User talk:Camaron/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Another question 2 Tiffin School 3 Invite 4 My RfB 5 I'm Back 6 Emancipation Proclamation 7 Scottevans05 8 Abbey Middle School 9 Butterfield Elementary School (Lake Elsinore, California) 10 Sock puppet the fence 11 My Talk Page 12 First Edit 13 Poland 14 AFD question 15 Vandal Fighter 16 Colchis 17 Vandalism 18 repeated requests for protection for philipine radio stations 19 Ivybridge Community College 20 Could you offer your insight? 21 WP:FILMS Welcome 22 What is this? 23 Award 4 u!

Another question

I hope I'm not bothering you, just trying to still soak everything up. Is there a way, for future reference, to edit the main page....in case something needs edited? Just wondering, an FYI sort of thing. Thanks....Dusti^{talk to me} 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page, as you seem to prefer that. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I understand what your saying about possible vandalism. Ok, thanks and happy editing Dusti^{talk to me} 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiffin School

Hi, I have just cleaned up this page. Would you carry out an independent assessment please, on the talk page, for the Project? TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have added this to my to-do list, I will do it tomorrow/asap. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Hi Camaron!

I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I have had one before. I might join though I rarely edit home schooling articles. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Camaron, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I am especially thankful that you took the time to enunciate that clearly during the discussion; I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

My "Adopter"" Fabrictramp has given me a challenge, to work on Michael Thomas Ford and clean the article up. Can you let me know how I'm doing so far. Fabrictramp is offline right now and you're the first person I thought of. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

This isn't directed at you personally, but it's time to vent about an absurd system: Wiki seems to have some incredibly weak standards about what is sufficient for indefinite semi-protection that only encourage vandalism and discourage constructive editing or editors. When almost all of the activity on a page is anon IP vandalism and reverting it (daily) one is left to ask: is there any purpose in allowing such editing on that particular page? Seems like a waste of resources for zero gain and intended to frustrate constructive editors.

I selected this one as a test to see how/if the system worked. What I have learned is that Wikipedia has little interest in aiding editors in preventing vandals in an intelligent manner. Instead the system is turned on its head: Make it easy for the vandals, hard for the editors and those who actually take the time to report it. It's not worth our time to even revert the vandalism. When I check the talk pages of the vandal IP's they often have a number of low level warnings with no teeth and no consequences--especially when you see several back-to-back final warnings. It's an ornate system that isn't used to any advantage that I can see. At any rate, I've learned what I needed to know: I'm not going to bother doing reverts, warnings, and requests for protection anymore as they are so transitory as to be useless. Red Harvest (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello RedHarvest, this may not be directed at me personally but I don't think you would leave such comments on my talk page if you were not unhappy with my response to the protection request of the article you have mentioned. First, lets put this into perspective - I did actually accept your request for protection, I felt it was quite reasonable to protect the page given the current levels of disruption. I gave a protection time of 2 weeks, which is longer than the previous protection, and should prevent some significant vandalism for the near future. I did not indefinitely protect the page for several reasons: a) The page had only one previous protection, I found that quite surprising given the long-term vandalism on the page, but indefinitely semi-protecting a page can result in a page been protected for months, even years, which can block out a lot of good faith contributions - so there has to be a strong justification that temporary semi-protection has/will not work. b) An administrator has previously declined a separate protection request, you have to think carefully before protecting a page at all if another administrator appears to disagree with the decision - my response was a compromise to this in this case. c) A lot of the recent vandalism was coming from a similar IP range, which suggests it might be one user, semi-protection stops this and after a page has been protected for a reasonable amount of time, that one user may get board not return.

