User talk:DMcMPO11AAUK/Archive Oct 2007

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.

Ballistics

Sorry about that. Sometimes I don't have time to fully investigate an article so if I see a blatant issue on the last diff, I change that and move on. I usually go back a few days later to see if I missed anything. Usually, people involved in the article finish the cleanup. Thanks! Spryde 11:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just that as I'd undid some of your stuff in the process of fixing other broken bits I thought It'd be courteous to drop you a line. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

While awaiting the outcome of your request on the BLP Noticeboard I restored the link to the depo copy on easybackgroundcheck. Chances on it being libellous (=forged) are practically zero imho. Best regards, --SooperJoo 11:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Jossi considers that rickross and easybackgroundcheck are not valid sources for this biography, per his comment on the BLP noticeboard. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed statements www.orlando.bbb.org, because the link was dead. As far as I know it works fine in the US, but not in Europe for some reason. Could that be the case here? FYI a recent cache [1] --SooperJoo 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

oRP

I am sorry about my incorrect editing job. I guess i missunderstood the use of articals and such... I was hoping you could help me though with creating an Artical? Does the artical first need to be aproved? If it was a heading for an artical I guess I would describe oRP as a word used in the video gaming community to describe an action that ruins a positive attempt. I realize the text I added was hard to understand, but I guess I am trying to help define a word that has become popular to use within the online video gaming community That can't yet have a clear definition.... I guess I was hoping to just bring the term "oRP" to some form of more official understanding.... If im wasting your time Im sry, but a little assistance would be great... thank you [User:orphurst] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orphurst (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all you need to create a page with a title such as ORP (online gaming). If you click on that red link, it will create the page for you to edit. Then you need to put your article text on that page, and create a to your new article on the ORP disambiguation page. Finally, note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and if your article is just a definition of the term, it may well be proposed for deletion as not being a suitably encyclopaedic article. It may be better to add a short definition of the term in another suitable article, such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Ayman Ahmed el-Difrawi

Sorry for moving the comment by User:mirandadanielle on the AfD page; it was just my desire for order coming into play, I suppose. Since her comment was posted at the top, I figured she must not realize that new comments are usually posted at the bottom of the page. I made the same mistake when I started out, too.

Do you know when we can expect resolution on the AfD issue? The WP:AfD says that articles are debated for up to five days, and it's been a week now. I'd appreciate any info you can give me! DylanKate 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 5 days is a minimum to allow consensus to be reached, I guess it's a case of when an admin feels like working down the AfD list looking for articles that are ready to close the discussion on. I guess sensible admins might leave a busy debate open a few days to see if anything extra was added. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up! I put the warning back...hopefully that's all from that one... Dreadstar † 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope so too DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your response. -- Ben 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No Problem DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja and Netmonger

Since you were involved with the two users a bit, I thought I might let you know what happened with regard to the "harassment" incident a few days ago.

User:Mr.Z-man, an admin, initially blocked User:Netmonger for "Attempting to harass other users: harassing email". Apparently Wiki Raja had forwarded to Z-man an email he claimed Netmonger sent him, which apparently was very vulgar. The case was taken to AN/I here, and when it was pointed out that the harassment claims were harsh, he reduced the block to 12 hours. When I asked Z-Man how he was certain the email was sent by Netmonger, he pasted the email headers on AN/I. It turned out the email was sent by "netmongers@gmail.com (note the "s"), which was not Netmonger's email. When other admins pointed out the it was likely a joe job, Z-man apologized for the block and left the note on Netmongers block log that the "Previous blocks were in error".

The fact that Wiki Raja continues to make comments like this leaves me little doubt as to who faked the email to frame Netmonger. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your position in this doesn't seem to be particularly neutral. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Removal of Warnings

Hi, with all due respect I would not remove your warning since it is a legitimate one. As for the previous ones, and the one doubly posted on my page by Netmonger, these are not warnings but abusive messages. Other than that I appreciate you taking the time to point this out to me. Regards. Wiki Raja 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me, the warning that you removed, claiming vandalism, which was posted by Snowolfd4 on 29 September 2007, was the one that I believe was a legitimate warning, although possibly at an incorrect level, and I believe that you should not have removed that warning. If you wished to contest the warning, you could simply add a comment to your talk page. Note also that the text of that warning was standard template text for the warning concerned, and should not have been in any way offensive. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

link question on userpage

The question was:

Concerning your question about links to subpages and abbreviations, the behavior exists as it does due to the nature of redirects. When you click WP:BLP and see the contents of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, what's really happened is that you've checked the WP:BLP page, which contains

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

The server then loads up that target address and you see the full-blown BLP page.

However, the server software doesn't check for partial redirects inside the address. You're hoping that the system will see WP:BLP/Noticeboard, determine that "WP:BLP" needs to be expanded, and push back Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. However, it doesn't -- it simply sees that no /Noticeboard subpage of WP:BLP exists and reports the same as a redlink. However, there's no reason you couldn't add the redirect to make it work -- though it may be worth noting that WP:BLP/N and WP:BLPN both already exist.

As for the ...#sectionheader syntax, those pass through abbreviations perfectly well. See WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns for an example. Yours fails because of the pre-existing problem with /Noticeboard.

Hope this helps! — Lomn 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, so to point to subpages I need to make sure I'm not going through a redirect, and sections will work fine as long as the page resolves ok. Thanks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

I just wanted to thank you for the effort you put into making St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine a fair and balanced article. Lord knows it needed it. MDToBe 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs a lot more, but I have no doubt that the soapboxers will revert all my changes. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Leuko 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you have reverted my edit more than three times! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dare I also suggest that you take your own advice with respect to forming consensus on talk pages, you have yet to comment to the discussion on the dispute that led to the protection of the SCIMD-COM article beyond requesting a revert of the article prior to consensus being formed. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

comment

I left you a comment here ^[1]Buzybeez 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I read it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Leuko 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments are directed to the quality of your editing and content. Please climb off of your soapbox and put your point of view away before editing medical school articles. It is entirely possible to present negative facts in a neutral manner, without using excessive negative wording that degrades an article into an attack page. You can write "[jurisdiction] does not recognise qualifications from [institute] for the purpose of licensing physicians" instead of seeking out the most negative term you can find in the reference that you can try to justify applying to the institute concerned on the basis that it appears in the reference. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, DMc. FYI, if you do another revert on the CMU page then you'll be violating 3RR. Since it happened to me last night I just wanted to warn you. Hopefully we'll work this out soon on the talk page. Bstone 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that there are people who repeatedly revert, issue revert warnings, and then complain about others reverting. It's my opinion that they're often standing on soapboxes and pushing a point of view. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)