Welcome!
Hello, Dr Chatterjee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Autofellatio Redirect Vandal ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fix your freaking bot! Christ. Dr Chatterjee 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Good morning... you're certainly welcome (sorry for the delayed reply). I've actually become a target for our friend BB since that discussion, at least according to my page history. I'm apparently being watched by bots now, which of course helps identify the sockpuppets so all's well there :). SB_Johnny | talk 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc,
It's actually not vandalism to remove a prod tag, which anyone can remove at any time for no reason. It is vandalism to remove a speedy tag without explanation, or an AFD tag at all. NawlinWiki 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dr.,
Sorry about removing the tags, I didn't know that an Editor had to remove them - I attempted to wiki the article as best as I could, and it also appears someone else contributed and added related links/references for the article. Hope it meets Wiki standards now - I wanted to contribute some information about Brian because I am a fan of the Rubble man song. Twotacos 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the article on Red Swastika School as a problem. I did a Google search, and discovered that there really is a school by that name, and it has nothing to do with Nazism. The school is in Singapore. Please see http://web.singnet.com/~sidneys/Swastika.htm for an article which distinguishes between the Buddhist swastika and the Nazi one. The swastika's Indian name comes from the Sanskrit word svasti, meaning good fortune, luck and well being. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :) -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please setup an email address so I can contact you privately. There are some things that are best not discussed in the open. -- Cyde Weys 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You have tagged the CVU a counter vandal Wikiproject for Deletion. While I understand you are doing this to try to prevent vandalism this group is NEEDED to help fight vandalism (It is a one stop shop for all thing counter vandal such as Vandal Proof, Vandal Sniper, Current Defcon ect.) I don't understand and many other will not understand why you have nomed it. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Too often I see people on WP (long story short, I watched for a long time before editing) get angered and resort to personal attacks when their opinion is countered. I just wanted to say, kudos for keeping your cool in the face of an unpopular idea. I hope everyone involved can learn from your style of debate. -- JS talk 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
In recognition of maintaining a cool head under intense resistance from CVU members in the CVU deletion discussion, I award Dr. Chatterjee this anti-vandalism barnstar; for his long dedication to fighting vandals and fighting for anti-vandalism as a whole even when a move is unpopular, he is to be commended! The easy thing to do is rarely the right thing to do. JS talk 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
I plan on attemting to get it undeleted. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
However I will wait a few and talk with a few users to see if there is even a snowballs chance it will get overturned (Don't want to waste my time.) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction to above someone has allready requested delete review. However I have requested that the vandal fighting tools be merged into the RC Patrol (Low key group) Happy Editing Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
This is also known as the Deletionists' Barnstar. I fought hard to try to keep the CVU but however your Arguement won out. It not going to be a popular thing but I do see the reasons that the CVU was deleted. Hence you have earned this star. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
And BTW. It was wicked fun to debate it even though I 'Lost' the arguement (Who knows maybe it will keep the Vandals at bay, which mens we all win) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Yep and thanks for the Barnstar! I have joind the RC Patrol (Can do more with them anyways). Happy editing look forward to working together in the future Æon Insanity Now! EA! 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, sir, you didn't do anything out of line. To be honest, I probably made an incivil comment, and I give you kudos for being the bigger man. No one is going to come out of this whole thing without dirt, it's too controversal for both sides. Have a great one, Yank sox 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doctor, on the Deletion review (Not complaing in anyway I'm sticking up for Drini to) your comment to Basebalbaby might add some fuel to the fire (Most are members of other project like myself (Espersnaza, AfD Closing, AMA and Mediation Cabal). while I agree that some have come just to go after the vandals most of use are Wikipedians first and Vandal fighters second (In fact in the last several wikis most of ym work has shifted to Esperanza and AMA again). Just want to get you a friendly head up thats all Æon Insanity Now! EA! 