User talk:Vacation9/Archives/2012/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vacation9. 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.

Thanks

Many thanks, Vacation9, for keeping an eye out for vandalism on my personal pages. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Always glad to help. Vacation^nine 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Todd Hollenshead

It may be "true" but with only a primary source displaying the text of the emails, text that could have been faked, how do we know without a secondary source?--ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized that website isn't primary, but fan written and as you said could have been easily faked. I unaccepted and and rejected the change. Thanks for pointing that out! Vacation^nine 15:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for revisiting it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey! You accepted that revision before I could! Keep up the good work in all seriousness with reviewing, rollbacking, and such. TBrandley 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar! Maybe I'll try to be a bit slower next time :) Vacation^nine 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Sorry to hear about your collarbone...feel better and enjoy this cookie. Go Phightins! 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) Vacation^nine 01:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prometheus (film)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prometheus (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Your actions at User talk:77.96.180.241 seem well-intended but in conflict with WP:BLANKING. As the IP stated, you should read that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. I realized afterwards that it wasn't vandalism when I remembered the policy. However the policy does state that while it isn't an exception to 3RR, users can still rollback blanks. The vandalism warnings weren't warranted though, I agree. Vacation^nine 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any policy that says you may rollback others' blanking of their own talk pages. Please provide that passage below. Toddst1 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read a passage wrong. Vacation^nine 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job clearing out a bunch of semi-protected edit requests - thanks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mistake

Hello Vacation9, yes I think you did make a mistake in undoing my edit to Mike Tyson's page by removing the reference to his rape conviction in the introduction. I would argue that he is at least as well known, if not more well known as a rapist in some countries than as a boxer. Brain696 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a continuation of this conversation? If so, I gave an explanation there for why I removed it. To be on the safe side, I reverted something that seemed obviously a WP:BLP violation. I understand that it did happen and you can feel free to add it back as I said earlier. Vacation^nine 12:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you review a page and determine whether removal of BLP sources and Primary sources tags would be appropriate?

Hi. My question refers to this page: Stevie_Ryan. This person is an actress and comedienne who has appeared in her own TV show that ran on the VH1 television network for one season and has been renewed for a second season. Last May (2012), the page was tagged with the "BLP Sources" and "Primary Sources" tags. Last month (November 2012) I attempted to address the concerns expressed in these tags by referencing three articles on the actress, a 2006 long-form article from The New Yorker, a 2011 brief article posted on Deadline Hollywood, and a 2012 brief article posted on TV by the Numbers. I didn't feel confident in removing the tags myself though. Could you please review and determine whether what I have added to this page is sufficient to justify the removal of those tags? Thank you! - EricTN (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Vacation^nine 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I think you can go ahead and remove the Primary sources tag. The sources are now non-primary and reliable. However, I'm in the middle about the BLP sources tag: I see no evidence about the claim that she went to Silverado High School. If you find a source for that or give me the location in the references where it says this, I would go ahead. Great job! Vacation^nine 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help me with this. I removed the Primary Sources tag and the BLP tag remains pending further sourcing. EricTN (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for posting that comment on my page !! MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Always glad to help out. Vacation^nine 17:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cydia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cydia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! I'll be sure to check it out! Vacation^nine 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for rightfully trouting me with regard to breaking Huggle. These notifications go a long way to me improving the quality of contributions! Cheers! T.I.M^(Contact) 03:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Huggle can be glitchy. Vacation^nine 03:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What's all this then?

