User talk:Spliffy/Archive 5
5
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi[edit]
Hey. I noticed it's been two months since your last RFA. I opposed all four of your previous RFAs (as NSLE), but would like to ask you if you think you've contributed substantially (content-wise) to any particular article(s) for a potential nomination some time next month (assuming, of course, that you have done enough). If you think you haven't, leave me a note anyway, and please inform me if you decide to go up for RFA5. Cheers, – Chacor 10:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC) replied to on ircBenon 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 18th.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 38 | 18 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith[edit]
I think that page about me is in bad faith. It exists just to make me look bad for an incident that happened five months ago of which I've apologised and regretted, plus there are several unfounded accusations in there. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 09:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've exceptionally closed the debate on the page User:Benon/sceptre. Although this is not a standard closure, it is my hope that it will satisfy most of the points brought up in the debate. If you STRONGLY disagree with this closure on a procedural level please leave me a talk page message rather than drag this to WP:DRV. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, If you have any problems getting rid of it in the future, let me know and I'll axe it for you. — xaosflux Talk 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 25th.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Intelligent Design[edit]
This is the discussion we are having and the same folks who opposed a change before are coming out opposing the change again, even as new evidence is introduced. I'd like to give the discussion plenty of time to proceed but am not sure how much I should commit to the discussion. At what point (remember this has been going on since the first editor complained about this in February of this year) do I proceed to the next step? Bagginator 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeking Guidance[edit]
I am seeking some guidance on what will most likely be a dispute moved from a talk page into conflict resolution. The editor conflict has not even begun yet but having read the history on the talk page in question I realize that my suggestion for change of an article will be contentious. Although many editors in the past have agreed with my position, they tend to disappear after a few months and the same 4 or 5 editors that chased them off stick around. So I can clearly see that I am not the only editor who wishes to make constructive, small changes to this article but I know i'm in for trouble with these 4 or 5 other editors. Can you assist me with this and advise me on how to proceed properly? Looking over the history I realize that ad hominem attacks will be the first thing I come up against and i'm wondering what the proper way for me to proceed from beginning to end will be. Thanks in advance if you decide to help. Bagginator 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply on their talk page Benon 01:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick reply, Benon. Could you please visit this portion of Wikipedia and tell me if i'm going about this in the proper manner?Bagginator 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replied on there talk page Benon 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for the suggestions. Recently an administrator wrote on the page
- The passage "Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute" is accurate. No one has yet provided evidence that there are proponents who are more notable than Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyer, et al. Until notable sources per WP:V and WP:RS are provided that outweigh all the evidence that all leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute is submitted, this is a dead issue. Continually raising dead issues is considered tendentious argumentation, and it is disruptive to the article and project and highly frowned upon. The project provides a number of processes for dealing with tendentious and disruptive contributors and cranks, and there is a limit to what long time contributors need to put with.
- This is the same editor who has not allowed change to this sentence for around 8 months now. So i'm guessing talk is no longer allowed on this issue on the talk page, which would include a straw poll? Please advise.Bagginator 23:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for the suggestions. Recently an administrator wrote on the page
The next step[edit]
I think it is time to move to the next step in the process. Could you please review these edits on the talk page and give me your opinion? It seems that a lot has been said (Might take you awhile to read through that section) and it has started to turn ugly. If you do not have the time or inclination to help me with this (Thanks for all the help you've given so far!!) could you recommend me to someone? I might need some help formulating an RfC. Thanks again for all your assistance thus far. Bagginator 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 2nd.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This section of the article that i removed from plame is very misleading - it makes the reader think that the Washington Times is an independent and credible source, on the same level as other quoted sources 207.170.200.19 01:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Corrections in the Black Nazarene article... 81.153.21.53 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[edit]
Hi!
I'm new in editing wikipedia, although I've read different articles already, and before I continue, I must say that I find it very very informative. Its my first attempt at editing an article and I chose to correct a small error in the article Black Nazarene. Its more of a semantic error and would be easily missed by any spell checker. I hope my correction becomes permanent. I'll probably create an account pretty soon. When I get the courage to create one. :) Thanks. By the way, one of the names behind the IP is Michael. :) 81.153.21.53 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Whitepaper on vulnerability scanners[edit]
Benon, you removed a link to our wthitepaper on scanners. I wonder why. It is an in-detail discussion of the topic and far more detailed than the other external links. Please advice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.51.34 (talk • contribs) .
firstly the link at [1] went to knowhere (the subpage is invalaid) secondly per [2]
#A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
# Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.
