User talk:Alphachimp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Alphachimp/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Hi Alphachimp, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

--Dave 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK --Alphachimp 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people on the General Mayhem that are editting pages as a joke. You think that's contributing to the page? No, it isn't. Genmay was never shut down at all and people keeps reinserting that back in there.

1) Please sign your edits.

2) I was not vandalizing the page. I was adding information that I knew.

3) I would appreciate it if you toned down the overall hostility level. Nobody is attacking you here. --Alphachimp 06:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Information based on a figment of your imagination. Yes, that's what it is ViriiK 13:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Whatever. --Alphachimp 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Alphachimp/Archive 1,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Alphachimp! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Alphachimp ^talk 06:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting of Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi there, just be careful when reverting as you did to the article above. When you go to revert VandalProof will flash up a warning telling you that the edits are from the same editor and do you want to view all edits before reverting. Be sure to hit yes otherwise you'll leave some of their rubbish in the article. Thanks mate! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (VandalProof moderator)

Yeah good call. I was worried that the previous edit might not have been vandalism because I couldn't see it with the tool. I'll just revert it from now on. --Alphachimp ^talk 13:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries - chances are if their 2nd edit is vandalism the first will be too - in fact that's ALWAYS the case. Thanks again, and great work BTW! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 13:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

stats

Per User:Alphachimp/VandalismStats, this edit was a revert of a non-vandal edit. --Interiot 20:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that changing XBOX to XBLA was vandalism. Maybe I don't understand something fully here? --Alphachimp ^talk 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be vandalism if the XBLA category didn't exist, or if it otherwise seemed like it was a malicious edit. But, um, the category exists, and it was a good-faith edit, so, no, it's not vandalism. --Interiot 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that. I'd update my mistake but I can't seem to find the edit number. --Alphachimp ^talk 23:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:My Talk Page--Thanks

You're very welcome. Those little bastards are getting sneaky. Good luck vandal hunting! Tachyon01 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Allen Salkin

Just reverted some wholesale vandalism of this page by 68.36.242.71. Johnny Pez 01:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Woops, I saved the page but i wanted to view the preview :(

AlmightyLOL

it appears that we're both watching the page - I'll hold off rolling it back and be here to back you up if need be.....KC9CQJ 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks--Almightylol 07:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not entirely sure why you are thanking me for deleting your page...but, again, you're welcome... --Alphachimp ^talk 20:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

So let me get this straight. I'm on the Kennedy assassination theories page, looking up conspiracy theories for a project, when i come across a subject titled "suicide theory", which has a mere one sentence description saying that Kennedy "committed suicide because he was nervous". So, thinking it's my wiki-duty to clean this ish up, i deleted the theory. What's wrong with that? It's obviously wrong information! You can't committ suicide IF YOU DONT HAVE THE FREAKING WEAPON!!! Yet, you say that I was vandalizing the page. This makes no sense, at least look at what was previously there before you go and accuse me of "vandalism". Bluelin3r 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page, I have been unable to find any history of this edit or any other edits on my part to any Kennedy related articles. Please let me know if there is something that I am missing. Coincidentally, it is possible that I just posted an anon vandal warning on your page.--Alphachimp ^talk 03:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Strange. When I recieved the vandalism message from you when i wasn't signed in, it was about 10 mins after i edited that page. I guess I just assumed you had warned me of vandalism according to that IP address for my actions on that page, but maybe it was anon. My mistake, if that's the case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelin3r (talk • contribs)

No worries. Glad to get that resolved. Good luck! --Alphachimp ^talk 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

user:169.204.230.194 continued Vandalism

He's changed targets, and has hit Deep Throat several times, hoping to avoid attention. Could you handle it? SirFozzie 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not an admin, but I will certainly pay close attention to his edits. Thanks for the heads up. --Alphachimp ^talk 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rerverting vandalism on my user page.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's so fun following that guy around and reverting all his edits. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Take care not to accuse so lightly!!!

You accused me of adding offensive content, which I didn't do regarding the Caterpillar D7.

I removed the delete tag per policy, and noted in the edit summary per policy why I did it.

If you still want this article deleted, please nominate it to Articles for Deletion. 72.240.211.151 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not tag you as adding offensive content. Trust me, the Cat D7 is cool. It doesnt offend me. What does offend me, however, is wholesale copyright violation. Please do not remove the tag from your page. Your change has been reverted. --Alphachimp ^talk 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, tag it as copyvio, then! Or edit the article to remove the problem text!

Until then, read this, taken from the proposed deletion page: "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

DO NOT PUT Template:Prod BACK ONTO ARTICLES WHEN PEOPLE REMOVE IT! 72.240.211.151 12:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ty

Thanks for you work in RC patrol. - Xiong Chiamiov 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the indulgence =). That's the 2nd coolest thing that happened to me today (the 1st was getting a job...sorry). --Alphachimp ^talk 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from articles as it is considered vandalism. You may place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page if you oppose an article's speedy deletion. Thanks. Alphachimp ^talk 03:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did. Curt-SchiIIing 03:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You added the hangon template, BUT you removed the speedy template. Check the history. --Alphachimp ^talk 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I did because I am working on the page. I don't want someone to delete and then I have to start all over. If you want I can put an AfD and the deletion will be debated. Curt-SchiIIing 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Sorry about the article being deleted. --Alphachimp ^talk 03:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, why do you keep making sockpuppets? --Alphachimp ^talk 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?Curtis S2 04:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

uh...Well, at least 3 of your accounts have worked on that article so far. Everytime an admin deletes the article, another sock comes and puts it back up. --Alphachimp ^talk 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Circ system article

No, I thought you were justified in your edits. Thanks for reporting that IP. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 04:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the praise, it's good to know there's people who care. Good luck with the vandalwhacking tonight, looks like the sock puppets have died down... for now. :P DakPowers (Talk) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

...

