User talk:AmiDaniel/Archive11

seeVote

seeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC) your current info for seeVote is wrong.... its misleading .. and will continue to confuse a very confusing subject to begin with.. please take the time to understand that seeVote is a theory .. nothing to sell ... by reverting to the erranous definition... you are doing a disservice to people trying to understand how important seeVote is to restoring democracy in USA. ... PLEASE NOTCE THE REVERTED WRONG definition links to the same website at I am quoting. Pleaes fix .. i am done trying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.60.155 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, and all contributions must further conform to the manual of style. Please try to rewrite these ideas in your own words, and discuss changes on the talk page before implementing. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I am stuck, tho. You suggest I re-write the definition of seeVote. It would be wrong for me to write something different than what I wrote on the seeVote website, since I took alot of research to write seeVote in the first place, it does not make sense for me to re-write it for you. I wrote it correctly the first time ..so you all would not screw it up .. but instead you insist on reverting to the WRONG definition of seeVote. Follow the link from your wikli .. to the ACTUAL seeVote.com website.. you can see for yourself that your wiki is InCORRECT..

Either take off the link or correct the definition please.

I am only attempting to prevent your wiki from broadcasting OBVIOSLY wrong and misleading inforamtion about my invention.

you suggest I write seeVote in my own words. now what? It IS IS IS in my own words ... I invented seeVote. thanks for taking the time to understand the situation. If I could describe seeVote in other words .. then I'd use those words for the website too.

PS ..seeVote.com is not copyrighted. Your are too quick to judge! Where does it say it has a copyright?

Maybe I should make the seeVote website wrong .. so that you will accept the correct definition .. then Ill revert the website back.. but that seems silly.

I thank you for your time, seeVoteDan

Also, from your own Manual of Style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style :

"Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting."

I am sure somewhere it says CORRECT information is more important than ERRORS too.. please take the seeVote entry off your site .. if you refuse to correct it.thank you. Please goto seeVote.com contact page and ask them what they should do... then you'll be talking to me.. and we can resolve this. thanks. you're the greatest!!

From how I read your website, it seems like a reasonably accurate summary. Perhaps your website is not as clear to others as you think? By my understanding of copyright issues, everything is copyrighted (you do not have to assert copyright) unless the copyright holder specifically releases it into the Public Domain or applies another licence to it such as the GFDL. David Underdown 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)seeVoteDanseeVote 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC) David Underdown said: "Perhaps your website is not as clear to others as you think? " Perhaps, the need for clarification! ...ie my article update. get it? have you made my point for me?

I agree with you about the copyright issue. I, as sole holder of its copyright agrees to you publishing correct information about my self-copyrighted invention/theory. I do not grant you permission to broadcast wrong information about seeVote.. Certainly you may not link your wrong article to seeVote.com either.. only link the proper description .. found at the website. Please help me.

Your current wiki description states: seeVote... "produces two ballots (one for voter to keep; the other for a locked ballot box)"

This is misleading since seeVote keeps both ballots locked in two differnet places, counted by two different efforts (a precincts traditional counting system and the seeVote system of verification on the internet) ..etc..

Funny, I got a google alert today telling me how eBay now has seeVote in its wiki.. it came from your wrong article that I am desperately trying to change:

http://listing-index.ebay.com/games/SeeVote.html

get it? this is very painfull to all our effort of people here helping me with seeVote.

"Reasonably accurate to you" is exactly why I need to have this corrected. I hope my explaination of the issue is as important to me as it is to you.

I respect your time on this last issue ..and will accept a final careful judgement from your thoughts after a more careful reading of the wrong wiki article Vs. the correct definition on the seeVote website, which, by the way, should at least prove that your wrong article should STOP linking seeVote.com. thank you.

I'd rather you link your article to Diebold. sheesh.