You are not the first person to think that administrators should take a more hard-line approach to vandalism (see WT:AIV), but I have to follow the spirit of policy and consensus, I cannot just do what I want with the tools. It is reasonable to be cautious when protecting pages, Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopaedia after all. I am sorry you find it necessary that you are not going to bother doing reverts, warnings, and requests for protection anymore, though I do find your reason as they are so transitory as to be useless a bit strange when put at someone that accepted your request and spent the time carrying it out. Administrators spend a lot of time dealing with vandalism, and I think your assessment is rather unfair, the current system is not perfect but it gets a good mixture of allowing good faith edits while preventing a lot of vandalism. What is needed here I think is a bit more patience and faith; if vandalism continues after the current protection has expired, then yes I have a strong reason to indefinably protect the page. Anyway, happy editing with whatever you continue to contribute here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The current system is a poor compromise that encourages vandalism far more that it encourages substantive editing. It takes an order of magnitude more effort to deal with vandalism than it does to vandalize. "Patience and faith" are a poor substitute for improving a broken system. Wiki administrators seem determined to carry out the fight with self-induced handicaps with little or no redeeming value, and that isn't something I'm willing to join them in doing--I'm not a masochist. And from the looks of things, few other contributors are willing to waste their time in an effort that is stacked against them either. In looking through the protection and vandalism pages and discussion there is a sense of self-reinforciing bureaucratic helplessness masquerading as idealism. In the articles I watch I find that anonymous IP edits that actually contribute NPOV and verifiable information are very rare. Typically the anon IP edits fill up pages of edit/revert cycles for vandalism while actual edits for real content are few. (For example today on a sparsely edited page I found four month old vandal messages about "gay lovers" that have been missed during later edits--putting the whole system in disrepute.) If Wiki decides to get serious about reducing disruptive edits, I will help, but the current system is not one that merits participation. Red Harvest (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Being free and open is core value of Wikipedia, and this includes allowing unregistered users to edit articles. Everyone is welcome to contribute, but your opinions seem to echo those of Citizendium, and I am sure they are looking for more contributors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Being free and open" is not the same as encouraging blatant vandalism and effectively punishing efforts to minimize it. That is what is occurring at present. I have no problem with unregistered users EDITING articles. I do have a problem with wiki's comically impotent approach to unregistered users vandalizing articles with regularity. The absurdity is in the refusal to aggressively target vandalism rather than editing. It is distressing that administrators seem to be blind to a difference that is glaringly obvious to registered users. What I have picked up from reading discussions is that contributors want change, administrators do not. Red Harvest (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets just do a quick reality check: Is this the administrators complaints department, no, do I I have the power to pass decrees on how Wikipedia operates, no. I am volunteer, not a punching bag, I am not punishing anybody, and administrators are operators not controllers. I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve in this discussion to be honest. You leave me in a difficult position - my talk page is for discussing my contributions or for asking questions or for getting help, not for "venting" on the Wikipedia system. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scottevans05

Replied over at my talk page. Apologies for the inconvenience. Rudget (?) 12:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied again on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Middle School

Can I ask why you merged this article with Cauldwell? On the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Middle School page a consensus on the article had not been reached? Bleaney (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think there was rough consensus for a merge, and the AFD had been open plenty long enough for closure. A clear majority of users did not support keeping the article, and this remained so after the article was re-listed. A few suggested deletion, but they did not oppose redirecting, so it is fair to assume they thought a redirect would be alright. Only 2 users directly opposed a merge, of which I do not feel the arguments presented were strong enough, or received enough support, to give a no consensus result. If you want you can decide to recreate the article and try to improve it further, but beware that the article may be taken back to AFD. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Butterfield Elementary School (Lake Elsinore, California)

Thanks for the response on the Butterfield Elementary School article. I'll work on the areas you suggest as time allows.DavidPickett (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet the fence

Hi, I think we have another sock puppet for User the fence User:Teethmany. His only contribution is to vandalize the same article Cave Clan and direct the vandalism towards me. Would it be possible for this account to be blocked as well. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the content been added strongly suggest a sock puppet, I have blocked it. Thanks for the heads up. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also sorry for the late reply, I can't edit from work any more.

I have one small issue concerning the Cave Clan article. It was a small list of explorable sites that I added. This list was constantly being blanked out by sock or Ip addresses. When the article was protected it was protected after an Ip address came along and removed content. I was wondering if some of the content can be added back. The only thing that I am interested in restoring is the list of explorable sites. The articles in the list are relevant to the topic of Urban Exploration, and this is where the mob in question take people on guided tours. The list is on the talk page for that article along with pictures of the sites with captions that might give some explanation as to why the articles are related. If the list was reinserted I think the appropriate header would be either, 'sites of urban exploration in Sydney' or something along those lines.

