Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 31 March 2008

Camaron is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Feel free to use this page to talk to me about my Misplaced Pages work. Response times do vary, though I will try to accommodate everyone. You can e-mail me for private discussion. You may find me on IRC at #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-admins under the nickname Camaron-Chris or Camaron-away. When starting a new topic on this page please start it at the bottom of the list and use section headings as appropriate. I do highly appreciate it if comments here follow Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Civility - I reserve the right to delete comments from this page in extreme circumstances. I will generally reply to comments here unless asked otherwise. Bot messages might be moved to User talk:Camaron/Spam.

Click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1. 17 March 2007 - 6 August 2007 2. 8 August 2007 - 28 October 2007 3. 8 November 2007 - 4 January 2008 4. 5 January 2008 - 29 February 2008

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 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 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 /_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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

The article has now been unprotected so feel free to add this information and links back if you think they are appropriate and follow the Misplaced Pages:External links policy, if a non-vandal non-sock puppet user removes them - discuss it on the talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in this matter, I think the appropriate information has been restored. Cheers. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Care to join in on the conversation? Dusti 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)

Now responded. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I will require help with that script. Not familiar in that area. Dusti 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some help? See the discussion on my talk page. Dusti 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully what I have left on your talk page will help. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have done what you said and do like the script. Thanks for everything, your awesome.Dusti 18:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, CT Cooper, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, wow it is hard to believe it has been an entire year already. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing CT Cooper a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee

--SMS 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Poland

Hi, since you semi-protected Poland last time, maybe you could do so again? And for as long as is administratively possible;) It just seems to attract constant vandalism as soon as the protection expires (as it recently did). Thanks a lot, --Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I think you have a fair case and I have indefinitely semi-protected the page, the majority of edits being made to the article were vandalism - which makes a strong case for protection. However, it is possibly still worth trying unprotection occasionally to see if vandalism has slowed down. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Kotniski (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD question

Do you think this AFD should be relisted? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AMD Family10hDusti 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Fighter

I would like to download Vandal Fighter, however, I cannot get to the page due to restrictions. Is there another way that I will be able to get the script? Dusti 19:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Even with VandalProof though, how am I going to get the script? Dusti 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Colchis