Just incases you had time to try the last demo version here it is .. I am currently working on version 5 of the demonstration .. not available yet. thanks so much! http://www.seevote.com/version4/introduction.html follow the links to the interactive demo. peace.

seeVote 12:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I finally read "The five pillars of Wikipedia" and I appreciate your efforts here much much more. I will be brief: I am attempting to write an objective article for your wiki.. it will be interesting for me to rethink seeVote in a more objective perspective. See how I do. until then, can we please fix the wrong article? thank you

VP going interwiki

Although it's hardly the most active for vandalism, I'd be happy to run VandalProof on MetaWiki, if you need someone. Let me know if you do, thanks. --Xyra e l ^T 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't really have that Wiki in my plans, but as the technical aspects are really wuite easy on my behalf, I would certainly set it up if you'd be willing to maintain it. Give me a couple of days, and I'll set up the relevant pages, etc. Thanks again for all of your help with this project--I'm not sure you know how great a help you've been. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please keep me informed and I'll try and remember to check this talkpage (usually, I'm one for responding on the recipient's, but I'll go with whatever the other person wants usually). Thanks - I've enjoyed helping out so far. --Xyra e l ^T 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxen

I've restored the histories of the userboxes; however, I would think it better to move them rather that cnp-move. Do you mind if I migrate these to your userspace for you? AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be delightful. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do that in just a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a bigger bitch than I thought it would be =D. You can check my move log if you have any question about where they wound up, though I kept the namings all as logical as possible. Let me know if I missed anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of dholbajja

A user User:Holywarrior is behind defaming the upper castes of northern India and he has been continuously editing this article on a nonexistent but derogatory word Dholbajja. This is NOT a subcaste of Bhumihar. Go to the Bhumihar page and find out if it mentions this word. This word is a form of abuse/slur and it has been intentionally associated with Bhumihar. This article claims that Bhumihars are Dom that is the lowermost caste of India and they are also 'untouchables'. This article should be deleted and I am fed up of fighting with you administrative people. With my efforts, a similar article Domkatar by the same user has been deleted. Please get this false article dholbajja deleted ASAP.

Please reply on your own page only. I will read it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.43.73 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. If you believe the article should be deleted, please list it at WP:AfD where Wikipedians will discuss the article and decide what to do with it. Simply replacing its content with {{deletedpage}} could be viewed as vandalism. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the word is an insult of sorts then it could well be A6? - Glen Stoll ery 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly don't know -- I have no idea what language it is, and the article appears to either be legitimate or a hoax (which is excluded from CSD). As anonymous up there stated, I'm just an idiot "administrative person" =D. I'll bring it to AfD in a sec, as anonymous apparently has not yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, you beat me to it [1] =D. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds... - Glen Stoll ery

I have commented on the AFD as per your request. Thanks --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for your input. Always difficult to have an opinion on an article about a topic I know pretty much nothing about--I'm glad you were available to comment =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL vandal

Now they're going around inserting "ts" into articles, should the range be blocked again? (see my contributions) —Khoikhoi 09:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cough. Unfortunately seems to be the only solution at the moment. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. AOL IPs shouldn't be listed on AIV, should they? —Khoikhoi 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, probably not. Something like this should more likely be reported in IRC channels or on WP:AN/I. Reporting to AIV will typically get the standard 15 minute block, which works on most vandals, but this guy ... oye ... I dunno what to do to be honest. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was just that one time my report got removed because it was an AOL IP. BTW, one final question if you don't mind me asking: should {{bv}} be used based on how much damage to the page is done, or what? I usually use it when someone blanks a page, but should I use it for this? —Khoikhoi 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may want to ask someone else on that one. I personally find the bv template is used far too liberally given the bluntness of the warning--I personally regard it as a template synonymous to {{test4}} or {{test4im}}; thus, it should really only be used following t2, t3, etc., but that's just my opinion. Others think its usage is justified after the first ill edit. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, I need to get some sleep now. BTW, "Indian" isn't a single language. :p —Khoikhoi 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... I was just about to correct that =D. (I'm always saying really dumb things like that, so embarassing.) Good nite, sleep tight, and don't let the bed bugs bite. I'm always available if you need me for anything. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! :) —Khoikhoi 09:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a limb

If you cut of your right foot, and act fast enough, you can get it reattached. "An eye for an eye and the whole world ends up going blind." -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a certain page

There used to be a page where I could see all current AfD discussions in a table with percentages etc.

