User talk:Crazycomputers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

As requested

This user is not interested in drugs.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs)

Thanks! --Chris (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Crazycomputers! 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. Xyrael ^T 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What's vandalproof like? I'm thinking of using sometime in the future. (Reply at my talk page) Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 10:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty decent. There are some minor things that can get in the way, but overall it makes the job easier. --Chris (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey.

(Personal attack removed) I didn't do anything, my server gives me a new IP address everytime I log on, stop bothering people who didn't do anything and are just looking up various recipes for caramel. Go back to your little Wiki world and try to figure out how to undo vandalism with these kinds of servers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.180 (talk • contribs)

If that is the case then someone else probably had the same IP earlier and vandalized under it. In this case the comment was not directed at you. --Chris (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Violation

I see, I was unaware that this was a violation. I was showing my friend, whose page this is, how to create user boxes, using two as examples. But if this is a violation, then I shall have to find some other way. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofty (talk • contribs)

reply

Shall remember that in future. Thanks, these rules and regulations! I never know where I am, especially with this copyright business! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofty (talk • contribs)

Right, I see. Thanks for that! Another piece in the wikipedia behavior jigsaw ;-] - Lofty 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sprint Cars Page

If the link I placed in there for the United Racing Company is inappropriate, then the links for all the other sprint car organizations should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.29.74 (talk • contribs)

I don't recall saying that they do belong there. If you have sufficient knowledge to know which links aren't being used as sources, feel free to remove them. It seems obvious to me that when a link is added to some company's website without any material being added that it is not being used as a source, and this is how I identified the link you added. However as I am not an expert on this subject removing other links could cause problems if I inadvertently remove one used as a source. --Chris (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing NSDAP to Nazi Party

Chris, Saw that you had changed my edit on Arnold Gehlen. The link to NSDAP I think is confusing to the average reader, although it is technically correct. I think that people who were Nazis or were sympathizers with them should be clearly identified. Why go with the acronym that confuses the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.238.137 (talk • contribs)

My mistake, I thought they linked to two different pages. I apologize. --Chris (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back to your version. And I've put you on my whitelist so I'll pay more attention next time. --Chris (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.238.137 (talk • contribs)

No problem, don't let my mistakes keep you from doing more editing! --Chris (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking it in Stride

I'm impressed at your ability to not get miffed at being accused of racism, while still defending yourself and representing your position well. I am glad Wikipedia is professional enough to maintain standards without being scary and administrative. I actually placed those POV tags as a joke, commenting on the fact that they are often placed almost unnecissarily by people being too anxious to cover their own a**es. I'm glad you didn't get testy and were even willing to accomodate my recommendations as long as they were well founded. Wikipedia is one of the best things about the internet, and I spend hours researching random things (if you can track my IP you'll see I researched X-Men, Wal-Mart, and Howard Bellamy all within 24 hours of eachother) as a way to pass the time while educating myself. I got annoyed, however, at the willingness of administrators to place POV tags on articles which will obviously cause some controversy (notably the "criticisms of Wal-Mart" page. Most debate is even over semantics! (see the abortion talk page). Therefore, I thought it would be humourous to place POV tags on subjects that one could not possibly be not neutral on. You cannot tell me you didn't smile when seeing that the neutrality of an article on armadillos was being disputed. As if people are opinionated on the subject of armadillos! I wanted to test Wiki's reaction to someone accusing innocent articles of being non-neutral, and I found it to be satisfactory. Thanks for putting up with my mischief and I hope you maintained a good sense of humour. I also hope I'm my IP isn't banned for picking on you and playing an innocent joke, but examining Wiki's policy I can see that they are reluctant to resort to such draconian action unless someone is being blatantly disrespectful to the accepted rules. I'm glad a community like this was formed for the purpose of spreading information, and look forward to seeing it expanded. You can see to it that I will register and be productive as the joke has worn off, though I can't promise to give up a golden opportunity for genuine humour when I see it. I hope I didn't tick you off and ruin your day. Good luck at school (you and I are in the same year) and thanks for keeping it clean! 71.28.191.109 21:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)(aka Jarrod Lipshy soon to be user "J-Rod" if it is available)