I did leave a reason on the "discussion page"\ please do not revert the page thanks

db-tagging user talk page

I'm curious why you recently tagged User talk:210.9.188.178 with the following speedy deletion template:

{{db-reason|advertisement; does not assert notability}}

This seems wrong for three reasons. First, this template is typically used for articles, not user talk pages. Second, I saw no "advertisement" on the version of the page that you tagged. Third, neither users nor their talk pages need to assert notability. Was this tag perhaps meant for a different page? If so, you might want to consider how you are using VandalProof, as it may be making significant mistakes too easy to accomplish. (I know this from personal experience using other automated tools.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I guess that either myself or vandalproof made a mistake. Trust me, I know that deleting talk pages is normal. I also know that the ad isnt there. I think I accidentally clicked onto a page other than the original page. I know that there was a page that I intended to flag. As for VandalProof Making it two easy to make a mistake, I would totally disagree. VP seems to be good in the overwhelming majority of cases. I've made upwards of 1200 edits using it.

Thanks for telling me about that. Respectfully, --Alphachimp ^talk 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProofProofProofProof

I was wandering around looking at RecentChanges and saw the vandalism by User:161.184.195.21. But I was blown away by the sheer number of notices that hit the talk page in such a short amount of time. Yes, these were in response to bad edits by the IP, but is generating a separate warning for each edit normal for VandalProof? Shenme 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the choice of the VandalProof user. When I revert an edit, I can choose from a variety of templates (no warning is one of them). Trouble is, whenever I view a user's differences (to decide whether to revert), vandalproof shows me the warning templates received (e.g. t1,t2,t3,t4, etc.). If I didn't issue t1-t3, only t1, a VP user (just viewing differences) might assume that it was a small time vandal. Instead of just issuing a T4 and just reverting everything he does (which I can do, btw), I choose to leave warnings with my reverts up to T4.

After T4, however, is a different story. After T4 I report to AIV and often skip the warnings.

To be honest, nobody's really mentioned that to me before. It's an interesting thing to think about. I do know that I am filling up users' talk pages (I've probably done about 650 reverts with VP so far). I assume that admins don't mind, as it presumably makes it clearer that there is a pattern of vandalism.

Anyway, I think I answered your question. Do you think I'm doing the right think? Regards, --Alphachimp ^talk 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're doing normal accepted things. Some feel strongly that you must fully progress through the T1, T2, T3, T4, before then blocking. However, I've seen several occurrences of vandals obviously packing as many bad edits into as short a time as possible. To follow those guidelines means pounding the warnings into a similarly short amount of time. Add the catch-up factor, and all the warnings come in at once probably causing great gales of laughter. (If they're read at all)

I'm just trying to decide in my own mind what the proper response is to this pattern. (see our friend? (different countries but neighboring states - WA,US & BC,CA - hmmm?) with a new 'hit') I'm wondering what the best way is to limit the damage, without appearing silly. Watch that at least one warning has had a chance to be read, and block on continuing damage? It's the bit about having to clean up 5-15 articles/edits from one drive-by that bothers me. And even 5 minute blocks would likely handle 95% of the idle minds at school.

Shenme 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a problem trying to get something actually effective from issuing the T1-T4 warnings. I mean, even though the message is presumably displayed at the top of their browser...as you have said, the vandalism is most likely already done. In the end, I do think that hammering them with warnings makes it easier for an administrator to see that there is a pattern of vandalism and issue a warning quicker. In the short term, I think that this is probably the best way to go.

In the longer term, however, I think that we need to do more to actually make warnings more notable. One idea I've had is an alternative message appearing on the screen when you have received a warning (in lieu of the "you have new messages" dialog). It would state the warning in a way that would be difficult to avoid (perhaps an exclamation point?).

Another idea would be to set up some sort of automated or community blocking procedure based on a specific variables of a user's edits. For instance, an anonymous user that performs a repetitive edit (such as copying and pasting the same url repeatedly into 20 articles) would be blocked for a very short time (maybe 5 minutes like you said).

One last idea is that; users that had received t4 warnings from 3 separate non-admin users could possibly be blocked for 5 minutes...not long enough to keep them from wikipedia, but long enough to keep them from repeating their vandalism. These could be appealed in a standard way.

As an aside, I find it very frustrating that User:Tawkerbot2 does not use the standard warning templates. This also leads to the phenomena that you originally referenced.

What do you think? --Alphachimp ^talk 00:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

UBV

Thank you for the message regarding speedy deletion, but UBV now points to Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela wich I have written in the meantime. Sandstein 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Thanks for being conscientious. --Alphachimp ^talk 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cloud

You're welcome! Thanks for reporting the vandal -- having two editors on the task really helped solve the matter quickly. Cheers, Marysunshine 15:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick rollback on my userpage

See headline text:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cheers, --Alphachimp ^talk 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

No problem with the vandalism revert. Bizzarely it was the second time in about 15 minutes that I'd come across a vandal asking to be banned. There must be something in the air today :-) Gwernol 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)