User talk:Academic Challenger

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign all your comments using 4 tildes at the end of your message, and post new messages at the bottom. I will not remove comments, but personal attacks and nonsense may be removed by others. I welcome all comments about my work, which mainly includes editing articles about politics, history, literature and music, fighting vandalism and deleting nonsense pages. I am most likely to be online between 1:00 UTC and 7:00 UTC, though I am not always on then and may be on at other times. Academic Challenger 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

????

THe poems deleted were Drifter, The Cornflake and The Sadness of Madonnas. It doesnt matter though, i found a site containing poems by Bruce Dawe. Im just wondering if i'm allowed to add just the poem. The sites are: http://lardcave.net/hsc/english.2ug.dawe.homosuburbiensis.html http://lardcave.net/hsc/english.2ug.dawe.weaponstraining.html http://lardcave.net/hsc/english.2ug.dawe.enterwithoutsomuch.html

Would i be allowed to copy more than just the poems?

thanks

Thanks. If there's some way I can find data on elections prior to 1996, I'll add that data in as well. Could you show me some examples of candidates running in multiple districts? With all the data I entered, there's always the chance I accidentally pasted in a name twice and didn't notice. Of course, they may also have similar names. Based on that, I can figure out if they were different candidates or just sloppiness on my part!

Janice Raiford Shaw

I have been in communication with this person and in respect to the subject's wishes, said article is to be omitted to protect this individual's anonymity. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 37Celcius 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw

Thank you kindly for your assistance in this matter. Please understand that subject was agreeable at first, then changed her mind. I've moved on.

Shaw

Thank you for your assistance. 37Celcius 04:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV Request

I'm a new admin and still trying to understand what I am supposed to be doing. ;^)

We seemed to have crossed paths tonight at WP:AIV. A request to block User:The Crawling Chaos claimed vandalism after final warning, but when I checked, no edits had been made since the final warning.

I noticed that you blocked the user indef because it was a vandal-only account. I was under the impression that we had to wait until after a final warning was posted, followed by another act of vandalism. Is that not correct?

I'm not questioning what you did; I'm trying to learn more about the blocking policies. I've been frustrated a number of times where I would have loved to block the editor, but didn't feel I could because they hadn't gotten the final warning. :-( The one thing I have learned is that there are lots of opinions on what the policy really is. ;^)

I would appreciate your comments on the matter.

I have added your talk page to my watchlist, so you can reply here. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. As you said, there are lots of opinions on what hte policy is. Technically, it is the policy to only make blocks after warnings have been disregarded. However, I have often seen vandals get blocked even after they disappear when they are warned, and I have reluctantly started to do this myself, particularly for new accounts. Basically, with the more difficult process in creating an account, it is unlkiely that someone who would create an account and then vandalize several times would have any interest in contributing to the site positively. If it were up to me, I think that particularly registered users should be blocked without warning for simple vandalism, and IPs should only have one warning. However, in practice I am not quite that tough. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have more questions. Academic Challenger 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking 67.177.161.53. I was really starting to loose my cool with the guy.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

candidates

That was human error -- I accidentally put the same info in twice. Should've been Mark McSpadden in the 36th. I'll double-check my info and make sure there aren't any other duplicates. Thanks for the catch!

Prod war

Hey there, I'm currently engaged in a prod war on Jamie Hornsmith which is an article you've deleted twice tonight ([1]), and the prod notice has now been removed three times. I still don't feel the article is sufficiently referenced and have explained to its creator why not, but obviously I'm in danger of a 3RR violation if I go any further, so the case is in need of a second opinion! Sorry to bother, and have a nice day - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 77.97.32.193's edits

If you would, please, go to this user's talk page and give him a stiff warning. He has been adding these spam links all evening, and he must be made to stop. I have already reverted him four times in the U2 article. Much more of this, and he goes to AiV. Cheers! ---Cathal 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess if one gets reverted enough times, one may lose heart! Thanks. ---Cathal 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Avery

Context duly noted, apology for db-nonsense tag left on user's talk page and previous warning deleted. Hope I wasn't too BITEY - it had the appearance of a nonsense page about e.g. a classmate (and not a very polite description at that!) I'll add the book to my "to read" list... Yours, Bencherlite 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll remember that one next time. BTW, if you're in nonsense-fighting mood, how about Icky Face, where the author has now deleted the speedy tag four times...? Bencherlite 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did think about reporting the username, but thought that the user would be banned anyway before long. The Talk:Icky Face page needs to go too - unless the persuasive advocacy there from another user causes you to reverse your delete decision?! Bencherlite 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Locuasohappy