It seems to have gone, could you reply to me with a link?

Figured the vandalism specialist would be a good one to contact here! --Matt 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about User:Dragons flight's AfD tables, which you can find here. Absolutely a great tool that DF came up with in my opinion, as well as his RfA summary. They're updated about every hour by User:DFBot and are quite suprisingly accurate. If there's anything else you need, feel free to let me know. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Username

Hey Daniel,

I should have thought to tell you beforehand but I've changed my username from User:Stollery to User:GIen (note that's G capital "i" en the "l" was taken) - could you please enable my mod access as soon as able as the requests line is backing up! Thanks :) - Glen 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mod reset

I need you to reset the mods again, type 13 mismatch. Prodego ^talk 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that: TBC has been renamed to Tree Biting Conspiracy and Stollery to GIen. Prodego ^talk 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now, sorry for the delay. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prodego ^talk 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof version 1.3

When will this version (1.3) be avaliable to us for download? Booksworm Talk to me! 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully within the next couple of weeks, though I may put out a quick patch for some of these minor bugs sometime rather soon. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porting VandalProof to Linux

Hi AmiDaniel, what language is VandalProof currently written in? I'm interested in porting it to Linux in a few months time during my spare time (if I graduate on time!). I'm currently doing all my counter-vandalism using Lupin's scripts, but having more firepower would be nice = )

Netsnipe 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe VandalProof is written in Visual Basic. Prodego ^talk 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage edits

I took the liberty of fixing your Userpage, more specifically your userboxes. I hope this is OK with you, as it was annoying to me. Here is what it looked like to me (sorry about the large file size). It may have been Firefox's fault, but everything is better now.

--yaninass2 | talk 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT problem with VP

User_talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs#URGENT_PROBLEM_-_Watchlist --mboverload @ 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide

Some of the parts were content dispute-ish, but the anon kept removing the main image w/o any explanation, it's that vandalism? —Khoikhoi 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's disputable, but it seems like a content dispute to me, that is, the anon is not trying deliberately to deface the article. In any case, if it's decided that these edits are vandalism, I'd still say that it's not frequent enough to warrant protection. I'll keep an eye on the article for you, though, and step in if it does get out of hand. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I see what you're saying. Adios. —Khoikhoi 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love how understanding you are =D. It makes it so much easier to work together. Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, you think I was going to yell at you? :p You're welcome! —Khoikhoi 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at the majority of posts on my talk page, and you'll see why it's quite shocking everytime someone addresses me in a friendly and professional tone =P. I'm more used to "You asshole, I'm going to sue you and get you desysopped for this horrible abuse of your admin powers!" =S AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see you protect a lot of pages to the wrong version, same on you. Then again, there's also the delightful privilege of getting your userpage vandalized 20 times a day. I actually sort of like it—they're almost like barnstars in a way. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami unlock

Agreements were made about the [Nizami] article. So I am requesting unlock. --Ali doostzadeh 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Elvis page

Unfortunately, you have protected a version of the article which now includes only a third of the original text, as nearly two-thirds of the article have been deleted by User:Northmeister. See [2]. Onefortyone 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:The Wrong Version. My hands are tied; please discuss changes on the talk page, and once consensus has been reached, it will be unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Let me know if my revert of you was a mistake. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I got scared! —Khoikhoi 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=D. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get on IRC - mboverload —The preceding unsigned comment was added by mboverload (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ummm ... I am on IRC. =S AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Patashnik.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patashnik.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahhh... I uploaded that image months ago, and it's been nothing but headaches. Also, a little unfair when the image is tagged six days ago by some random and then I get notice that I have one day. For future reference, source was http://www.tug.org/tug2003/bulletin/highlights/photos/passport/jpg/patashnik.jpg, and according to the site, the images are all PD. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]