave or Level" articles. The decision to CSD was more based upon the idea that it was better to have an experienced CSD admin look at it (As opposed to letting it slip) then the idea that the article was really that bad. Im still trying to get a feeling for working with CSD, which means that i might be overzealous on the reports every now and then. However, that should be over pretty soon, so my apologies in advance for the extra work this might cause :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

I've salted it - I can see this is only going to get recreated again and again. Hut 8.5 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hut, glad i won't have to deal with that page again :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jj137

Once again, thank you very much for your userpage design. I just changed my userpage and I think it looks much better. I still need to customize some of the links, colors, etc. and add some content, but I still think it looks really cool. Thanks, dude. jj137 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. And if you need any help with customizing it, just give a shout. My coding can be messy at times :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do have a question maybe you can help me with. What exactly does rgb(25, 25, 112) mean? jj137 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RGB is a standard for setting the color of well, whatever it is attached to. It allows the user to give values for R(ed) G(reen) and B(lue). These values van range from 0-255 and allow creating about every color in the color spectrum. If you want to change the color of anything, just alter the values for RGB. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, OK. Do the three values all contribute to a single color? (Sorry, I'm no expert on this.) jj137 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do. Setting it to 255,0,0 would create pure red, 0,255,0 would create green, and 255,255,255 is white. RGB are simply the three prime colors, and the values indicate how much of it is mixed for the total color. The higher the value, the more that is being mixed. A simply way to add the colors you want to the page is opening Windows Paint (Assuming your on a windows machine) and then going into the color customizing mode. This will display a color palette, which will indicate the RGB values of the colors in it. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, OK, I understand now. :) Thanks. jj137 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse me butting in - but have a look here for a great tool that lets you select harmonising colours, when you're using two or more, just by twitching the sliders and/or clicking the colours that are produced. The codes needed are then displayed next to the colours. I used it for my user pages where I have 3 colours on the go at once, and it was very useful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yemeni tadomol

Hey, the article sounds like advertisement, I tagged it under csd a7, but if I could have found out their copyvio i would have tried {{db-spam}}. Welt^anschaunng 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk about a "puff piece!"

I noticed the username on that big ol' bio is, probably not by coincidence, the same basic name. Think we have us a bit of a conflict of interest here? :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Most likely i would say. To bad COI alone doesn't warrant for a CSD, but this could just as well be a G12(Copyright) since it looks a whole lot like a cut and paste page. Either way, there is so much wrong with the page (I never had to add 5 tags before) that it might be better of deleted, as starting from scratch will probably be easier then fixing that monstrosity :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We may not even be dealing with the subject of the article, either. Even if it does stay under the notability guidelines, it's just a disaster the way it sits. I may Google some of the text and see if it comes back as a G12. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise(not), it actually was. I hope you don't mind, but i replaced your DB-BIO with a G12 tag on copyright. I think the G12 is a little more convincing to hit DELETE then the bio, as he might actually be somewhat notable. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavens, no. I don't mind at all. A blatant G12 is far more likely to get deleted without arguing over notability or not. PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

books

Fictional works cannot be deleted as not notable under speedy. A non notable book that nobody will seriously defend can be listed at Prod, but otherwise a violation of NOT PLOT is always subject to debate, and has to go to AfD. But an even better course is to see if the people working on it can expand it further.DGG (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reports to WP:UAA

Hiya. I've blocked one of the four names you listed, but have removed the other three. The username policy does state that whilst use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. In this instance, the two of the users have no edits, deleted or otherwise, and the third has one edit unrelated to their username. I think that blocking might be a bit bitey, so would suggest you discuss their names with them in the first instance by using the {{uw-username}} template on their talk page. Any problems or questions, leave me a message. Thanks! _GB^T/C 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this one. WP:UAA is a new section to work in for me, so i have yet to figure out all the guidelines that apply. I will, as you suggested, tag these user names with the TL template when necessarily. I assume that the above named circumstances include edits such as creating CSD G11 (Advertising) and perhaps CSD A7 (Non notable companies)? Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - you'll see a lot of single-purpose accounts called "XYZ CO" which will create the same page, again and again, either in their userspace or in the article mainspace. That sort of action makes it beyond a doubt that the username is inappropriate because it is being used for promotion or advertising, and the pages will be dealt with as quickly at CAT:CSD as the usernames will at WP:UAA. Where you've got someone who's created an account with a company name, until they start creating articles about that company it's probably best to assume good faith and assume that they skipped over the part about creating accounts with company names in them. _GB^T/C 11:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