I am glad that you have decided to stay. While I do not agree so much with your method I do understand your point. Good luck with your studies! --Chris (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Links

Hi. I recently added some "commercial" links to a few pages but have since registered an account. I don't quite agree with the reasoning behind removing my links and thought I would bring that up for discussiion:

I added a link to the "Sparco" page, to a genuine resource for where customers anywhere in the world can purchase Sparco products. How this can be classes as non-relevant I don't know because people researching the Sparco brand would in most cases be very happy to be informed where they can purchase these products as they are not usually available in high-street stores.

The same applies to the BME E30 link. again the link I submitted was a direct link to Tuning products for that vehicle. Many of the other external links to "Clubs" or "Communities" contain lots of links to commercial sites, which in my opinion is no different to providing a direct link for those people that wish to purchase tuning products, or simply know what tuning products are out there.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Rizzo (talk • contribs)

Please see meta:When should I link externally. External links are supposed to be for closely-related reference materials, not merely links to places people might want to know about after reading the article.

I am not completely against external commercial links. Maybe I should clarify my position (and I believe the position of most Wikipedians):

• If the article is about a company, a link to that company's commercial website is fine.
• If the article is about some product, a link to pages where you can purchase that product is not okay, unless the product is sold by one company and the link points to the definitive resource for that product.

That is to say, on the Toyota page, links to Toyota's official websites are okay. Links to every Toyota dealership in America or even a website for finding dealerships is not okay. Links are primarly intended to support the content of the Wikipedia article, not necessarily give "further reading" opportunities to readers. --Chris (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I can see where you are coming from and I also realise there have to be some guidelines. However all in all I don't think you should promote some commercial businesses but not others. Sparco, for example, is a brand. They have products manufacturered for them and sell them on. This is no different to any other commercial business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Rizzo (talk • contribs)

We're not promoting them, any more than the article itself is promoting them. If there's an article on a company a link to the company's website is warranted, but that's it -- unless the linked site is being used as a source for the article. --Chris (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry my second post was really just ranting on. I do understand your reasoning and thanks for your replies. All the best. --F.Rizzo (talk)

Block

Re: User talk:VandalSniper PunchingBag

I'll removed the autoblock, but for testing I suggest you use test.wikipedia.org rather than here. --pgk^(talk) 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If both sites have identical paths this should not be a problem. I was not aware there was a test site, so I'll certainly check it out. --Chris (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess your software is intended to support more wikis than just en? test is just another "language". No autoblocks at the moment, so you shouldn't be affected. I'll keep an eye out and remove any which crop up. --pgk^(talk) 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, again something I did not know. Yes, multi-language support is certainly on the todo list. It's my experience that vandalism is more prevalent on the English Wikipedia than others, so I was going to target this one first and add that support later. This will give me an excuse to add it now. --Chris (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am still blocked. --Chris (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of autoblocks, if you get the message again I'll need your IP to try unblocking that. The autoblocker is troublesome at times. --pgk^(talk) 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Working now, thanks. --Chris (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

YTMND

YTMND backlinks--since you seem interested, there's a zillion of these around Wikipedia. emk

Don't have a problem with the notable ones, it's the "just happened yesterday" ones that get on my nerves. --Chris (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for new pages patrol. emk

219.88.100.205

Hey Chris -- I'm new to Wikipedia, I guess, so I'm not really sure how to "contact" you through this contraption, but I'll add this here.

My History teacher likes to get his info from Wikipedia. No matter how many morally upstanding crusades patrol the grounds, no-one can keep Wikipedia safe as long as it is free to edit by anyone. So it's not really right of him to get stuff from an unstable site like this, right? Yeah, I thought I would let him know by popping in a little thing saying hello.

