User talk:Canderson7/Archive 5

This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to my talk page.

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Blocks

It appears that the masses are at it again. Is there a way to block edits to a section, specifically Brooks_School#Notable_Brooksians. A semi-protect might work as well seeing as how 90% of the edits are vandalism. Most of the vandals seem to post their own names or vandalize various chewing tobacco pages, so we know that we are dealing with the highest grade of intellectuals here. I would recommend another block, but spring break starts tomorrow so it would have no effect. --Happyfeet10 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Open Proxies

Thanks for catching that. I'll block that IP and get the talk pages when I have time (they just need to be tagged with {{open proxy}}). -- John Reaves (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already done that, thanks again. -- John Reaves (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I know we don't appear to agree on whether or not to use a Wikipe-tan image in Lolicon, but I wanted to thank you for supporting my effort to keep the images off the bad image list, and asserting the need to use the list as it was intended. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I added Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Silver Surfer to your desk. The question is whether it is grammatically cortrect and related concerns. Unfortunately, the article is at 48 KB, so it's a little long. I've addressed all obvious problems that I can. If you have time to review this for copyediting it is appreciated, otherwise let me know and I'll assign it to someone else. Thank you. RJFJR 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about comics, but I'll happily copyedit. Canderson7 ^(talk) 16:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Orca

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for blocking that editor and do many other good edits. Thank you! In the most sincere manner, -A Sprig of Fig & a lock of holly 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It was nothing. You deserved it. However sexual slavery has been under heavy fire, if it isn't to much to ask you, could you possibly intervene if it happens again? Thank you. In the most sincere manner, -A Sprig of Fig & a lock of holly 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In the most sincere manner, -A Sprig of Fig & a lock of holly 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

AIT

Thanks for looking after AIT William M. Connolley 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Kind words like yours make it worthwhile. Honest and truly. Thanks! --Tenebrae 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You earned it. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:65.101.36.19

Thanks for siding with me on this issue, though I was unaware of the policy. I did think that this user was going to clean his record so he could vandalize more. Thanks again. ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 23:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Things like that almost always end up being a judgement call. I'm glad Ybbor pointed out the guideline, though. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Image:Kallmann1.jpg

Hi! I did not know such a thing as MediaWiki:Bad image list existed. Anyway, the rationale and the goal is just fine. Thanks for informing. In fact there may exist more such images with potential shock value.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job so far

The edits to the Silver Surfer article are really well done. Thanks for taking your time. I especially like the "There, in the middle of the story we had so carefully worked out, was a nut on some sort of flying surfboard" addition. That was a real nice touch and I commend your effort in pursuing the link included in order to find out more about the character. Zuracech lordum 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Doodle event scheduling

Dear Canderson7, you have deleted the article Doodle event scheduling although:

• the article did not match (in my opinion) any criteria for speedy deletion
• I have contested the deletion (inserted the hangon template) and inserted arguments about why I disprove deletion on article's discussion page
• Nobody has stated any counterargument
• I have promised on article's discussion page that I will soon improve the article in such a way that the notability of its subject can be asserted

Now the article including the arguments on its discussion page is lost. In order to restore the article, I must restart everything from scratch (I didn't save my work on my computer). In my opinion, such actions do not help extending and improving Wikipedia. Ajgorhoe 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Canderson7, Thank you for detailed explanation on my talk page with respect to this matter. Ajgorhoe 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Proper Capitalization Of Nissan urvan

Thank You For Moving Nissan urvan To Nissan Urvan VolkswagenKing28 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! Canderson7 ^(talk) 11:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection against vandalism

I have protected your user page due to Vandalism Pfan 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Canderson7! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

 Tcrow777  talk  04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

I see that you also received an e-mail from User:TragedyStriker with respect to Zachary Jaydon's AfD article; I have no idea why I was selected to receive it, and I suspect you are in a similar situation. I've left the user a note and don't intend to get involved further unless there's something that you'd like to see happen... feel free to comment on my talk page or by e-mail. Accounting4Taste 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection

There is a all out WAR going on regarding the merger of Ghost Light AND Will-o'-the-wisp. Until this can be settled, can you place BOTH articles under some kind of protection ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