We have created this article, but this captured by officers of Racist Georgian Goverment. They have converted to Georgian official propaganda text from that academic article with their quackish bad claims. You can block me, now. You can block us now, and all of us, so Laz-Mingrelian peoples now on wikipedia. But you can't never block historical facts and historical documentary materials evermore. You can't block, archaic classicals, so PROCOPIUS, JORDANES, AGATHIAS, XENEPHON and others.. And you can't deny these facts to the end of time.. Dauernd (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I am just informing you, as I should do, about WP:3RR. To be honest I really do not understand what you are trying to say and what you are talking about - and neither do other editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr Camaron, this anon user has a history of vandalism on the article Colchis, he deletes well sources and referenced information and vandalizes the content with fake references which were checked by some users. He also has used racist attacks on the Georgian users and leaves blunt hate massages on the talk page. Iberieli (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am not sure what this user is really aiming to achieve here, but he seems to have stopped for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, he also uses this anon IP and continues to vandalize . Iberieli (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would just suggest for now you just continue to remove any offending content, in exceptional circumstances the talk page can be semi-protected. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you advice Cameron! Cheers. Iberieli (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Camaron, this user does not stop racist attacks on this talk page . I don't know what to do. Iberieli (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He also uses several ips and persistently attacks the pages Laz people, Mingrelians, etc., invariably describing Georgians as "fascists", "idiot racists", etc. I filed a checkuser request. I think this should be stopped at last.--Kober 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a check user might be a good idea, do make sure your request is eventually listed (it is not currently). Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser revealed several related socks. As an admin noted "Dauernd looks to be Unrelated at a technical level but some form of coordination appears likely." However, the guy continues edit warring on several articles, refusing to participate in the discussion and removing references. See , for example. It is becoming really disturbing for regular contributors to the project. --Kober 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the history behind user:Dauernd but both he and user:Kober are equally responsible for the edit warring that is occuring at Mingrelians. They are both at 12RR and they were warned to stop at 7RR. Neither version of the article is better in my opinion and both versions make unsourced claims. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the history behind that user, then you should refrain from suggesting your interpretations. Pocopocopocopoco has a long history of edit-warring against Georgian users and he's trying to expoint the situation. He follows each of my steps and tries to disrupt my contributions. That's how he appeared here. Needles to say, he persistently denies that and accuses me of "paranoia". --Kober 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgian articles are an interest of mine and not my only interest. I occasionally disagree with Kober and he tries to discredit the person and not the argument. Right now he is accusing me of following his steps and in the past he has accused another user that disagreed with him of stalking. The thing I don't understand is that Georgia is a small corner of the world, so I would think he should be more welcoming of others that take an interest. Instead he bites those that disagree with him. Just take a look at his responses to me in talk:Mingrelians. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly advice you to explain a rationale for your support for Dauernd's removal of referenced info on talk:Mingrelians. I'm really sorry, dear Camaron, that the debate has spilled over into your talk page, but it is really difficult to deal with user:Dauernd who continues to play an "one-against-all" game and tries to harass me. --Kober 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I never supported Dauernd and he didn't really remove reference info because your reference (a non-peer reviewed online encyclopedia) was of questionable reliability. I was trying to stop the edit warring between the two of you and I posted a question in talk which you assumed bad faith. Camaron, you might want to look at the talk page, Kober has canvassed for support in the article and someone has come along and accused me of being a Georgiaphobe. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My reference was perfectly reliabile and I proved that on talk page (it is an online version of the World culture encyclopedia published by the University of Michigan Press in 1996). I added some other refs, btw. As for my message in Portal talk, it is not canvassing, but a request to opine. Please consult Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. Your permanent attempts at discrediting me are ridiculous. Camaron, my apologies again.--Kober 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Regardless of the fact that your post to the wikiproject doesn't violate the letter of WP:CANVAS it still goes against the spirit of that page when you are edit warring with someone and the number of revisions have exceeded the double digits and you make a post to a wikiproject requesting folks that would most likely agree with you to come to the article. The however the source didn't really support your claims anyway as the source said that Mingrelians consider themselves Georgians whereas the article is claiming that Mingrelians are a sub-group of Georgians. That's not the same thing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, I'm urging you for the upteenth time to discuss the content-related issues in the article's talk and stop disturbing uninvolved users.--Kober 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is probably best if you continue to discuss content related issues on the article talk page. It will help your case as well if you try and stay within WP:3RR, and try and discuss the topic not each other. As for the canvassing issue, I agree with being careful, but canvassing relevant WikiProjects in a neutral manner is not normally considered a bad thing - even if it was against policy it is not a serious enough issue to take administrative action over. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Camaron,

This user continues blunt vandalism here and also removed vandalism warning from his talk page . He also also investigated for sockpopetry . He also vandalized my talk page . We need your help, I warned him on his talk page but he keeps removing the warning tag. Thanks a lot. Iberieli (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it can drive people to extreme frustration and archiving is preferred, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Dauernd has now been blocked, he has ignored warnings and blatantly disregarded 3RR. If he continues once again after expiry, another block will be given for longer. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I believe this was a one sided block and both sides in this dispute should have been blocked. There were probably together over 30 reverts in that article in the span of 24 hours. The issue was a content dispute and it was not vandalism as user:Iberieli alleges. Basically user:Iberieli forum shopped until he could find an admin to do the block. What I find frustrating is that I tried to get the parties to stop edit warring but they simply attacked me on the talk page and called me a Georgiaphobe. I think a one sided block enforces this type of behavior. I see no point in issuing blocks now as they should be preventative however the other side of this dispute (user:Kober and user:Iberieli) should get formal warning about avoiding edit warring and to use dispute resolution. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

repeated requests for protection for philipine radio stations

Hello, you might want to look at this regarding the request for protection from radiosmaher Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon. It would appear that Pinoybandwagon stopped requesting the protections, and then radiosmasher continued. This would have been to avoid blocking for requesting the same thing again --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it looks very suspicious. I will for the moment leave it and see what happens next, he has now had a clear final warning which can be used to justify a later block. I suspect that this sockpuppetry case will end in blocks anyway. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ivybridge Community College

Hi I see you're on the assessment team for WikiProject Schools. I need an assessment for Ivybridge Community College. Please find some time to assess this article. Bsrboy (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)