I don't know.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.100.205 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:POINT. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot policy

Hey Crazycomputers, your tool looks quite impressive; however, I'm concerned that some features of it do not conform to the bot policy. I'm gueussing this is your "sniper" feature:

• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Manitoba Museum (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.196 (talk) to version 59593025 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]
• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) John Mangopoulos (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.199 (talk) to version 44193705 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]
• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Clearlake (band) (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.70 (talk) to version 58434491 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]
• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) A26 (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.73 (talk) to version 57893069 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]
• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Pointwise product (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.199 (talk) to version 41123304 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]
• 03:48, 22 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Walker, Texas Ranger (Reverted edits by 207.200.116.65 (talk) to version 59661551 using VandalSniper) (top) [rollback]

Typically anyone editing at a rate faster than on edit per 30-60 seconds is deemed in violation of this bot policy, so I think you may want to consider setting a delay timer when you edit in this fashion, lest you or any of your users be blocked for violating the policy. (I've had to take similar precautions with VandalProof.) Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not a bot, this is me refreshing Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg and reverting manually. The program has *no* automated rollback features; it is almost entirely functionally identical to VandalProof. --Chris (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When I say manually, I of course mean that the software is performing the rollback, but I am instructing it to do so in every case. It's not making the decision on its own. --Chris (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I never implied that it was a bot, and as I'm not familiar with the software personally, I'm not entirely sure how you're doing it. I thought you may have had something set where it autoreverted edits by certain users or certain related changes, and I certainly feel more comfortable if you're doing each revert by hand and reviewing the diff before reverting. It still seems like a somewhat nonhuman rate to me though, one edit every 10 seconds, and I think a lot of admins may raise an eyebrow and get a bit overzealous with the block button, so you may want to think about slowing down a bit or perhaps building it some delay timers. Also, since you're not using server-side rollback, if 100 users were all constantly reverting at this rate, we'd see server slow down and a lot of angry devs and bot approvals groups members. Anyway, it looks like a great tool, and I can't want to try it out--just wanted to advise you to be careful with it. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly aware of the risks. Yeah, I am checking each diff before reverting, but basically I'm monitoring the image page and when a new page is added in article space, look at the history and revert ASAP. I would slow down but this guy is using a bot from multiple IPs, and when he's running it (seems to be taking a break now) it's all I can do just to keep up. If you know of a way to revert a coordinated vandalism bot without editing this fast, by all means let me know.

Oh and one edit every 10 seconds shouldn't raise an eyebrow if you think about it. I drag one link into VS, go to history, hit "last," make sure it's vandalism and tell it to revert. Takes about 5-6 seconds for each reversion if the vandalism is obviously the same.

As far as trying it on Windows, unfortunately it seems there is a bug in Glade# that is preventing it from running on Windows at the moment. We'll see if it gets sorted out soon. --Chris (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree entirely; a lot of exceptions have been made in dealing with this guy, which is why I am not really complaining, just letting you know of the risks in case you weren't aware. By the way, he's taking a break because of this =D. Not supposed to block AOL for more than 15 minutes, but as I said, exceptions are being made in dealing with this moron. Anyway, I'm off to bed; take care. I'm actually thinking about setting up a *nix machine, so I may be able to try it out even if you can't get it working on Windows. Keep up the good work. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, now I can go to bed with a good conscience!  :) Let me know if you get a Linux box running (would suggest Debian Etch, as installing Mono and the required .NET assemblies is painless) and I'll send you the development copy. I'm not planning on releasing a beta until I get the authorization system working. 'Night! --Chris (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

List of guitar-related topics

Hi Crazycomputers! Thanks for your message. I think that you should not have reverted my change in the page List of guitar-related topics. There is several lists of guitarists with the same names on different pages (at list 5 or 6 lists…) I am trying to reorganize the lists. I am also building the guitar portal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Guitar and the guitar template http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Guitar.

(talk) (talk)

Ah, my apologies. It looked like typical page blanking. Sorry for the disturbance, and please continue editing! --Chris (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability advice, surrealism

Here's some stuff I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on:

Band members: The Ethel Captain Dan Splashback 3Hats Band: Visually Impaired Placenta

This appears to be some sort of surrealist band with a site in free web space. Samples:

The Ethel was born from the womb of a female professional football player playing for Torquay against Yeovil in the middle of a football match. The wrigging post-foetus wriggled around the pitch for 8 minutes before anybody realized he was there.

