User talk:ICAPTCHA

let them hate, so long as they fear.
كانمةري وأتنيل جندي لبن مقية

Please leave comments and any problems here.

Hi everyone.

Lolololol. ICAPTCHA 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just for the sake of clarification...are you saying on your user page and here that you're running a bot? Into The Fray ^T/C 02:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat, it's a semi-bot on this account. I am using TW, along with popups and a few macros to check, usually while I'm browsing on another window. ACTool is pretty useful for macros, and it gets the job done. Never really had the time to code an actual fully automated bot. ICAPTCHA 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand. I just want to make sure (for your sake) that you're not running anything that would be considered an unauthorized, unassisted bot. Do you have to review edits/reversions before they are saved? Into The Fray ^T/C 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ICAPTCHA 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Thanks. Into The Fray ^T/C 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image ()

Thanks for uploading [[:]]. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm.

Hello, I am one of the people who occasionally uses a machine with a public IP of 67.90.197.194. Recently, I read Objectivity (philosophy) and noticed that it was flagged as needing a total rewrite and attention from an expert. As it happens, I am an expert, so I gave it my attention, making bold edits to remove an accumulation of text that, even charitably, can only be called nonsense.

I carefully erased only the very worst parts, fixing what I could, and left clear edit comments to explain my intentions. I am absolutely certain that a human being familiar with philosophy would recognize my edits as constructive, even if they disagreed with certain aspects. Unfortunately, your bot is only capable of recognizing that material was deleted, so it mistakenly flagged me as a vandal. I encourage you to look at my actual edits and see for yourself that they are not only constructive but badly needed. The article is a terrible mess, and the first step to remediation is to remove the erroneous portions.

What can I do to stop your bot from reverting my efforts? 67.90.197.194 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blanking out large amounts of pages as seen on your contributions page. Your "clear edit comments" consist of "I removed ______" ICAPTCHA 18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not the only one reverting your edits. ICAPTCHA 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is marked as needing a total rewrite by an expert, I would imagine that any erroneous text is fair game for removal. As you say, most of my edit comments consisted of correctly identifying was was deleted and explaining why. Here is the list, in reverse order:

Removed an entire section of postmodernism.
Removed a pair of statements that are false.
Removed meaningless sentence.
The entire paragraph is meaningless.
Removed more postmodernist anti-objectivism.
Removed uncited, doubtful statement.
Structuralism is postmodern and therefore entirely opposed to objectivism. It does not belong here.
Removed postmodernistic bias from heading. This article really does need a full rewrite.

As you can see, the general pattern is that this article on philosophical (epistemological) objectivity suffers from being written almost entirely from the extremely hostile perspective of postmodernist skepticism. While there is certainly a place for criticism, it must not violate NPOV by dominating the article and it must cite reliable sources. Otherwise, it needs to be removed.

If you disagree with any of these reasons or just find them incomplete, I think the appropriate response would be to question my basis in talk:Objectivity (philosophy), where I would be glad to explain at length. I believe that each of these removals was justified and constructive, and look forward to the opportunity to support my actions. Even if you disagree with each of them, I think you must assume good faith by accepting my assurance that my motives were constructive and that no vandalism was intended.

Please understand that I am addressing this to you because you are responsible for the first reversion and for all but one of the rest. I can only assume that Diniz was following your lead, since this person has made no attempt to contact me. Would you like to discuss these changes in detail in the appropriate forum? 67.90.197.194 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will assume good faith and no longer revert any of your edits. Feel free to revert my revision(s). Also, I think "The entire paragraph is meaningless." is anything but a clear detail of your edit. ICAPTCHA 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but before I go back to removing text, I'm going to check with Diniz and write up something a bit more detailed in talk:Objectivity (philosophy). 67.90.197.194 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diniz was entirely reasonable, and now that I've posted to the Talk page, I've rolled forward the changes I had previously made. Thank you for working civily to overcome our initial misunderstanding. 67.90.197.194 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear ICAPTCHA,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Daniel →♦ 05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re apply soon enough :) ICAPTCHA 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's finally over!

A battle-weary JetLover has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for making the RFPP protection for Killzone 2! That was un-believeable! Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yay, a smile :D.. I seriously don't know why the console fanboys are this bored. ICAPTCHA 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also issue warnings after reverting vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Pensacola Christian College: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, my first award! Thanks! ICAPTCHA 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

I added the source to Parkway Central High School to show the rivalry between that school and west high. W1k13rh3nry 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2210369279 ref] "Email: centralsucks@crappyschools.com" - Not an email. Domain is not registered. All domains mentioned on FB group not registered. ICAPTCHA 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on AVN Awards article

If you are running an anti-vandalism bot, please be more careful with it. You undid a change to the AVN Awards article without explanation. The AVN Awards is an article about pornography and porn related links and changes are appropriate for it. • Gene93k 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. I am doing reverts manually. ICAPTCHA 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rvv carefully

Immediately after a user undid vandalism, you reverted the article to the vandalized version.[1] Please be more careful. —LOL 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ICAPTCHA. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. you are not warning users when reverting vandalism. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: New helper policy

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)}[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]