Science Fair Project Encyclopedia
User talk:Dante Alighieri
DO NOT SPAM MY TALK PAGE
putting that link there
you asked to be let to know if it got to arbitration - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams
CheeseDreams 01:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Max Power, he's the man who's name you'd love to touch! But you mustn't touch! His name sounds good in your ear, but when you say it, you mustn't fear! 'Cause his name can be said by anyone!"
Ha! But seriously, I was surprised that no one had it when I signed up! --MaxPower 02:26, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
Whatever you did to my talk on the CD issue, it was probably just fine, it seems readable now, and I'll happily take your word that it was made more readable. Thanks for the note. Pedant 02:22, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Pet skunk citations
I googled for that content, but didn't find it anywhere else.. it's not really a big deal, but it keeps me from editing the History section, unless I eliminate the link. I think the content is useful, although I understand, if they have become notorious spamsters. Nathanlarson32767 13:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Whoa, now it's saying that http://www.bellaonline .com is a blocked spamster too. This just changed in the last few hours. What is going on? Nathanlarson32767 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, it's working again. Never mind.Nathanlarson32767 18:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
your recent deletion
- deleted :Necrobation: recreation of previously deleted article
Um... why do I think that deletig this multiple times is an act of necrobation? *grins* - UtherSRG 19:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, the pun... the pun! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
...go out clubbing with the ex you split up with because he turned out to be gay
I'm a she. CheeseDreams 00:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome. RPellessier 09:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I would. I agree that it's inappropriate. They seem to be using it as a means of showing what hardcore punishers they are. What would you like me to do?Dr Zen 23:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll help with trying to find some. My impression is that they have been champing at the bit, waiting for someone to punish. I thought the punishments handed out to CD were very harsh. She (I note from this page she is a she -- she's done a good job of being nongender-specific!) has sinned but she's also been sinned against. I'm not sure she's been judged on the evidence so much as on the perception that's she's a "troll". Banning her from the christianity-related articles sends the message to the editors guarding those pages that they need only kick up a storm and they can chase off anyone wanting to put a different message into them.Dr Zen 23:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would say as an arbiter (and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn on this) that CD was thought to be unlikely to work well with others, based on past experience and her actions during the arbitration. The goal is timeouts and restrictions as needed, not punishments per se - it's got to have a point.
- We knocked off two cases fast with fresh enthusiasm. The rest will take longer, I fear, particularly as everyone is back at work now.
- I would say as an editor: on the subject of kicking up storms, I would say the opposite: combining relentless reasonability, evidence of working well with others, a grasp of NPOV and a thick skin will get someone everything they actually want going into Wikipedia. This is based on my observations and experience over the past year of working on it - David Gerard 00:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
for the edit! icut4u
Thanks for the edit to my user page. That made me laugh! Dr Zen 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I saw you didn't delete Cape (geography) and didn't understand why to speedy delete it. Well, let me explain. The information on the page is redundant. I created the article myself yesterday (or better: moved the content there from Cape), and then found out that the information fitted better on Headlands and bays. So on second thougts I moved the content here. All the links that misdirected to Cape (i.e. the clothing article) I fixed to link either to Headlands and bays or to Cape (disambiguation). So nothing links to Cape (geography) (apart from the talk page of Cape, where someone suggested to move the geographical information there). It is a dead-ended and redundant orphan . I hope you now understand that Cape (geography) was just a step in my thinking process, and allthough you might think that it does deserve an article, it is better to get rid of this version.
I wished to add the link http:// gruppo04 .100free.com/bookmarks.html (I'm writing it like this because of the spam filter, please remove blanks) in the article "Literature" but something went wrong. The link is about European Literatures. Take Care
a broken link
whose link was on this page: Wikipedia:Department_of_Fun
does not appear to work. The message indicates that it should be referred to an administrator, so get to work! RPellessier 03:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a featured article on the main page: Bernard Williams
What is up with the N's?
Should I edit this? Maybe this is a common thing when sending articles across the pond? RPellessier 05:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The weird N's are gone today, replaced by large dashes. I haven't changed browser or viewer, but the last edit of 1/18/05 mentions this. So it must have been fixed. RPellessier 08:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Animal sexuality book!
And I want to know if Smokey Bear is! Only you can prevent ignorance on this subject, by getting this book out and editing right now! You've been known to waste time on IRC, so consider this an official warning! JRM 00:50, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Mike Garcia RFA
I'm somewhat disappointed in the abusive and sarcastic language used in your recent nomination of Mike Garcia for admin. Looking here, I notice that you cited the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. What happened to this? I expect better from a fellow administrator. silsor 05:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the nomination. Picking at scabs only leaves scars. Danny 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In response to you both, I've modified the language, see Mike's talk page for more details. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:30, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Block IP user, please!