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree completely and with passion with your decision to delete CVU (which I believe is a sin, no pun intended), I commend you for your courage. It is sometimes hard to make extremely unpopular decisions. I admire you for your courage, while disagreeing with you on CVU with every watt of my energy. I hope there will be no hard feelings, OK? Arbiteroftruth 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good advice. Well written -- Samir धर्म 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't do sides. They tend to get in the way of takeing the position supported by logic. Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game is an attack on the CVU. There is no other credible position. If there was a bigger gap in time there would at least be plausable deniabilty (which is generaly enough for wikipedia politics) but with the timeing, focus and your current attempts to get rid of the CVU that is a bit hard to establish. BTW I suggest you read:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009643.html
Geni 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem; no harm done. Just passing on pschemp's comment, which was appropriate. All the best, +sj + 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
'Dr. +"Julius Chatterjee" orthopedic surgery' (from User:Dr Chatterjee) gets 0 Ghits. Little editing on medical topics. Editing history does not reflect 'daily RC patrol' in terms of activity. For an account opened 31 July, you have suprising knowledge of long term abuse and policy essays. I'm sure this will all be explained, but you are campaigning to create a policy shift with respect to handling long-term abuse, so these questions will be raised. Best if it is explained here. Reply here. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Doc, I saw the decree made by pschemp, I don't think you are really disupting things that much (I have seen AfD's with far worse disuption). I was going to comment in the MfD (Not sure if I will now or not I think this one may close out on a no consenus just judging by comments made and the lenght of the discussion). I think what that MfD has been is the reason I commented on endorsing the deletion even thought I wanted it back (Kind of wish they had just left it alone, I had a feeling it was going to turn into a major issue) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I made the comment on the MfD and both you and Drini were acting in good faith (But I do believe that Drini should have waited at least one more day before closing, could have prevent this). Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome, Dr Chatterjee, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
With all due respect (this is intended as constructive critisism) i would suggest that you brush up on your logical fallicies. in the CVU MfD, i've seen you class red herrings and slippery slope fallicies as straw men (which kind of defeats the point of the fallicies, ie short and easy ways to identify and rebuke incorrect logic -- doesnt work if you incorrectly identify the fallicy), and you have repeatedly dismissed reductio ad absurdums as strawmen.
Reductio ad absurdum is not falicious, and is infact a perfectly valid and quite effective way of demonstrating flaws in someones reasoning.
again, this is intended as constructive critisism, but incorrectly dismissing someones argument as a fallicy is, in itself, falicious -- DakAD 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that is indeed outright strawmanning; however, you did also, imo, incorrectly dismiss many reducto ad absurdums as strawmen, where your arguments were pretty much taken and applied to the RC patrol to suggest that it be deleted, with the intent of proving by contradiction that your arguments were invalid.
of cource, if you felt that your arguments were exaggerated and then reductio ad absurdum'd, then a call of strawman would be justified. lets say that, from my point of view, they weren't obviously strawmen as opposed to legitimate reductio ad absurdums (and i saw at least one other person make the same point), so maybe a little more clarification of your argument (and how it differed from the representation of your argument) at this point might have been advisable ;-)
off topic: i noticed your email adress above. i'd advise removing it, or breaking it up (blah -at- blah -dot- com) so the email-harvister-bots don't find it) -- DakAD 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
yes i am in the CVU, and thank you very much :-)
tbh, i think both sides of this debate -- nay, the entire debacle itself -- has been bad. as much as you think (maybe correctly, maybe not) that the 'CVU lobby targetted you', it also seems that there was an anti-CVU 'lobby' using underhand tactics to anniholate the CVU. i dont actually think this was intentional, but by going after every single aspect of the CVU (project page, icons, members of, user template, defcon, et al) and by rushing the delete through, it certainly seems as if theres an attempt to get rid of the CVU at all costs.
