This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boomer Vial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can we keep the talk here? Why do you want the redirects and why you want a pointer to "Template:Infobox department" in the comments, a template of that name does not exist, it's just a redirect. The main template is Infobox settlement and is included 400 000 times directly without any redirects. 78.55.251.135 (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2017
(UTC)
Yes, that's fine. I'm sorry for reverting if your edits are genuine, I seen multiple IP editors messing with infobox templates, the first thing I assumed was a mass IP attack. After you asked for an example, it kind of fueled the fire. I'm still not seeing what guideline, or consensus you're following. I looked through the page concerning infobox templates, and I didn't see anything regarding "settlement". Point me in the right direction, and I'll help you clean up the mess. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!05:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Boomer Vial, OK, that is a basis for talking. I will not edit on this anymore today. I will come back another day and we can discuss. I am not aware of a specific rule against having template redirects, but it makes it harder for editors. Example: "Infobox country", "Infobox former subdivision" are real templates, different from "Template:Infobox settlement" while they are about very similar things. Note, despite the name being "settlement" it is used for provinces, districts, counties, states, regions etc.
If an editor sees "Infobox department" he might think this is another template, separate from Infobox settlement. I whish you a nice day! 78.55.251.135 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see exactly what you're talking about, in the sense that another editor redirected "department" to "settlement"[2]. Sorry about assuming you were part of an attack. I'll start to help you clean this mess up. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!05:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey Boomer Vial, I just checked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_department&limit=500 to see how the things developped. I expected either all my edits were undone, or it was as when I quit yesterday. But to my surprise the list was shorter than when quit :-). Thanks a lot. That's rare. Sometimes "(former) edit opponents" go on, sometimes they stop, but that they actually help --- rare. Great! RE "attack" - it was one, but a one that worked towards the goal of Wikipedia - create an encyclopedia. Also "disruptive" can have a positive meaning: Disruptive innovation. All the best! 77.180.210.67 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The delete was intentional. The editor is a student in my scientific writing course. She had added her edits without being signed in to her wikipedia account, and thus all the edits she made were not visible for me to track/grade. She had to delete the edits she made to the article and is now in the process of adding them back while signed in.As701914 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your (very kind) messages. I (as you presumably have already gathered) have been unclear as to the prescribed method for replying to them. Hence the asterisk (which was experimental). I would be very grateful if you would let me know what is in fact the prescribed procedure. Many thanks. 2A00:23C1:B299:BC00:CF5:EB12:9450:7752 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Your welcome. There is no real "prescribed" way to respond to messages. Just engage the comments by the subject they are in concern to, and stay focused on the subject. I hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any more questions. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 3:30 am, Today (UTC−8)
I saw that you removed the picture I added to the article on Andriy Biletsky. Is the problem that the picture is too wide to fit well in that particular spot? If that is the case, maybe the picture could be cropped or put somewhere else in the article?
March 2017 was the date of the earlier picture that had been removed by CommonsDelinker. I changed to July 2014 because that is when the photograph I added was taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Ridderstråle (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm new here on Wikipedia, so unfortunately I'm not familiar with any policies. However, it's my photograph and I've released it on Wikimedia Commons for anyone to use.Carl Ridderstråle (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the source for the statement "The plot is copied from the story "The First Star [Expedition]" of the Soviet writer Boris Lapin" that you have repeatedly restored? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
See, the problem was you were removing it and claiming it was unsourced. You have to be careful what you put in the edit summary, as it can easily be misinterpreted. I'm sorry about reverting your edits, and agree that the text on the article is not supported by the source. I'll remove it now. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!04:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The difference between saying something is "unsourced", and something is "unsupported by the source" is vast. Something being unsourced means that it lacks a source of any kind, entirely. In this case, the text in question is not supported by the source. Which is why I again, apologize for reverting your edit. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!12:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Once again, what is the source for the statement "The plot is copied from the story "The First Star [Expedition]" of the Soviet writer Boris Lapin"? You have evaded the question, so I'll answer it for you: there is and was not a source for that statement. There is no "vast difference" between no source and saying something is unsourced. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Except the text you were removing[3][4] was supported by a source. We are in agreement that the source was not adequate to support the text, that is why I'm again sorry for reverting your edits, and why I restored your edits. I'm not sure how I "evaded" your question, as I am trying to point out the difference between not having a source, and not be supported by a source. Did you notice that each of the linked diffs of your edits above includes the tag "references removed"? Removing text, and claiming that it is unsourced with that tag is something you really only see with problem IP editors/vandals. I'm not saying you yourself are a vandal, but do you see how your edits can be mistaken by an anti-vandal editor as disingenuous? Regardless of all that, I am sorry about any confusion caused by this whole debacle, and as well for reverting your edits mistakenly. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at the version of the article before my first edit. Look at the first paragraph of Plot section, the same sentence I have quoted twice above. If you'll take about two seconds to actually read what's there, you'll see that there is no citation at the end of that paragraph. In fact there is a "citation needed" tag. So now my question is: Do you know the difference between a citation and a "citation needed" tag? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what you mean. This[1] is the reference that is in each of the diffs of you removing the paragraph. Again, even the filter tag picked up it, and tagged each diff with "Tag: references removed".[5][6]Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!00:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me try to make this as simple as I can get it. Look at the article before my edit. Scroll down to the Plot section. Look at the first sentence. The last two words in that sentence are "Boris Lapin". Do you see the "citation needed" tag after those two words? A simple yes or no will make this go more smoothly. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, as long as you acknowledge that removing unsourced content with an edit summary "unsourced" is not disruptive as both your warning templates state. Maybe next time an anon IP makes an edit that can be resolved with a simple message on their talk page, you won't have a knee-jerk reaction that leads to a debacle (to use your word). Have a good day. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the confusion about the appropriate place to respond to your comments. You recently proposed deletion of an article I submitted concerning Russian child model and actress Kristina Pimenova. After writing the article, Wikipedia editors created a new page on the subject, including some of the information I provided. That is why I have not made any changes or additions to my original article. Hopefully, Wikipedia will keep the current page because I believe she meets and exceeds the notability requirement. She is a very prominent Russian child model and actress, and a legitimate supermodel, with millions of social media followers, appearances in many reputable magazines, and starring roles in at least one full length feature film. Thank you for your help, Christopher Moore Ctmuva2000 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You might have pinged me on a technicality while I was attending matters of personal affect (I won't share with you given your previous insular nature). I did by the letter of the rules "evade a block" all be it I had far more substantial annoyances to deal with. The problem here is that you did not ping me on not being a human.
Heh. No worries, I've been around here for over a decade and I still sometimes learn new stuff about things I've never actually encountered before too. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing personal. The reason I picked up on your edits in the first place was your lack of an edit summary. Can you provide some diffs of content such as lists of animals/characters being removed under WP:GAMEGUIDE, in such a manner? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!13:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well that is the great thing about NPP, you end up getting exposed to a little bit of everything and all kinds of policies. It tends to strengthen understanding of notability guidelines, and helps prospective admins relate a bit more to new editors, which is pretty important for anyone with acess to the block button. I'd suggest reviewing the tutorial linked above and if it sounds like something that youd like to help out with, make an application at WP:PERM. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)22:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Already requested a spot in the NPP training school. Thank you for the recommendation. I've been trying to figure out a better way to contribute main space, other than fighting vandalism. I think I just found it. :) Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!22:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor. I need help in identifying whether not a source[8] I used support the reword I did of Ilyushin Il-78. It was tagged with an "unreliable source" tag, so I'm not sure whether or not it will suffice to support the information. Thanks in advance. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!22:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd advise you to put such questions to the reliable sources noticeboard or to ask the editor who tagged the source. To me the source does look somewhat dubious, but the information in question doesn't seem particularly controversial, so... meh. Huon (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. There were a bunch of other IPs that were reported only for vandalizing one page, which I decided to protect instead of block. When I looked to remove the reports that didn't need blocking, I didn't see yours. It must have gotten mixed up in my loading the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
In response to Special:Diff/813063891: See WP:UP#CMT. Users are permitted to remove notices, warnings, and messages from their user talk pages, with a few exceptions; block notices are not one of the exceptions. Removing the block notice does not remove the block. If they wish to remove it, that is fine. Talk page access can be revoked if they're being disruptive on their talk page, but simply removing messages isn't considered to be disruptive. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Boomer Vial. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey there, fellow editor. While trying to add a contribution link to my signature, I managed to botch the entire code, and was forced to reset it back to the standard signature. Can someone help me with the code so my signature is as it was before, please?[11] Thank you, very much. Boomer Vial (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You can paste this into your signature box - [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<font color="darkgreen">Holla! We gonna ball!