Hey Vacation9, why did you undo my edits to Speyburn-Glenlivet distillery? 62.194.104.217 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. I'm just learning how to Huggle and the {{when}} seemed like vandalism to me. Vacation^nine 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Take it slow though; it's access is restricted for a reason. Huggle can be blindingly fast, which is both a pro and a con. If you think something is vandalism, {{uw-v1}} is fine, no need to use {{uw-test1}}, as uw-v1 already has a good faith assumption. An ill placed uw-t1 can be even more harmful than a badly placed uw-v1 (with the condesending "go play in the sandbox" tone). If you're not sure, it's better to double check than to revert, even with a mild v1 user warning. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Will do. Vacation^nine 22:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As a second note, rollback rolls back all edits made by that user, not just the last one. Something to keep in mind when rolling back edits which you think are good faith. If you judge only by the last one, you run the risk of rolling back a good edit that you didn't spot. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about the core of rollback. Huggle is intended to revert mainly bad-faith edits, so this isn't particuarly an issue. What you're talking about isn't that common either. I believe most tools show the combined additions of a user as well, not just the latest. Vacation^nine 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I never really got the chance to try huggle; I run Linux exclusively at home, and a Mono port still seems pretty far off. I know Twinkle can use either core or emulated rollback, but both roll back the whole last block of edits of the user. I'm not sure if Huggle does any diff previewing, and if this includes earlier edits, on account of never having used it. It's true that good edits rarely occur alongside bad faith edits, but it certainly does occur in a string of mainly misguided good faith edits. Since huggle has uw-t1 warnings built in (and I would assume other user warnings that are not necessarily bad faith warnings) I would have assumed Huggle was fairly proficient with bad good faith edits as well. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: how can you use Twinkle if you're an IP? Are you not logged in? Vacation^nine 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At some point I accidentally made an edit when logged out. I found it liberating. Almost nobody hassles you, you can just work on improving articles. I have been editing logged out from different IPs since. All drama floats serenely by you, as if it doesn't exist. You don't make "wikifriends", but you don't make "wikienemies" either. In case I do ever get the stupid idea to delve into some drama pit, or something "difficult", oftentimes pages are semi protected to remind me just to work on content. There are a few trenches that are worth the hassle for Wikipedia: vandalism, new page curation, WP:FRINGE work, NPOV work. Speedy to some extent (attack pages, copyvios, blatant spam and hoaxes). None of those are really appealing or fun to do - but some poor schmuck got to do it (thanks for that ;)). Then there are the loads and loads and loads of mainly irrelevant venues, where it would be better for all involved if we stopped doing it: Notability debates on AfD. Policy debates. 90% of ANI. Debating naming guidelines (Ok, I was just guilty of that) for articles. Debating exceptions. Finding consensus on WP:ENGVAR for some article. Debating the merit or problem with trivia sections. civility guidelines (note, if you just write articles, there are no civility guidelines). GA. FA. Userbox policy. Spoiler tags. Everyone involved in any of those is not doing anything constructive. They are not writing an article, improving an article, or fixing something, they are just debating. If we threw out all policies, blindly deleted every policy page and every guideline, apart from (maybe a slightly altered, it shows its age) WP:PILLARS, Wikipedia should be a far better place. Editing as an IP enables me to do so. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. However, I am concerned mostly with technical work, so I need an account. I'd probably anon edit if I was content oriented though. Vacation^nine 23:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I know exactly how you feel. I did the same for two years, after editing for two years. Then I came back, found a way to not only deal with the "hassles" but eventually became an admin here. Since then, I've actually devoted a large amount of my time trying to take away some of the hassles. There isn't a way to take away all of it, since some people will always come here to push their political POV, etc. Catch 22, and some of the bureaucracy is actually helpful for dealing with that stuff. I'm just glad you found a way and willingness to contribute, in whatever way you are comfortable with. Your effort still makes a difference, so thank you. If you ever want to chat about it, or get an opinion on anything else, you should feel welcome to ping my talk page or email me (you would have to make a throwaway account and enable email to some email account, but that is fine and I would hold it in confidence). No pressure, just an offer from someone who has been there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, might I need anything, I'll drop by. Irony has it my account actually has the mop bit set as well. As such that makes you more of an ambassador of Wikipedia than one really should be. Well meaning newbies that are either to young to get it, or too stupid, suffering from severe cases of Dunning-Kruger effect, ill meaning civil POV pushers, lynch mobs at ANI. Being polite to all of them. I think I'll just stay signed out. I'm happy like this, and I'm doing some good ;). 62.194.104.217 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've had the power-that-be say I do all kinds of stuff I shouldn't do, being an Ambassador is the least of them :) I do feel your pain, and understand your frustration, and know that I may end up in the same position again someday. Most people underestimate the stress caused by the bit. If you need me, you know where to find me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Not fair. You beat me several times just now. Widr (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Karma :D Vacation^nine 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This was addressed with User:DeltaQuad. Vacation^nine 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unblock Request This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Vacation9/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) [nil <redacted>] ([[User talk:<redacted>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<redacted>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<redacted>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Nuke/<redacted>|nuke contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<redacted>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<redacted>|block user]] · block log) Block message: Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Chrischristie122". The reason given for Chrischristie122's block is: "Vandalism: +personal attacks; see also edit filter log". Blocking administrator: Materialscientist (talk • blocks) Accept reason: I have given you temporary IP block exemption to avoid the autoblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bot Proposal