Howdy, I wanted to get your opinion on User:Locuasohappy. I tagged it for speedy deletion, since it seemed to contain personal information about a minor (possibly not even the user, see Kevin Zeledon (also csd tagged)). Personal information is not, to my knowledge, a CSD. You seem to have had some interactions with the user before, what would you suggest? Maybe deletion of the personal information while retaining the userpage? Not sure of policy here. --TeaDrinker 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Everywhere I go, especially WP:AIV, Academic Challenger is always there, helping out and blocking vandals. He does an amazing job, and I don't know what AIV would do without him! Thanks for reverting vandalism and making Wikipedia even better then it already is! Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marxus

Hm. Warn him once more. If he doesn't respond, block him for a half-hour, with a note that says that this is just to get his attention. DS 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians' names

Greetings. About a week ago, you commented about my bot, User:Polbot. You suggested it create redirects for common alternate names for politicians. You may be glad to hear that this task has now started. See here for details. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock lazio_gio

Please help me, my account is lazio gio. For some reason I have been blocked, after having been accused of being a sock puppet, which I am not. I am not Vince B, this is ridiculous. Please compare my edits. I write about American sports and Central European History, that is it. I do not mean to offend anyone.

I could not even admit your discussion page because I am blocked so you will see this library's IP address. If you have any questions please contact me at lazio_gio@easy.com or if you suggest I appeal to anyone else please provide me with the contact information. Thank you for the help...

Thanks

I'm the writer of this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSys_Design_Systems Someone has vandalised it and the vandalised edit still appears in the history. Could you please remove the page from the site Thanxforfish 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEYYY

Hey, AC, its junebuggy!!! im back for about 2 days because its my boyfriends birthday. ill check my messages today junebuggy 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force

Hi Ac! I admire the work you've done for the community and so I thought I might draw your attention to a new task force that I've set up with various editors. We're basically committed to making sure that the environmental records of major corporations and politicians are accurately and readably represented. If you have any interest in the project, please take a look. Regardless, keep up the great work! Benzocane 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Teaching. junebuggy 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I need some help with embedding an image in an article which is a combination of many images from this site http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/akai/MPC2000/MPC2000.html . I am not sure what license to use and when ever I try using the usual code It says "image deleted because no license." Help would be great.

the_raider

PUCRS

I have recreated the article on Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, in the hopes that it is now up to the standards required for the Wikipedia, if you still wish to delete it again, please provide a better explanation than "it sucks". fmeneguzzi 11:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[2]] (Felsommerfeld 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

personal attacks and mass deletions

Hi again - I am continuing the discussion above about the current collapse of the Shakespeare Authorship Question article - I just posted the statement below on the Shakespeare project page as advised by another administrator with an "A". I am a long-time editor of this page and am coming under attack from 2 "new" editors and one sockpuppet (now banned). They have deleted material, section by section and my attempts to revert have not been successful. I tried posting information section by section, as advised by another administrator, asking for discussion, but none came. Instead, these ridiculous accusations came and reverts were made. My post below will tell my side of the story. I am asking that you revert the page to the version that was in place from Nov 06 to June 07 (before these recent wars started) and then lock the article for a cooldown period. Here is my posting on the project page:

"Mass deletions of material from Shakespeare Authorship Question article"

As a regular editor to all things Shakespeare, you all know (and some are sickened by) my interest in the Authorship Question (laugh). My last (and first) year here at WP has been quite a learning experience, and believe it or not, the FA process for the WS page was quite an eye-opener. But many of us learned a few more things about WP, so even though the article did not achieve FA, I think one day it will and in the process has already (and will further) become a great article.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Shakespeare Authorship article itself. For the past 8 or 9 months, the page has been relatively stable. In the last week, 2 or 3 new editors (and one unfortunate sockpuppet which has already been banned) have made mass deletions of referenced material. No big surprise - all the deletions were Oxfordian or anti-stratfordian. Now this is the same page where most of the mainstream editors from the WS FA process said that the authorship information should go. Now,... that info is being deleted, section by section. Unbelievably, in their haste, these editors have even cut the stratfordain disclaimer (that academics dismiss all the alternative candidates) that I had grown to accept.