`Ali

I'm sorry, but how on earth did you get the idea this might be a speedy deletion candidate? dab (𒁳) 12:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

um, yes, it's a standard transliteration of ayin. Compare, for example, Shi`ite (and many others). dab (𒁳) 12:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Response written before new comment was posted) I expected this was a CSD R3: Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created.. Apparently that was not the case. I never knew words excisted with a ` as the first character. Quite interesting they do :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Geovative Solutions

This is a quickly growing company in an industry that's taking off (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_tour). Their software, GeoTours, is used all over the world as THE software for GPS tours. They are the only company offering software allowing regular people to create GPS tours. What do I need to say to "indicate the importance or significance of the subject"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ununtrium (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you always sign a comment by adding four Tildes(~~~~).

Quite simple. The above line has to be embedded into that article in the one or other way. At the time of the Speedy Delete Template addition there was no information whatsoever that made the company significant. Just look at it like this: I never heard of it, and as of such i don't know why they are Notable. Make sure that you state why this particular company deserves an article. If they are the market leader in GPS tours software, that certainly makes them notable. But make sure that this is clearly stated into the article, and that the claim is Sourced Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Abongo (Roy) Obama

Not notable? Are you kidding?

I put up a request for a deletion review.

This article was deleted less than a minute after it was put up, despite the fact that included sources such as the article in Investor's Business Daily http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080115/issues.html?.v=1 that raises the fact that some might be unconfortable with a president who has a half-brother who self-identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim. Abongo has gotten a lot of attention recently and I am curious why there is no information about him on Wikipedia. Oh. A mention in the Chicago Sun Times. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/familytree/545461,BSX-News-wotreex09.article and another http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59598 and the Toronto Sun www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/01/26/4795002.php

AJmed (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, next time put those in the article themselves, and it is fully notable. Unless it is of course classification as a WP:CSD G10 violation on attack pages concerning living persons. That was the reason that User:Roger Davies deleted it in the first place. Here is the origional reason: ‎(G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP).

Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and had the sources in the article. User Roger Davies can put whatever reason he wants up but I didn't write anything that wasn't in the sourced articles. Watch me try again and get it deleted in less than three seconds. --AJmed (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Section G10 of the WP:CSD does not rely on sources if the page is a pure attack. WP:BLP clearly states that criticism is allowed, but That it must NOT overwhelm the article. In short, pure negative articles are not allowed. You are of course free to re-create the article, but make sure it complies to the BLP guidelines before doing so. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Garrett W. Graff

I accidentally published when I wanted to preview. I was inteding on adding citations for notability. Any way we can re-establish this page to allow me to append notabilities? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggraff1987 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can. Contact Icestorm815 and request the article to be restored so you can add notability/references(He is the admin who originally deleted the article). Based upon your username, i think you are writing a biography about yourself. If this is the case, make SURE you pass BLP guidelines, and also keep a Neutral point of View in mind while writing the article. Also, you don't happen to be writing about the same Garrett_Graff as this article, would you? Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not and I think Garrett_Graff should not be a main page for either user rather should display links to their respective parties. Garrett M. Graff is the current biography shown on Garrett_Graff while I, Garrett W. Graff, need to create Garrett_W._Graff in order to use Wiki. I know there's sometimes a tech race to get domains but shoot, he already got me on GarrettGraff.com. Maybe it's something to consider? Thanks! Ggraff1987^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:43, 24 February 2008 (EST)

In case you two have a similar name and are both notable, you can request that Garrett_Graff becomes a Disambiguation page. This means that it will become a starting point where both of you will be listed. Garrett_Graff would have to be moved to Garrett_Graff(Professor) or something like that, but that is not much of a problem to do. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help -- Time to go to work .. will figure this mess out later! :) Ggraff1987^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:52, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Speedy Deletion of Gary Huey

My page on Gary Huey keeps on getting tagged for speedy deletion! I don't know why. I own the copyrights to all the works of Gary Huey. He is a surrealistic artist that was mentored by Richard West, Jr., a well known Native American artist and now curator of the Indian Museum in DC. His work and biography should be shared in wikipedia. Could someone please tell me what I am doing wrong?!

Thanks Lowe1 !2

(You can sign comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) affter the text you write

From the looks of it the article has been deleted two timed for two different reasons. The first time it was deleted was because because it violated the Criteria For Speedy Deletion, Section G7. Section G7 is the section that requires Notability. This means that the person in question must have done some kind of notable thing during his life, which allows for an academic entry. Have a look at the requirements for Biographies of living persons.