Splashback is infamous for being obsessed with forming bands. Indeed it is clear that he is in fact in at least 46 bands at the time of writing with a usual habit of at least 3 per day. However all but three of these bands have dissapeared before the end of the day they were formed on.

Google hits for "Visually Impaired Placenta"

This looks like a case of db-band (combined with a touch of nonsense), but I don't feel really feel comfortable applying that standard myself. emk 12:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's technically not a case of {{db-band}} because it asserts some form of notability. But we can contest that notability with a prod or AfD, which I'm going to do. --Chris (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey man

I thought what I posted on the Stormfront article was true. I can post my sources. Everybody knows white nationalists like playing the game "Who's in my mouth?" I'm not lying, one of them told me. Please tell me why you removed a post that stated basic fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.172.175 (talk • contribs)

I'm willing to entertain this notion if you can provide sources right now. You seem to have a history of vandalism, and my tolerance for such mishchief is pretty thin. --Chris (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What mischief? I'm a respected contributor, just look at some of my edits to Thomas Robb. I'm a certified expert on White nationalism. Just search "Who's in my mouth?" and stormfront.org on google and you'll find at least a hundred matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.172.175 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that vandalism on "High Council of B'nei Noah." Hanoachide

No problem, it's what I do! --Chris (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection

On second thoughts, yes, I agree. At first glance it looked to me like multiple ips. Thanks for the heads up. -- Longhair 16:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

reply

Noor Leghari

Dear Crazycomputers

I would like an explanation as to why you think the edit on Noor Leghari is unhelpful. If the content provided by the contributer of the article is incorrect then as per Wikipedia rules anyone can get the record straight. By constantly editing the edit does not make the matter in the article correct or up to date. If you notice the conversation with the previous editor a colleague of yours and myself and then further between the contributor and myself you will note the reasons given for my edits and also proof to the contrary was requested. To date no such proof or valid argument has been brought to light. So before you play in to the hands of the contributor or anyone else it is vital that you get to the bottom of this. I assume you have had complaints from sources on the content but there is no valid reason to keep reverting the said article. I am assuming of course that there is fairplay on Wikipedia.

I would be grateful if you would kindly dig a bit deeper in to the numerous conversations and the history of this article before editing again.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.92.54.102 (talk • contribs)

The edit appeared to be a direct copy-and-paste of the rendered text of the article, thereby removing all Mediawiki formatting from it. I can now see that you have made a few minor changes. But please, in the future, edit the text that is displayed when you click "edit this page" -- don't copy the text of the article that appears in your browser and then edit that, as it strips all formatting. --Chris (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

This is the 11th reversion of the same edit from this range, and the IP hasn't responded to talk or warnings (posted on 80.92.54.100-102). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Spain

In Spain there is the offial name translation into 2 languages which actually are not languages of Spain (i.e. occitan and asturianu). It doesn't make sense that info in the article... why don't write translations into arabic or german? There is many ppl who speaks that languages in Spain (Andalusia and Balearics), but are not offical languages. That's the reason why I deleted'em. --83.44.102.110 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Source of Vandalsniper?

I'd love to see what you've done so far with VandalSniper, as one of my favorite languages is C#. I was actually kicking around something like this in my head a while back, but looks like you got to it first :). I've got a couple ideas I might be able to implement. You wouldn't have to make the source public; you could just use the Special:Emailuser/Supadawg feature. I was approved to use VandalProof, but I ended up using popups instead, since it didn't work quite right under WINE. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

At present I am not planning on distributing the source code at all, but this may change in the future. A beta release should be coming within the week; the "user authentication" feature is already in place. --Chris (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

As of my edit regarding the simpsons, I believe it was correct. In the movie trainspotting, as the main character was going through withdrawals from heroin, he saw the baby who died crawling on the ceiling, and turning its head 180 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.60.117 (talk • contribs)

It was changed from The Exorcist, which I think more people would recognize immediately. Sorry if you were offended by the revert. --Chris (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)