- Thanks for doing it. I was engaged on an edit war reverting his vandalism. --Neigel von Teighen 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect of "common" misspelling
What I deleted wasn't a redirect, it was just a statement saying it was a "miss-spelling" [sic]. It's not even particularly common. Google turns up 608 websites with the term "panick attack" (disregarding the band of that name). CryptoDerk 23:49, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Need advice on article creation
I want to write an article on an incident that occurred on a lake. I want to write about a topic similar to the african lake whose CO2 emissions kills people, but my incident is far less destructive. How should this be organized? Title the article as the incident, or title it after the lake and describe the incident therein? The lake would not otherwise be noteworthy. RPellessier | (Talk) 07:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was very unhappy when you blocked an IP address () that was assigned to me yesturday by my service provider. It seems that a vandal using this IP address has made you upset enough to ban him or she. There are so many people using Telkom's ADSL which 188.8.131.52 is in the range (as they hold the monopoly on telecommuincations in South Africa) and who every the vandal is will get a new IP address every few hours if they shut off there modem. I got that IP address yesterday evening.--Jcw69 18:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will try get the IP range used by Telkom for you and also see if ADSL users get different IP address from normal dail-ups. I have in the meantime left a note on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/South Africa and user:Wikiwizzy has responded and said that he was also blocked and that this is a transparent proxy whatever that means.--Jcw69 18:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just contacted my ISP (Telkom ADSL) and they said my IP address will always be in the range of 165.165. ... where as 184.108.40.206 is a SAIX IP which is the main internet exchange between South Africa and the world. I can not contact them directly but will logged a complaint with Telkom who will then contact SAIX. Can you give me more details about when some insidents happened so I can pass on? But I can't see any hope with dealing with the government bureacracy--Jcw69 19:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My actual IP address yesterday was 220.127.116.11, from analog dialup.
reverse lookup 18.104.22.168.in-addr.arpa. 67447 IN PTR wfor-ip-nas-1-p186.telkom-ipnet.co.za.
You will notice the last octet in the lookup, a sure sign of dialup. I was blocked. I mailed you my blocked address, which ISTR started 19x not 155.*
Jcw69 surfed from 22.214.171.124
reverse lookup 242.202.54.198.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net
No number, but mention of cache. All port 80 traffic is shunted through a squid cache, making it faster for us and cheaper for SAIX. Almost invisible, except it is similar to the "AOL problem".
Solution: whitelist 126.96.36.199 and ctb-cache1-vif1.saix.net
Wizzy 19:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Blocked IP at 188.8.131.52
Hi, Dante. Yup, that was me e-mailing you last week in reference to the block at 184.108.40.206. The summary led me to believe that the block was an automatic one. Raul654 suggested that I do RC patrolling logged in from now on. I was tagging some single-sentence, near-zero content contribs for speedy delete via the IP. He thinks that might have been misconstrued as vandalism. Ironic, since I seem to be doing more trollslaying than writing at present. :^) Anyway, all is well now. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You betcha. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sock puppet check
Can you check to see whether 220.127.116.11 is a viable IP used by user User:Ta bu shi da yu. I know this is a strange idea, but 18.104.22.168 is based in melbourne, Australia.
- I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Perhaps now you can see how I hate the harrassment by this user? Oh, for your own personal edification, I live in Sydney. It's disgusting to think that this user is trying to use another administrator to attack me. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted your 1 week ban and replaced it with a 2 day ban (expiring 2 days from your original block time). 1 week is meant to be the MAXIMUM penalty allowed by the ArbCom for CD violating the order on Christianity-related articles. I've already argued elsewhere that The Jesus Mysteries is only peripherally Christianity-related, so a warning and a short block seems in order. Now, I'd expect a 1 week ban if CD tried editing Historicity of Jesus again or something. I hope you'll see that using the maximum penalty for the most minor of infractions is ultimately counterproductive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't ban the maximum for my original block. The 1 week block was for editing the article despite being blocked by using sock puppets and dynamic IPs. I think block-evasion to edit an article the ArbCom (or at least the 3 members who have expressed themselves on the matter) have declared off-limits merits the maximum term. But I'll leave it to you. --fvw* 18:09, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
3RR on race
- Why did you block them for just 12 hours? I don't think it will have much effect unless they are confronted with a block for a full day. Mgm|(talk) 21:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Some observations on your blocking me for breaking the "3R" rule at the Iraq elections article.
- Revert wars are an unavoidable event given the way Wikipedia is structured, whereby any malicious, ignorant or stupid person can edit articles, and frequently do. They are in fact a necessary weapon in defending truth and accuracy in articles on controversial topics. If they get out of hand articles can be protected while the issues are negotiated (as happened at this article).
