User talk:CT Cooper

Cameron you little bitch, stop protecting Mohammad Ayoobs wikipedia page. The professor is editing his own biography. get over it .

'Bold text''''

Click here to leave me a new message.

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 CT Cooper!

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)

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)