The second time it was deleted under Criteria For Speedy Deletion, Section G12. Section G12 is the section that governs copyright. every article on wikipedia must be copyright free, meaning that no copyrighted images or text may be included. Since the article contained © Lowe's Art and Print Gallery.com, 2007 All Rights Reserved, and no assertion of permission has been made. it signaled incompatible copyright, and as of such the article was removed. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gia Primo

Hi, I declined the speedy on Gia Primo because it began with, Gia Primo is one of the world's most renown martial artist, submission wrestler and model. I also got a few bit when I googled the name. You may wish to consider AfD, however. CIreland (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiyas, and thanks for the heads-up on this one :). I tagged this one as it was completely unsourced, and the inclusion of Peacock words gave me the impression that this was an attempt to cover up an non-notable person. The article could use some MAJOR improvements, so i will just watchlist it and see if it improves. If it doesn't ill just file it for AFD. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for G11 though. I wouldn't have, but I'm soft like that. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CIreland (talk • contribs)

Why have you de;eted it again ? Revert the page back and I will add more so called "notable info " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connortt9 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Excirial, I've moved the page to User:Excirial /Gia Primo. Addhoc (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi , I have now edited it and tried to make it a quality article. Is it enough ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connortt9 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I Wikified the article, and it should be more or less complaint with the guidelines now. Before moving to to the article space, could you have a look if you can fill in the info box i added? Furthermore: I saw you added this line to the article" 'Chicago Fitness Magazine. Do you have any link where this magazine can be found? If so, it would be a great Notability reference. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What? [5]

I am administrator at Swedish Wikipedia, and administrator and bureaucrat at Swedish Wiktionary. The term "Oh, be a fine girl, kiss me" is a widely-known phrase for remembering the stellar spectral classes (O, B, A, F, G, K, M). Almost all physicists know it, and it is mentioned in most introductory astrophysics books. Furthermore, it is mentioned in the Stellar classification article, the target of the redirects. You really should be more careful before classifying articles (including redirects) as "nonsense". --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually checked the article for that line, but my Firefox search told me that it did not exist. I tried it again a minute ago, and again it did not come up. Why? Because my search was set to be case sensitive, which caused "oh," to return nothing. Sorry for the trouble, but i actually tried to check it :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairly Odd Baby

It's an episode of the Fairly Oddparents. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, needs some serious repairs then. I know the series, but still i didnt get the article context. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ras Kush

I just found out about this article and it's deletion today. I was unaware it existed. I believe that Ras Kush may meet the criterion for notability in #7 of WP:MUS - Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city - that scene being 'Warrior Style' Reggae in NYC. He has also toured internationally. I'm sorry I missed the deletion discussion. I will look for references and get back to you. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

I have to admit that whilst his contributions are greatly appreciated to the project that his writing isn't the best. Many of his articles are hard to read, or may require cleanup and he doesn't bother to use stub categories on his short articles on various religious figures. Yet as an admin his pages are automatically marked as patrolled. I don't see why admin automatically should have their pages patrolled as there are many editros who don't want to be admin and consistently add useful content ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be me, but i can't figure out the context here. I assume you replied at the wrong person(?), since i never write articles in the first place, and i can't remember that i posted anything on your talk page that you might be replying to. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, nice work on adding all those French villages. Those bot edits newpage patrol kind of hard sometimes though XD

No ,I noticed you tagged one of Charles's articles for cleanup and I have to agree with you. Its a good un potentially but was quite scruffy looking and not that easy to read! Yes French villages are going well but are actually manually edited. I'm super fast!!! Once they are all started then they can be built upon. Hopefully we'll eventually have 36,000 have decent articles by the end of it! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, now i get it! Sorry for not realizing earlier, im doing new page patrol and tagging at the same time. On the villages: Why on earth don't you let a bot handle those?!? Its pretty simple to write a bot to create those pages for you. At most, its a few hours of coding, even less if someone already created similar code. Maybe its an idea to drop a request at WP:BOTREQ? Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it would have saved a lot of effort by a number of us. Given that the infoboxes are copied from french wikipedia I'm certain it could have been done first time by a bot and with infoboxes too. But it's mostly done now. I'll keep it in mind for the future! Its boosted my contributions somewhat anyway!!! Today I've been adding infoboxes and maps to Category:Cities in Guatemala. A few weeks back I created over 100 missing locator maps so places in every country can have a nice push pin locator using coordinates!! It really makes a difference. Regards! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)