Anyhow, because this is the WikiPjoject Shakespeare, I have been advised, and had already been considering, requesting that the editors of this page take a look at what is going on. Because I have resisted their deletions, they are now waging a campaign to have me declared some sort of SockPuppet for long-time editor BenJonson, even though I don't think he's made an edit for weeks or months. This accusation has been plastered on at least a dozen admin mailboxes - none of which, so far, has fallen for their. I know the truth, I detest sockkpuppets, and I know that some smart administrator will be able to prove their accusations groundless. In the meantime, however, the page is the one that will suffer.

In spite of the fact that most of you are staunch stratfordians, I have also found you to be reasonable and have a sense of fair play. I ask that you look at the talk page and bring some cool heads into the discussion. I ask that you look at the article and its format for the last 8 months, then look at the edits over the last few days. I realize some of you personally disagree with the content, but if we are attempting to make these articles better, then the kind of attitudes and accusations and mass deletions going on on any of these pages should be a cause of concern. Thanks for hearing me out.Smatprt 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Greetings! You are the person who have welcome me to the Wikipedia and now I need help: ) I would like to ask you if there is a possibility for these three articles (battle of Anchialus, battle of Pliska, battle of Kleidion) to become FA? I think it would be almost impossible for them to become any longer, so they are going to remain around that size. I know that the language and grammar are not good but this can be improved by a native speaker of English. If there is a possibility for that, would you tell me what other things to do? Also you might help with the grammar and language if you have time and interest. Regards, --Gligan 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Would you please nominate the articles bacause I don't know how... If you have something to clarify for the events during or around the battles, I will gladly help. Unfortunately I very busy too and it is night here in Bulgaria, so I will probably answer you tomorrow. Regards, --Gligan 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same vandal?

User_talk:68.55.39.189 who was blocked for vandalism may be editing under the name User:Aquatraveller, the edits appear to be similar in style and content: 68.55.39.189, and aquatraveller, the talk page comments are strikingly similar as well. AG:Disgusta. Thanks! – Dreadstar † 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Let me know if there's anything I can ever do to assist you in fighting vandals...it's a full-time job! – Dreadstar † 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another revert. If not vandalism, then certainly 3RR vio:

Warned earlier for 3RR – Dreadstar † 02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AC! I reported him to 3RR twice, the first time he had stopped for a while so we gave him a second chance, but then he came back and started deleting content and reverting. Thank you! – Dreadstar † 06:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, re: User talk:24.20.47.60

Thank you for your quick response on this user! Yngvarr 22:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Workadded

User:Workadded has been previously blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. He's unblocked now and has continued to do what he has been doing previously, including posting of fake warnings on other user talkpages past final warning (past multiple final warnings actually). -WarthogDemon 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie, the logo for the third movie has the release date for japan ex: Pikachu the Movie 2000, and the fourth logo has 2001 the year the fourth movie was released, and the fifth one has Pikachu the Movie 5th which is the fifth movie, and the tenth movie has Pikachu the Movie 10th which is the tenth movie. These users aren't listening to me when i try to tell them the reasons for keeping the images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Workadded (talk • contribs).

... and wikistalking my edits. -WarthogDemon 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again; looks like he may have a sockpuppet: User:Tree Power. -WarthogDemon 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. If he does pop up, should I take to 3RR, WP:DISPUTE, or AIV? -WarthogDemon 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help . . . that's got to be the 3rd most ridiculous thing I've seen happen on Wikipedia. -WarthogDemon 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop ups

Hello, Academic!

Can you pls help me? I´d like to work with pop ups. How can I have them inserted? Well, on this topic/link, what exactly would be a code and where should I insert it? Thank you,

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 12:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:KNaruto105

Ummm...I think you messed up the syntax or something, you should probably fix it or something. nat^tang 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War Help?

Hello, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to take a look at an edit war that is going on at Gary Peters (Michigan politician). The main part of the dispute revolves around the "Central Michigan Controversy" area and is especially related to WP:RS. I do not believe the "Central Michigan Monitor" which is a blog published by the Young Americans for Freedom at Central Michigan, is an example of NPOV. A unregisterd user with slight different IP addresses continues to edit the page to include information from this website. 209.254.46.34 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]