Also I wrote those articles and I also went to all the sites in question and took pictures which can be viewed in each article. Anyone that had a strong interest in urban exploration and the content of the Cave Clan article, would appreciate being lead to those articles. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been unprotected so feel free to add this information and links back if you think they are appropriate and follow the Wikipedia:External links policy, if a non-vandal non-sock puppet user removes them - discuss it on the talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in this matter, I think the appropriate information has been restored. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Care to join in on the conversation? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unfortunately a little busy currently - I will post my thoughts shortly. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now responded. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I will require help with that script. Not familiar in that area. Dusti^{talk to me} 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some help? See the discussion on my talk page. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully what I have left on your talk page will help. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have done what you said and do like the script. Thanks for everything, your awesome.Dusti^{talk to me} 18:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, Camaron/Archive 5, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, wow it is hard to believe it has been an entire year already. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Camaron/Archive 5 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--SMS ^Talk 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland

Hi, since you semi-protected Poland last time, maybe you could do so again? And for as long as is administratively possible;) It just seems to attract constant vandalism as soon as the protection expires (as it recently did). Thanks a lot, --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I think you have a fair case and I have indefinitely semi-protected the page, the majority of edits being made to the article were vandalism - which makes a strong case for protection. However, it is possibly still worth trying unprotection occasionally to see if vandalism has slowed down. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD question

Do you think this AFD should be relisted? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMD Family10hDusti^{talk to me} 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Fighter

I would like to download Vandal Fighter, however, I cannot get to the page due to restrictions. Is there another way that I will be able to get the script? Dusti^{talk to me} 19:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with VandalProof though, how am I going to get the script? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Colchis

We have created this article, but this captured by officers of Racist Georgian Goverment. They have converted to Georgian official propaganda text from that academic article with their quackish bad claims. You can block me, now. You can block us now, and all of us, so Laz-Mingrelian peoples now on wikipedia. But you can't never block historical facts and historical documentary materials evermore. You can't block, archaic classicals, so PROCOPIUS, JORDANES, AGATHIAS, XENEPHON and others.. And you can't deny these facts to the end of time.. Dauernd (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I am just informing you, as I should do, about WP:3RR. To be honest I really do not understand what you are trying to say and what you are talking about - and neither do other editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Camaron, this anon user has a history of vandalism on the article Colchis, he deletes well sources and referenced information and vandalizes the content with fake references which were checked by some users. He also has used racist attacks on the Georgian users and leaves blunt hate massages on the talk page. Iberieli (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am not sure what this user is really aiming to achieve here, but he seems to have stopped for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, he also uses this anon IP and continues to vandalize [1]. Iberieli (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would just suggest for now you just continue to remove any offending content, in exceptional circumstances the talk page can be semi-protected. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you advice Cameron! Cheers. Iberieli (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, this user does not stop racist attacks on this talk page [2]. I don't know what to do. Iberieli (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He also uses several ips and persistently attacks the pages Laz people, Mingrelians, etc., invariably describing Georgians as "fascists", "idiot racists", etc. I filed a checkuser request. I think this should be stopped at last.--Kober^Talk 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a check user might be a good idea, do make sure your request is eventually listed (it is not currently). Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser revealed several related socks. As an admin noted "Dauernd looks to be Unrelated at a technical level but some form of coordination appears likely." However, the guy continues edit warring on several articles, refusing to participate in the discussion and removing references. See [3], for example. It is becoming really disturbing for regular contributors to the project. --Kober^Talk 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the history behind user:Dauernd but both he and user:Kober are equally responsible for the edit warring that is occuring at Mingrelians. They are both at 12RR and they were warned to stop at 7RR. Neither version of the article is better in my opinion and both versions make unsourced claims. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the history behind that user, then you should refrain from suggesting your interpretations. Pocopocopocopoco has a long history of edit-warring against Georgian users and he's trying to expoint the situation. He follows each of my steps and tries to disrupt my contributions. That's how he appeared here. Needles to say, he persistently denies that and accuses me of "paranoia". --Kober^Talk 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgian articles are an interest of mine and not my only interest. I occasionally disagree with Kober and he tries to discredit the person and not the argument. Right now he is accusing me of following his steps and in the past he has accused another user that disagreed with him of stalking. The thing I don't understand is that Georgia is a small corner of the world, so I would think he should be more welcoming of others that take an interest. Instead he bites those that disagree with him. Just take a look at his responses to me in talk:Mingrelians. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly advice you to explain a rationale for your support for Dauernd's removal of referenced info on talk:Mingrelians. I'm really sorry, dear Camaron, that the debate has spilled over into your talk page, but it is really difficult to deal with user:Dauernd who continues to play an "one-against-all" game and tries to harass me. --Kober^Talk 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I never supported Dauernd and he didn't really remove reference info because your reference (a non-peer reviewed online encyclopedia) was of questionable reliability. I was trying to stop the edit warring between the two of you and I posted a question in talk which you assumed bad faith. Camaron, you might want to look at the talk page, Kober has canvassed for support in the article and someone has come along and accused me of being a Georgiaphobe. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My reference was perfectly reliabile and I proved that on talk page (it is an online version of the World culture encyclopedia published by the University of Michigan Press in 1996). I added some other refs, btw. As for my message in Portal talk, it is not canvassing, but a request to opine. Please consult Wikipedia:Canvassing. Your permanent attempts at discrediting me are ridiculous. Camaron, my apologies again.--Kober^Talk 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Regardless of the fact that your post to the wikiproject doesn't violate the letter of WP:CANVAS it still goes against the spirit of that page when you are edit warring with someone and the number of revisions have exceeded the double digits and you make a post to a wikiproject requesting folks that would most likely agree with you to come to the article. The however the source didn't really support your claims anyway as the source said that Mingrelians consider themselves Georgians whereas the article is claiming that Mingrelians are a sub-group of Georgians. That's not the same thing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, I'm urging you for the upteenth time to discuss the content-related issues in the article's talk and stop disturbing uninvolved users.--Kober^Talk 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is probably best if you continue to discuss content related issues on the article talk page. It will help your case as well if you try and stay within WP:3RR, and try and discuss the topic not each other. As for the canvassing issue, I agree with being careful, but canvassing relevant WikiProjects in a neutral manner is not normally considered a bad thing - even if it was against policy it is not a serious enough issue to take administrative action over. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Camaron,