You're probably right, it's not really vandalism. On the other hand, the user is repeatedly attacking both other editors and other nationalities. I agree that it's not vandalism, but I find it strange that there's no corresponding board on which to report obvious personal attacks and racism. JdeJ (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks! JdeJ (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have seen your criticism of article Human rights in Russia and agree that article should be improved. Unfortunately, there is a User:ellol who effectively controls this article and with whom I have a history of difficult relations, up to ArbCom level [1]. After first my attempt to improve this article, he immediately reverted everything. Would you agree to mediate editing of this article per WP rules, such as WP:NPOV? Then I could still try to do something. Otherwise, this is simply waste of time based on my previous experience. Thank you for your interest to this subject. Biophys (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Any Admin can help

Please stop Zakipfc from vandalizing Battle of Kosovo, he has done so a dozen or more times in the past three weeks, and when editors revert his vandalism and warn him on his Talk Page, he just reverts back and ignores the warning. While there appears to be some knowledge of the subject in his edits, the bulk of contributions are ungrammatical, and otherwise skewed. 69.148.162.7 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't vandalism to remove a heavily-cited, well-stated cutline and replace it with this: "Draw in military terms,but Serbia never recovered from suffering heavy losses.Few years after the battle Serbia became Ottoman vasal state." for example, it's spelled "vassal" not "vasal," there should be spaces after the periods, and both sentences are ungrammatical. A number of other contribs by Zakipfc are likewise inferior to what he replaced. Different editors aren't so much edit warring with Zakipfc as trying to keep him from turning Battle of Kosovo into his own personal Wikipedia:Sandbox. I just had a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism and can see why you don't consider his contribs vandalism: Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. 69.148.162.7 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Check your gmail :) CanDo (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wild Bill

• You guessed right, I don't really care, I have him on my watch list and noticed all the changes, I thought it was mistake, so I corrected it. I didn't actually read the other "Wild Bill" to noticed that it was his nickname as well. You can change it back if you haven't already, or I can do it, tis no big deal. Retrosheet and Baseball-reference have him as Bill Donovan, and considering that there are multiple Bill's, the spelling out the name seems reasonable.. good edit.Neonblak (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops

Didn't mean to collide with you here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Canderson7 ^(talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

War on UFO Article, talk page

Got a literal WAR going on here. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that what's going on is a reasonable, if in some places heated, debate. Thanks for the heads up, but I see no real need to wade in. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu

Although the most optimistic part of me hopes I am being premature, it appears the sandbox is starting to repeat what lead to me suggesting stubbing the article in the first place. It's well past the stage where I can claim to be a neutral party, but perhaps Jacob would listen to you give your views on what the consensus(es) ir, although it seems to me you already have, obviously not everyone is in agreement. Restepc (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that we could soon move to the main article, but that seems increasingly unlikely. I think we just have to reconcile ourselves to a slow and careful process. Personally, I plan to justify each set of edits to the sandbox with a comment on the talk page like this one. I started with the quotes, because they seemed easiest. I'll focus on the history section next. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The slow and painful option...I can't say I agree (if a RFC isn't enough of a consensus I don't know what is), but I'll go with it for now. It appears we are to discuss each note individually despite the subject already having been more than covered (IMV). I think I'll watch the footie instead....Restepc (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Comet (programming)/Sandbox

Your dedication to watching over this article is impressive in its own way, but I recommend that rather than simply reverting other editors (which is frustrating for everyone), you try to find some middle ground. If someone removes content that you thought was useful, don't just immediately return it to the article. Instead, take half an hour to edit that chunk of material and make it less objectionable. I don't believe that the article should be reduced to a stub, but it's not currently perfect. There is not a single passage that couldn't use more work. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that those editors a) discuss before removing gigantic sections of an article, b) articulate their concerns more clearly than 1-line summaries, c) try to think about/discuss what they think the organization of the article should ideally be rather than just coming up with “sections I don’t like” and cutting those altogether, and d) try their own hand at writing or re-writing. I don’t have the time right now to rewrite many thousands of words from scratch, for the sake of nebulous and poorly-articulated objections. —jacobolus (t) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand that this is frustrating for everybody; I just feel that reverts don't help. None of the content is going anywhere permanently. I'll start re-writing. I don't know much about the topic, so hopefully you'll be around to keep an eye out for bloopers. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. I got some on me too. Wronkiew (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

It appears to be you who blocked 70.254.15.130 on the 8th of this month. The IP is back at it, deleting a large chunk of Eye. - Hordaland (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. It looks like he's under control for now. I'll try to keep an eye on him. Canderson7 ^(talk) 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)