</font>]]</sup>. If it does not help, search for help in the village pump. Cheers, FriyManPer aspera ad astra08:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that a certain long-term sockmaster and abuser has gone quiet. So, I was wondering what would be the quickest way for me to do a non checkuser sweep for any sleepers, or Bonadea trolls that might of fell through cracks. All of their targeted pages are high-traffic, and digging through them by hand would be like mining for Painite. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs07:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Unless you're familiar with naming patterns, there's no way for a non-Checkuser to find sleepers. How could you possibly tell which account that hasn't edited yet, or hasn't edited disruptively yet, belongs to this sockmaster? Conversely, if there's no perceptible disruption at this time, is looking for sleepers that may or may not exist worth the effort? Huon (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Huon That's the thing. Nsmutte does their best to hide their edits with inconsistent naming patterns, and only editing to high-traffic boards. Perhaps "checkuser" was obviously not the correct term to use, there. Let me rephrase it as "Is there anyway for a normal editor to more quickly find such LTA-linked accounts without all the revision mining?" The rationale for asking this question is that I figured there's got to be a quick way for normal editors to be able to track erratic LTA accounts without having to dig to China in the revisions history trying to find what they are looking for. They might have gone quiet, but looking at the consistency in which they make sockpuppets, I don't believe they're anywhere near done being disruptive. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs02:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think there's some easy shortcut here. CheckUsers have the tools to look for technically connected accounts. Without those tools (or when those tools fail; they're far from perfect) we have to rely on behavioural evidence - and that means checking the contributions or page histories. Huon (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I found a picture of a beautiful (what I think is a) Boat Orchid to add to my userpage. Question is, how do I resize the image so it fits better on my page? I can only figure out how to make it a thumbnail. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Boomer Vial - what you need to do depends on exactly what you want the picture to look like and how large you want it. Sizing a basic image with no caption is easy (see Example 1). However, you want it to have a caption, it'll need the "thumb" parameter added... which will add some slight complications. The "thumb" parameter requires the "upright" parameter, which means that you can't set the image size like in Example 1. You instead have to use the "upright" parameter to set the ratio of its original size (see Example 2).
In a nutshell, if you want a caption, it requires that you handle the image size differently. Otherwise, you can just explicitly set it. My examples are below:
Example 1
Explanation: An simple example - no caption. 300px wide and on the right side.
Code: [[File:example.jpg|300px|right]]
Result:
Example 2
Explanation: An example with a caption. It's 15% in size compared to the image's original size, and it's on the left side.
Code: [[File:example.jpg|thumb|upright=0.15|left|LOOK HOW TINY I AM!!!!]]
You seem too eager to report to user names to UAA. Please understand what should go there, and what should not. Please read the instructions for reporting to UAA. Promotional intent is not a username violation.
The top of the Admin page clearly states:
This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked.
Reports are assessed according to the username policy and the UAA instructions. Please read those pages first.
Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not.
No, never mind. I read through it again, and realized that the policy that would cover this type of usernames would be the one regarding writing self-biographies. Can I ask a favor of you though, Alex? Could you go double check the most recent articles I CSD'ed under G11, please? I have a feeling they might not be correct, and it would be better for a more knowledgeable experienced editor to go through them. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs20:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
You may want to check out MOS:PLOT. It depends on context; particularly if it gets overly detailed, plot may be seen as fan cruft. In this case, I don't think knowing about the rope improves our readers' understanding of Ford. Huon (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Huon I see what you mean about over-detail, it's just a tad annoying to read something knowing it's not fully accurate with the scenario it's describing. I see a few details here and there that could be tweaked for accuracy. Is it OK to add to details, so long as I don't go overboard in detail, or should I just completely avoid the ones like the one I mentioned above? My aim isn't to make Wikipedia read like Lostpedia, but simply be more accurate in the information that Wikipedia is covering. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you think I have been consistently too strict with the warning levels I used? As in, should the first warning always be level 1 no matter how egregious?
In specific cases, do you think I was too strict to the vandal I reported to AIV for vandalizing Troy, Missouri? And for the vandal who used racist language on Boswell High School, I used level 3 - was that okay, or should I have used 4im, or lower?
It depends on how tendentious their editing is. I usually reserve 4im for the most severe cases, and generally start with level 1. The case of the Boswell High School vandal was more severe, and they were issued the correct level warning. There is no set-in-stone guideline that says "if they vandalize in X fashion, start with Y warning." It's more a rule of thumb. The warning for the Troy, Michigan vandal was a bit bitey. You always want to WP:AGF that one will stop vandalizing when leaving a level 1/2/3 warning template. If they don't, then the reviewing administrator will see that they were given plenty of chances, and assumed good faith that they would cease and desist. Hope this helps! Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