meh. reguardless: i think the CVU will survive this MfD, but if its any consolation, i think your arguments have been taken on board, and i suspect there'll be a wave of discussions re: deglamorising the CVU. i'll certainly suggest it (in fact, i've allready made a less glamourous defcon and suggested it as default). maybe you should rejoin and suggest some changes if the MfD fails? -- DakAD 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask why my account was blocked with the designation "Vandal Operator"? Dr Chatterjee 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Dr Chatterjee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Autofellatio Redirect Vandal ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fix your freaking bot! Christ. Dr Chatterjee 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Good morning... you're certainly welcome (sorry for the delayed reply). I've actually become a target for our friend BB since that discussion, at least according to my page history. I'm apparently being watched by bots now, which of course helps identify the sockpuppets so all's well there :). SB_Johnny | talk 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc,
It's actually not vandalism to remove a prod tag, which anyone can remove at any time for no reason. It is vandalism to remove a speedy tag without explanation, or an AFD tag at all. NawlinWiki 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dr.,
Sorry about removing the tags, I didn't know that an Editor had to remove them - I attempted to wiki the article as best as I could, and it also appears someone else contributed and added related links/references for the article. Hope it meets Wiki standards now - I wanted to contribute some information about Brian because I am a fan of the Rubble man song. Twotacos 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the article on Red Swastika School as a problem. I did a Google search, and discovered that there really is a school by that name, and it has nothing to do with Nazism. The school is in Singapore. Please see http://web.singnet.com/~sidneys/Swastika.htm for an article which distinguishes between the Buddhist swastika and the Nazi one. The swastika's Indian name comes from the Sanskrit word svasti, meaning good fortune, luck and well being. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! :) -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please setup an email address so I can contact you privately. There are some things that are best not discussed in the open. -- Cyde Weys 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You have tagged the CVU a counter vandal Wikiproject for Deletion. While I understand you are doing this to try to prevent vandalism this group is NEEDED to help fight vandalism (It is a one stop shop for all thing counter vandal such as Vandal Proof, Vandal Sniper, Current Defcon ect.) I don't understand and many other will not understand why you have nomed it. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Too often I see people on WP (long story short, I watched for a long time before editing) get angered and resort to personal attacks when their opinion is countered. I just wanted to say, kudos for keeping your cool in the face of an unpopular idea. I hope everyone involved can learn from your style of debate. -- JS talk 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
In recognition of maintaining a cool head under intense resistance from CVU members in the CVU deletion discussion, I award Dr. Chatterjee this anti-vandalism barnstar; for his long dedication to fighting vandals and fighting for anti-vandalism as a whole even when a move is unpopular, he is to be commended! The easy thing to do is rarely the right thing to do. JS talk 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
I plan on attemting to get it undeleted. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
However I will wait a few and talk with a few users to see if there is even a snowballs chance it will get overturned (Don't want to waste my time.) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction to above someone has allready requested delete review. However I have requested that the vandal fighting tools be merged into the RC Patrol (Low key group) Happy Editing Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
This is also known as the Deletionists' Barnstar. I fought hard to try to keep the CVU but however your Arguement won out. It not going to be a popular thing but I do see the reasons that the CVU was deleted. Hence you have earned this star. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
And BTW. It was wicked fun to debate it even though I 'Lost' the arguement (Who knows maybe it will keep the Vandals at bay, which mens we all win) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Yep and thanks for the Barnstar! I have joind the RC Patrol (Can do more with them anyways). Happy editing look forward to working together in the future Æon Insanity Now! EA! 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, sir, you didn't do anything out of line. To be honest, I probably made an incivil comment, and I give you kudos for being the bigger man. No one is going to come out of this whole thing without dirt, it's too controversal for both sides. Have a great one, Yank sox 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Doctor, on the Deletion review (Not complaing in anyway I'm sticking up for Drini to) your comment to Basebalbaby might add some fuel to the fire (Most are members of other project like myself (Espersnaza, AfD Closing, AMA and Mediation Cabal). while I agree that some have come just to go after the vandals most of use are Wikipedians first and Vandal fighters second (In fact in the last several wikis most of ym work has shifted to Esperanza and AMA again). Just want to get you a friendly head up thats all Æon Insanity Now! EA! 