This user continues blunt vandalism here [4] and also removed vandalism warning from his talk page [5]. He also also investigated for sockpopetry [6]. He also vandalized my talk page [7]. We need your help, I warned him on his talk page but he keeps removing the warning tag. Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it can drive people to extreme frustration and archiving is preferred, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Dauernd has now been blocked, he has ignored warnings and blatantly disregarded 3RR. If he continues once again after expiry, another block will be given for longer. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I believe this was a one sided block and both sides in this dispute should have been blocked. There were probably together over 30 reverts in that article in the span of 24 hours. The issue was a content dispute and it was not vandalism as user:Iberieli alleges. Basically user:Iberieli forum shopped until he could find an admin to do the block. What I find frustrating is that I tried to get the parties to stop edit warring but they simply attacked me on the talk page and called me a Georgiaphobe. I think a one sided block enforces this type of behavior. I see no point in issuing blocks now as they should be preventative however the other side of this dispute (user:Kober and user:Iberieli) should get formal warning about avoiding edit warring and to use dispute resolution. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the definition of vandalism (which in simple form is exempt from 3RR) has been over stretched here, hence I do think both sides have technically violated 3RR. I was not the admin who blocked Dauernd, and as you said above further blocks will be more punitive than preventive - I am going to assume that Iberieli and Kober (whose behaviour has overall been notably different Dauernd) have now understood that 3RR still applies, and will observe 3RR per my earlier comment above. I will alert them to this discussion now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I’m not going to go into details about Pocopoco’s true motivations here. He has a long history of persistent attempts at discrediting Iberieli and me. His sudden appearance on your talk page and subsequent demands to block us also testify to that. He then typically tries to victimize himself. As for the Dauernd case, I do admit that I should have reported him to a 3RR board earlier, and should not have engaged in a revert war. On the other hand, I consider his behavior to be vandalism for a couple of reasons: 1) he was removing references and replacing them with a link to another Wikipedia entry without any valid reason; this pattern of behavior was noted by an absolutely neutral user who then reported him to the 3RR board; 2) Dauernd was polluting talk pages with accusations of fascism, racism and ethnic slurs; 3) a checkuser case revealed his likely association with the recent ip vandalism such as inserting profanities in a number of articles. You can check the admin’s note and the diffs I provided for that checkuser. Unfortunately, I will have to minimize my contributions to the project for two weeks or so, but I can explain you the reasons behind this controversy and the primary interest of all sides involved in it if you have an interest in this case. In the meantime, I’d like to wish you a Happy Birthday in advance.Kober^Talk 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Camaron, I think there is great diference between people who use sock poppet accounts and vandalize well sourced materials and people who restore the deleted content. This prococo is stalking me (hence he found your talk page) and he should be warned against Wiki stalking. Another point is that admins should pay closer attention to vandal behavior and prevent damages to the articles. I have warned 4 admins about vandalism by Dauernd, and so far there has been no action to counter this. What do you expect us to do? allow the removal of referenced materials from articles because they do not suit Dauernd POVs? Did you observe his pattern of behavior? can you say its not vandalism? Here again, take a look: [8],[9], [10], [11]. What do we call this? Anyway, I want to ask you to take into consideration this facts of vandalism and take appropriate action which will limit this kind of behavior on wiki articles. Thanks a lot and Happy B-Day! Iberieli (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:3RR, There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:... ...reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. (For other, less obvious forms of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents);