- I regularly fight revert wars, and I usually win them, to Wikipedia's advantage. See for example my battles with the Stalinists at Kim Jong-il and Khmer Rouge and with the LaRouchites at a range of articles. Wikipedia would be an even bigger pile of rubbish than it already is if it were not for editors willing to fight and win revert wars with these wreckers. We get no assistance from the Wikipedia PTB, but you could at least refrain from sabotaging our efforts.
- The 3R rule is places the legitimate editor and the vandal on an equal footing. It gives an unfair advantage to one side in any dispute in that whoever gets to three reverts first has to concede the argument to the other side until some kind of arbitration is obtained, which at Wikipedia can take weeks or months as I'm sure you know.
- You will doubtless argue that whether the rule is good or bad it is nevertheless a rule and must be observed. My answer to that is that I never voted for this rule, and was never given a chance to do so. Rules only have moral authority when they are democratically arrived it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is somewhere between a dictatorship and an anarchy. I do not therefore regard the 3R rule as morally binding on me. While I generally observe Wikipedia rules, since most of them are beneficial, when they are not beneficial I feel no obligation to observe them.
- I will now resume the defence of accuracy at the Iraq election article.
Adam 03:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS: See White Tower of Thessaloniki for an example of what I am talking about. An anonymous Greek nationalist is repeatedly inserting propaganda into this article. I am reverting these edits and will continue to do so. You would have me concede the argument after two reverts, thus destroying the credibility of the article. Adam 03:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Adam, if you look at the article now it seems many of my concerns about the original version were seemingly validated by other users. The article's tone is much much much more balanced now, do you disagree? Are you seriously advocating a 100% pristine picture of the iraq elections? Have you not seen the iraqi resistance article and watched even the main stream media about the overall situation in iraq? While we can debate about whether 44 deaths during an election is a "major disruption" that fact certainly shouldn't be swept under the rug? Anyway, I apologize if I inflamed the tensions during our edit war, but you referring to me as a vandal isn't going to help the situation going forward. How do you justify the removal of the criticisms section? zen master T 11:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I doubt Dante wants us to conduct this debate at his Talk page. I will conduct at the article's Talk page. Adam 01:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please check the Ruger PC9 GR section of my talk page
Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk
Hi, Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk is a slight variation of the page at Nagorno-Karabakh (note the 'hk' vs 'kh'). This is an unrecognized country. I was invited into this dispute as a neutral third party mediator (unlicensed!). If you visit Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh you can read all about it; you could also ping User talk:Theresa knott who cleaned up a lot of the mess some anon made yesterday... it doesn't need to go soon, really, I just thought it was a straight-forward easy way to clean-up a typo. I goofed a few hours ago and created a redirect based on this typo: Nagorno-Karabahk Republic , I just haven't bothered tagging it. Depending on how the dispute resolution goes, we may end up doing a version with "Republic". —Davenbelle 05:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 11:45, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I undeleted Parliament of France since it had a long history and a lot of links pointing to it. It's now a redirect to Government of France. Angela. 21:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to use Image:CDR-large.jpg and Image:CDR-small.jpg both under the CC-By-SA-2 licence. I will use it on my site. Thanks, answer to my talk page. It's a great pic. NSK 02:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3RR and 172
I just read the discussion re: user:172 on 3RR. Unfortunately it seems that while he was unblocked he relocked the global warming page under very suspiceous circumstances. I posted a note on 172's talk, but if he's really blocked then he cannot reply. Anyway, could you take a look at the page in question and my note on his talk and give us some help or advice here. There is definetely something odd going on. I have asked others for some help on this also. Thanks, Vsmith 04:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comet Hale-Bopp edit conflict
Am very sorry about the edit conflict which happened 10:41 Australian time. This is only the second time this has happened to me since I was a logged-in user, and I meant nothing malicious. Hale-Bopp really was a mess, with a dozen flying through the article, instead of the proper wikified one. Are you an administrator? I might have left well alone if that were the case. It was a shame to see the article being clogged up while it was the main page. Best regards and thank you, -EuropracBHIT 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC).
