User talk:Computerjoe/Archive 8
Other means of contact: Email #wikipedia Webby's World
This editor, currently, is not an admin.
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
VandalProof
Hi. I put my name on the Awaiting Approval list for VandalProof about a week ago and it doesn't seem like any moderators have checked the page since then. No rush, Just checking in because the page says to check back if I don't hear anything in 24 hours. Thanks.
--דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanx for reply
No at all, If you think that this time it is not suitable for me to use VP, then i will try to get some more expierence and will apply again in some time. regards. phippi46 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're on...
If you are on still on, please approve me for VandalProof. I was accidenally removed by another editor, and I had to readd my username to the list. Hello32020 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Splendid new idea
Thank you for your timely suggestion. Here we go: the next time somebody (about whom I shall of course AGF) deletes a wodge of an article and replaces it with "You're fucking gay", I shall consider writing on his (somehow I think of all these IPs as male) talk page no mention of "moronic" but on the contrary: "Certain that you are a homo sapiens, [blah blah blah]".
You write: This editor uses Mozilla Firefox to edit the Wikipedia on Windows XP, or sometimes if he feels like it Windows Vista! Well, if that's your thing. Me, I'm delighted to be shot of MS. I've just installed Kubuntu. -- Hoary 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Approved to use Vandalproof?
It appears that you have approved me (and a large number of others) to use Vandalproof but Vandalproof appears not to recognise that I'm approved. When you approved myself it appears that Vandalproof ran out of space in the edit summary [1] and I've also not received a message on my talk page. Looking at a packet trace the last 500 edit history entries are the only page VP is accessing on startup so I'm wondering whether this truncation is causing approvals to possibly not be recognized? --Sully 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
HI there
I have a question. You did not approv my request to use VP earlier, i m wondering as I noticed later that in order to get VP approval a editor must have atleast 250 edits counts, at the time I had less then 250 edits counts, now I want to know can I apply again ? with more then 250 edits counts. pls reply phippi46 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok thanx alot, I've got it. regards phippi46 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 5th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
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. Ralbot 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
V for Vendetta
How can comparing the simialrities between the BNP and the right wing facist party in V be POV?(Halbared 17:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
- My main complaint is the fact you are comparing it along with the Nazi party. I don't think the BNP are quite Nazis :P Computerjoe's talk 17:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would conccur...but I am not comapring the Nazis to the BNP (though know knows what they could grow to), but that the party in the book/film has it's origins in the British Nationalist Party, as well as the NAZIs. The book was written in the early 80's. We were coming out of the 70's which was a huge time for the BNP and the 'bovver boot' brigrade. The BNP were at a high point back then, they were an influence on the book, which is my point:op.(Halbared 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
- Can you provide sources for that, please? Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would conccur...but I am not comapring the Nazis to the BNP (though know knows what they could grow to), but that the party in the book/film has it's origins in the British Nationalist Party, as well as the NAZIs. The book was written in the early 80's. We were coming out of the 70's which was a huge time for the BNP and the 'bovver boot' brigrade. The BNP were at a high point back then, they were an influence on the book, which is my point:op.(Halbared 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
Constantin Rosetti
based on NLWIKI. Babel fish or do you speak Dutch? ;). Al (writer of the NL article C. Rosetti). 82.171.215.71 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Babel fish and my basic German helped :P Computerjoe's talk 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
cleanup taskforce
I just tagged Software prototyping for the taskforce. First thing to do is to determine what needs to be done. (For a start, it's probably too long). Could you take a look at the article and leave notes at /Software prototyping about your opinion of the article, please? Thank you. RJFJR 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I removed the references from the headings (item1). I'mm trying to figure out how to reduce the number of headings. I don't know what kind of picture would go with this article. RJFJR 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you and help please
Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Wikipedia, and inviting me to contribute again, but this is what happened, and I am intimidated and frustrated:
I had truly planned to stop editing Wikipedia. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.
This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.
The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page) and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia again.
Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Wikipedia, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?
Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Wikipedia and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by User: Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Wikipedia again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".
However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Wikipedia operates.
To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:
1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?
2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Wikipedia, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?
3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?
4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and User: Chan-Ho Suh and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?
5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?
6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.
7. What does "be nice" mean on Wikipedia, as User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Wikipedia and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?
8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)
9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.
But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Wikipedia, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.
I suspect that this experience that I have had on Wikipedia has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Wikipedia should be.
Sorry for the long message, but Wikipedia is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.
Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Wikipedia, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.
Thank you again. MathStatWoman 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)