I am going to have to say a flat no to the edits of Dauernd generally meeting this definition. No administrator has taken further action probably simply because it to much of a controversial case to take further unilateral admin action against this user. I think it may be better if you continue dispute resolution - and if that is not enough, take your concerns to a wider forum such as WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, or even Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I am going to be on holiday shortly, so I cannot play any bigger part in this case for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I almost forgot, thanks for wishing me a happy birthday in advance! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

repeated requests for protection for philipine radio stations

Hello, you might want to look at this regarding the request for protection from radiosmaher Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon. It would appear that Pinoybandwagon stopped requesting the protections, and then radiosmasher continued. This would have been to avoid blocking for requesting the same thing again --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it looks very suspicious. I will for the moment leave it and see what happens next, he has now had a clear final warning which can be used to justify a later block. I suspect that this sockpuppetry case will end in blocks anyway. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ivybridge Community College

Hi I see you're on the assessment team for WikiProject Schools. I need an assessment for Ivybridge Community College. Please find some time to assess this article. Bsrboy (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but it appears Alanbly (talk · contribs) has already assessed the article as Start-class. I would say myself that the article is very close to, if not already at, B-class, and it it would be worth requesting re-assessment soon if you can make more improvements i.e more pictures. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer your insight?

I respect your opinion and would like to have it in this case Dusti^{talk to me} 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) {Thanks for being helpful to me. Your great....)

I have reviewed the case. I have decided not to get involved on the grounds that you have said (very well) what needs to be said in your defence, and some editors over there may get unhappy if I come to defend you on your request, which would be counter-productive (though I personally see nothing wrong with the practice in general). I might be considered thin skinned, but I sympathise quite highly with you if you are quite unhappy with what has occurred over there. Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) should have really asked clarification on you on what you had said before taking it to public talk pages, if at all. On another note - it is good to see you doing good article assessments, it is certainly a good thing to get skilled at. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot...again....your great Dusti^{talk to me} 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Thanks, I will start getting into this project when I return from my wikibreak. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

I just found a link to this page on the current RFB and am lost....Help!!! Dusti^{talk to me} 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its some kind of April Fools joke, it seems to happening all over Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm saying this....but poor Kurt....lol..:) Are you familiar with popups? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I use them a lot. You can activate them very easily by going to my preferences -> Gadgets -> tick appropriate box. Or you can install them on your .js page as described on the page you have linked. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find where to revert a change. I have hovered over diff and history and all I see are actions and popups. I hover over and click those but nothing happens. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be under a menu that appears when you hover over actions, not sure what could be causing that problem. The only advice I can give is to clear your browsers cache or try an alternate browser. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at my monobook and let me know what you think? Maybe you'll be able to figure it out....Dusti^{talk to me} 19:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't see anything out of the ordinary unfortunately. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it capable with use and IE? Dusti^{talk to me} 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It works for me in both FireFox 2.0 and Internet Explorer 7, so yes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have it working now. Not positive yet. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is good to hear, I won't be able to respond further as it is getting late here and I am going on holiday tomorrow. So good luck and happy editing! Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Award 4 u!

		The Hidden Link Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Camaron for finding the super secret hidden link on ComputerGuy890100's page! Are you going to be next?

Here you go. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)