Online Poker lockdown etc
Signor Alighieri... I note you've locked down the Online Poker page due to a Slashdotting. There has been a campaign recently among a few bloggers - infuritated by comment, trackback and referrer spam - to push the Wikipedia page on Online Poker up to the top of the Google search results. Perhaps something appropriate could be added to the page itself referring to this? A suggested form:
In February 2005, frustrated with the amount of comment spam and referrer spam (aka spamdexing) they were receiving relating to Online Poker (which at the time was the service most promoted through these means), bloggers at French Frag Factory decided that the best defense was an attack, and that bloggers worldwide should work to associate Google searches with this particular Wikipedia page - a form of Googlebomb. It is to be seen how effective this might be in the long run. 22.214.171.124 01:59, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia usually tries to avoid referencing itself in articles, except so far as the articles are about Wikipedia. There is note made of the slashdotting on the talk page for online poker as well as on the talk page of slashdot effect where there is (for the time being) a list of times that Wikipedia has been slashdotted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway's RFA
- FYI, I've responded to your latest, but have moved it all to so that the wider community can see and diwcuss. -- Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: My opposition to your adminship
Whatever. I was shocked and surprised to poll more than about 50%. It wouldn't have harmed me or Wikipedia if I'd had to wait longer, or even indefinitely. Comments, criticism and advice always welcome on my admin log which is linked from my user page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice advice. I will remember the same from next time.
You said "This is a problem in that I do believe we need a means of recalling Admins without resorting to ArbCom rulings ... However, I'm not sure that this is the way."
What did you mean by this? Is there something in the current proposal you don't like? I am not saying the current proposal is the best idea... but it seems like a good start. If you agree we need something like this, maybe you'd change to Support and give some input on the changes you'd like to see? -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Emirates gays society
I was a little surprised to see that you'd removed the speedy delete on this, especially as you gave no reason. So far as I can make out from the article – whose sole text is: “a dream project to have a society to represent the needs of homosexual people in the UAE.” – this is about a society that doesn't actually exist, but which the author would like to. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The contributor seems to be a real one, and not just some vandal. Since English seems not to be his/her first language, I'm not certain that this refers to an organization that does not exist, rather than an organization which does exist, albeit a rather unknown one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I've been following up his contributions, after coming across a couple. He's created a string of articles, most of only a sentence (or less), most poorly titled. Most of them just(!) need Wikifying, the English correcting, moving to the correct title, and expanding, but a few seem to be more peculiar (he's into S.F., and doesn't always distinguish clearly between reality & fantasy). Given the attitude in places like the Emirates to homosexuality, and the phrasing of the article, I'm more than half-way certain that this is fantasy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).
"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.
- Slrubenstein has been blocked for violating the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein was at least communicating on the Talk: page. User:Fish Supper is a sockpuppet who continually reverted while refusing to discuss her edits. I was sorely tempted to ban her permanently as a sockpuppet created for the pupose of violating Wikipedia policy; I didn't bother, hoping there would be some response on whether she a CheeseDreams sockpuppet, or is merely a sockpuppet of some other user. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It would have been appropriate to revert an endless number of FS's "contributions" if they were a) vandalism or b) from a banned user. The first is clearly not the case and there is no evidence of the second being true at this time. Slrubenstein jumped the gun and will now have to sit on the sidelines for a bit. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Someone unblocked him
I understand the general concept of not doubling up on categories, but in this special case (Popes in general and then subcategorized by name) I feel it is necessary, because Category:Popes also serves as a list of popes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I see your point, but then there's no reason to have or . I don't think Categories should have so many articles in them that you have to scroll through to find a certain page; that's the whole reason for subcategories. --Angr/comhrá 23:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The reason I started making those pages was that right now there's no way to jump from, say, Pope Benedict VIII to a list of the other Popes Benedict. Putting all of the like-named popes in a category enables that. The reasoning behind it is simple... let's say I know I need a "Pope Benedict" but I don't know which one... so I just go from one to the next til I find the right one. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Since Category:Popes is alphabetic, it's as easy to go from one Benedict to another on the main list as it is inside a subcategory . Except for the fact that Category:Popes is too large, which is why articles inside a subcategory shouldn't be in the main category. There is also List of Popes, isn't there? --Angr/comhrá 00:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, you've convinced me... I'm gonna figure out a different (see also, more elegant) way of achieving this. Do me a favor and leave the categories as they are for the time being? I'll fix them in a bit. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No problemo. Popes aren't my usual domain of interest anyway; I was just poking around among them last night because of recent events! ;-) --Angr/comhrá 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, you blocked me. But why did you not block Fish Supper? He has reverted that page 13 times, was the one to start the revert war, and, unlike me, never explained his changes or responded to requests that he Cite sources or verify his changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your message on his talk page. But if you want to prevent a revert war, you must look at the content issues here. Fish Supper reverts any change I make, and has never explained his changes in the talk page. Moreover, he is putting false information in the article. He has never responded to my explanation for my change, and refuses to Cite sources or verify his changes. Please remember that the whole point of this project is to develop an accurate, reliable encyclopedia. Read the talk page and you will see that this is my goal, but not Fish Supper's. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See my comments on the 3RR report page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. Click here to see the transparent copy and copyright details