Unfortunatley your link satisfies these two criteras and as wikipedia is a nutreal encyclopedia we are unable to acceptr your link, howvevr you are welcome to add content insted of links. Thanks Benon 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
dynamic ip thus repiled to on my talk page Benon 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-> The link (http://www.virtualforge.de/web_scanner_benchmark.php) works, so I don't understand your first comment.
-> Granted, it points to a commercial web site. But the content is only dealing with the topic and does not include any ads. Additionally it is much more in-detail and based on test then the other externel links.
Regarding commercial: If you look at the contents of link #2 (Details on different types of vulnerability scans and how they help secure your web server.), you will notice the line "One company that we would recommend for this is ...". If you then do a look-up of both domains (the "report" and the recommended testing company), surpise: it's the same guy who registered them.
The link also violates Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article.
The link contains no further information that couldn't be included in the article, Wikipedia guidelines say that links to commercial websites should be avoided in most circumstances, the main exception being an article on a company and providing a link to the companys homepage. This is mainly because of attempting to maintain a nuteral point of view Benon 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 9th.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been fiddling about[edit]
I've been fiddling about with your userpage, mostly for layout, in both ie and firefox there was some overlap of the picture of the day caption and the userboxes, and the wikipedian userpage baner wasn't centering at the bottom and gave a scroll bar, so I found a way round that, the only other thing I'm now tempted by is moving the cucumber into the gallery as in ie the heart still floats below giving space, if the cucumber were moved, that should also fix that but I'll leave aloe for the moment to let you see what's already happened. As ever, if you don't want to keep the changes, revert me! --Alf melmac 12:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 16th.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit War over the history of a band and what the band WANTS it to be.[edit]
Please take a look at my discussion here and let me know if I can get my last version of this article reverted and locked down, at least for the time being until this unsigned user stops reverting my research and edits. They just reverted 6 times today. Thank you Oroboros 1 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Benon, This has escalated. I am trying to write a factual article and properly credit band members past and present. I have presented my resources and reason for edits on the Talk:Midnight_Syndicate#Unprotected after first requesting the page be protected against constant reverting by unsigned edits. The present members are in a dispute against an older member (and vice-versa) and keep removing or making misleading statements about him. They have continually reverted my edits no matter how bland and neutral I make them. It seems they simply don't want anything credited to him, yet his role in the band was a major factor in the resulting sound and focus of the band today (this is verified). My very latest edit, I admit, goes into the dispute itself, but is verifiable and notable. I just got fed up with trying to cater to this band just to get my few little corrections in and went all out to present everything. I just want a factual article, but now these people have pushed it beyond mere pettiness and seem to want to re-write history altogether (something they have already been acused of, and which is more than evident here). This issue has been up for Rfc for some time (2 times) and the only people responding are me and this band/or fans of (or various sock puppets reverting my edits). One Wiki user more experienced also jumped in to help (Dionyseus) but because of his/her affiliations with games (an industry this band caters to) I think perhaps that editor is too close to this matter to see things with a NPOV. The other editors (who have no other edits but this article) do not respond to my questions, and when they do post, their statements are to attack instead of responding. I am sure they are fans, as am I, but since I am a fan of both sides, I am also trying to present the true history to be fair to both. I am not the band, nor am I the other party, as has been accused. I do not have multiple accounts. I think it's evident I am the only one here, except for one or two others that rarely visited in the past few months, who is vying for the fairness of this piece. I am asking for some advocacy. I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to really read the versions of the article and look into my resources for the edits I have made. Compare my versions with the subtle deceptiveness of past versions, the blatant self-promotion, ect. I don't believe anyone has gone far enough to do that. As to the dispute that is ongoing between this band and it's former member, I am willing to edit that section out of my article so long as the real history (who joined first, second), influences (on the new musical focus), and credits (Vargo as producer, ect) are presented in a concise and forthright manner... something not yet accomplished in previous versions this article. I also strive for sections and a library-like list of resources (chronology first to last) so as to adhere to the timeline of the article, as opposed to a list that only presents the most recent and most favorable press for the band (ie: press that only depicts a version of history they are now attempting to bury), including verbage that presents the resources in a promotional-like manner (ie: "see the cover story" as oppsed to just listing the periodical). Well, sorry for the long message. I hope you'll help. Oroboros 1 15:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Association of Members' Advocates[edit]
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 30th.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
let me post on marc okrand.
he's my uncle and it's totally not bad that i say he's a great uncle.