User talk:BVande
Hello. See my talk page for information about me.
Improper move
[edit]Please do not make copy/paste moves as you did with Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. Because Wikipedia uses the licenses under GFDL, it is important that the edit history be maintained with the article. If you feel that the article should be moved to a different location, there are a number of different ways that you can do so properly. Please see WP:MOVE for information on the proper way of moving an article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your move request has been corrected as you requested on my talk page. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Joe Paterno
[edit]Mr. Vanderbilt, from another user who uses his real name, Gerry's the first, do you think that Paterno's stay in the hosptial is worthy of being in the article at this point? According to the article on pennlive.com he wasn't admitted, just tested. I will leave it in for now, but I have my doubts. Dincher (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dincher is the last name. Yahoo sports must have jumped the gun. Dincher (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fraud Protection Unit
[edit]Just to let you know - efforts like this one have been deleted in the past, and this particular version is likely to follow that same route. You are welcome to coordinate activities between yourself and interested editors in your userspace, for the most part - but hierarchical bureaucracy (chief of unit, etc.) and authoritative titles is likely to put off most Wikipedians and lead even more quickly to a WP:MFD for the page you have created. There are noticeboards in existence already for purposes similar to yours; for reliable sources there is WP:RS/N, for biographies of living people there is WP:BLP/N, and there are boards for fringe theories etc. Actual hoaxes are deletable under the criteria for speedy deletion, as well. Avruch T 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I have removed the hierarchy. BVande (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no board to tabulate wrong information. What if a sneaky vandal stops blanking pages and just inserts wrong information? Nobody will know it but my efforts may put a stop to it. BLP doesn't work because the wrong information that I corrected wouldn't be appropriate for BLP. BLP is only for "so and so is a homo" BVande (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". BVande (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm not convinced yet that the information was false. You've provided a source that disagrees on his age by a year. I've found several apparently reliable sources that list his age as 5. Please practice assuming good faith and don't label (possible) mistakes as fraud. --Onorem♠Dil 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I never said it was fraud. The fraud protection unit will investigate many cases, many of which will not be fraud. When we catch fraud, we will have helped WP. BVande (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? you ask. And the answer is, we do not need a fraud unit to investigate, or tabulate reports. We merely look at User Contributions. From your user page or talk page, there is a link to your contributions. Do you understand that? There are better ways than your proposal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're just not getting it. If you find 2 errors, visit the users page, check their user contributions, see if there is a pattern. The idea that reporting duff info submissions and seeking to reconcile such reports is sheer fantasy. Your chip on the shoulder comment is not appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- So noted; thanks. But the motivation in looking at edits is not so much to "get" the editor, as to prevent further damage to wikipedia. please understand, I do applaud your motives, even if I do not buy into the approach. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit
[edit]Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Just wanted to let you know. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't strike the comments of others. Per the talk guidelines, you should only strike your own comments. --Bfigura (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Advice
[edit]I would change the info to be correct, and add a source if I could. (Or, add a {{fact}} tag if something doesn't seem quite right.) If it persisted I could politely ask the editor for an explanation or a source. (Plenty of bios have had problems in the past where different sources give different birth dates for someone.) If you notice a long-term pattern of sneaky vandalism, WP:ANI is a great place to report it and ask for other opinions. Grandmasterka 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
article creation
[edit]The checkuser will be able to confirm my surfing history. I was just about to write an article on Farida Waziri, former head of the police anti-fraud unit, author of a book on "advance fee" fraud, is married to the former Nigerian ambassador to Turkey, and has four children. She is replacing Nuhu Ribadu was removed as EFCC chairman last December after he began investigating a only political opponents, charges he denied.
Is this happening to me? Did someone not like the way that I corrected errors. I found 2 errors within an hour and suggested that there be a board to list errors so we can see if there is a pattern. BVande (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
BVande (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am B. Vanderbilt. My identity has been checked by administrator, Art LaPella. Some people didn't know he was an administrator and even mocked him and me. Just because people disagreed with my idea of tabulating Wikipedia errors and correcting them, they now accuse me of being a sock of some Dereks1x. As evidence of the blocking admins wrongdoing, look at the history of my user page as exculpatory evidence has been removed by the blocking administrator (that's plain wrong).
That same blocking admin deleted a MFD then, in retaliation, deleted/banned me. See User:JerryVanF who I see is accused of being a Dereks1x sock. Jerry's real name is verified. So is mine. Therefore, he may be Dereks1x but I cannot be Jerry - sheer physically impossible.
You should also ask User:Art LaPella to see why you are banning his wiki-friend. Also you must write the article that I mentioned if you don't let me do it, for the sake of Wikipedia. Also I see that East718, the admin banning me is himself banned so you must undo the action of a banned user - I saw this on a talk page and confirmed it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:East718
Decline reason:
Per CU, you are Dereks1x. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.