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree completely and with passion with your decision to delete CVU (which I believe is a sin, no pun intended), I commend you for your courage. It is sometimes hard to make extremely unpopular decisions. I admire you for your courage, while disagreeing with you on CVU with every watt of my energy. I hope there will be no hard feelings, OK? Arbiteroftruth 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good advice. Well written -- Samir धर्म 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't do sides. They tend to get in the way of takeing the position supported by logic. Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game is an attack on the CVU. There is no other credible position. If there was a bigger gap in time there would at least be plausable deniabilty (which is generaly enough for wikipedia politics) but with the timeing, focus and your current attempts to get rid of the CVU that is a bit hard to establish. BTW I suggest you read:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009643.html
Geni 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem; no harm done. Just passing on pschemp's comment, which was appropriate. All the best, +sj + 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
'Dr. +"Julius Chatterjee" orthopedic surgery' (from User:Dr Chatterjee) gets 0 Ghits. Little editing on medical topics. Editing history does not reflect 'daily RC patrol' in terms of activity. For an account opened 31 July, you have suprising knowledge of long term abuse and policy essays. I'm sure this will all be explained, but you are campaigning to create a policy shift with respect to handling long-term abuse, so these questions will be raised. Best if it is explained here. Reply here. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Doc, I saw the decree made by pschemp, I don't think you are really disupting things that much (I have seen AfD's with far worse disuption). I was going to comment in the MfD (Not sure if I will now or not I think this one may close out on a no consenus just judging by comments made and the lenght of the discussion). I think what that MfD has been is the reason I commented on endorsing the deletion even thought I wanted it back (Kind of wish they had just left it alone, I had a feeling it was going to turn into a major issue) Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I made the comment on the MfD and both you and Drini were acting in good faith (But I do believe that Drini should have waited at least one more day before closing, could have prevent this). Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome, Dr Chatterjee, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
With all due respect (this is intended as constructive critisism) i would suggest that you brush up on your logical fallicies. in the CVU MfD, i've seen you class red herrings and slippery slope fallicies as straw men (which kind of defeats the point of the fallicies, ie short and easy ways to identify and rebuke incorrect logic -- doesnt work if you incorrectly identify the fallicy), and you have repeatedly dismissed reductio ad absurdums as strawmen.
Reductio ad absurdum is not falicious, and is infact a perfectly valid and quite effective way of demonstrating flaws in someones reasoning.
again, this is intended as constructive critisism, but incorrectly dismissing someones argument as a fallicy is, in itself, falicious -- DakAD 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that is indeed outright strawmanning; however, you did also, imo, incorrectly dismiss many reducto ad absurdums as strawmen, where your arguments were pretty much taken and applied to the RC patrol to suggest that it be deleted, with the intent of proving by contradiction that your arguments were invalid.
of cource, if you felt that your arguments were exaggerated and then reductio ad absurdum'd, then a call of strawman would be justified. lets say that, from my point of view, they weren't obviously strawmen as opposed to legitimate reductio ad absurdums (and i saw at least one other person make the same point), so maybe a little more clarification of your argument (and how it differed from the representation of your argument) at this point might have been advisable ;-)
off topic: i noticed your email adress above. i'd advise removing it, or breaking it up (blah -at- blah -dot- com) so the email-harvister-bots don't find it) -- DakAD 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
yes i am in the CVU, and thank you very much :-)
tbh, i think both sides of this debate -- nay, the entire debacle itself -- has been bad. as much as you think (maybe correctly, maybe not) that the 'CVU lobby targetted you', it also seems that there was an anti-CVU 'lobby' using underhand tactics to anniholate the CVU. i dont actually think this was intentional, but by going after every single aspect of the CVU (project page, icons, members of, user template, defcon, et al) and by rushing the delete through, it certainly seems as if theres an attempt to get rid of the CVU at all costs.
meh. reguardless: i think the CVU will survive this MfD, but if its any consolation, i think your arguments have been taken on board, and i suspect there'll be a wave of discussions re: deglamorising the CVU. i'll certainly suggest it (in fact, i've allready made a less glamourous defcon and suggested it as default). maybe you should rejoin and suggest some changes if the MfD fails? -- DakAD 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask why my account was blocked with the designation "Vandal Operator"? Dr Chatterjee 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)