I consider it a good idea. Generally, I don't pay attention to that template because of the same (that sometimes it is updated and other's not), but having an accurate report of vandalism is not a bad idea. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Now I just need to figure out how I could do it... I have some programming experience, but not with Wikipedia. Vacation^nine 05:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hurricane Sandy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on VoxelBot! It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Vacation9. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VoxelBot.
Message added by Theopolisme at 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

'Plop' went the fish; you've got another message! —Theopolisme 22:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vacation9. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VoxelBot.
Message added 22:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Implemented null edit check (haha beat you to it :D) It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Re reversing my edit to Osiris entry.

You wrote to me:

Hello, I'm Vacation9. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Osiris because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Vacationnine 19:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I DO think you made a mistake. If I had intended vandalism, I would not have cut and pasted my deleted section into the talk section nor signed it. This article on Osiris contains a lengthy off-topic section pushing an anti-Christian conspiracy theory based on un-sourced misinformation such as can be found in pop propaganda videos such as the Zeitgeist video.

The author of the article seems to have exploited wikipedia to promote an intolerant agenda, and then, when I corrected that, by deleting the irrelevant and offensive propaganda, my correction was reverted to restore the inappropriate content.

I have been reluctant to join the growing boycott of wikipedia, perhaps naively. The criticism of wikipedia is based on the perception that it is increasingly becoming hijacked by POV violators who are defended and supported by a new wiki establishment that has installed itself to protect the hijackers and their politicized agenda. I'm not suggesting that you are one of these people, but if my edit is not restored, I will no longer consider wikipedia to be a serious project, will delete my bookmark to it, and join the chorus of people who dismiss wikipedia as an unreliable hodge-podge of misinformation, political bias, and censorship.

Sorry if I sound hostile, but it is unacceptable for my constructive contribution to be reverted.77Mike77 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello 77Mike77. You didn't provide an edit summary explaining your deletion and it didn't seem like there was consensus about your change. Why not discuss this on the talk page? Your edit removed a large amount of content without explaining why, which is against the policies. Please use edit summaries in the future so other editors know your edits are Good Faith, and obtain consensus before doing actions like this. Vacation^nine 20:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. I explained the edit (deletion) on the talk page. No hard feelings. Just fed up with this. 77Mike77 (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There was actually no WP:CONSENSUS about this change; the only participant in Talk:Osiris#Major_edit_.28removal.29 was you. Why don't you try an WP:RfC to see what other editors think? Vacation^nine 00:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I didn't go about it the prescribed way. I don't have time to learn all the details, protocols, and acronyms, at the moment. I'll come back to it at some point. Thanks for being helpful (and polite).77Mike77 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! Glad to help! Vacation^nine 01:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we change the VoxelBot parser?

Since we have a working XML parsing mechanism, should we attempt to implement that in the main code? Or in another Git branch? It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it how it is currently? Don't mess with something that works. Vacation^nine 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

in reply

Hi, it is because the user has alreasy been blocked today for this behavour and is back with a new IP doing the same things. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Special:Contributions.2F92.40.254.14.2C_Special:Contributions.2F86.42.8.86:_Edit_warring.3F

Please can you sort this out. this person is removing data and has been warned several times, blocked and has had a few other members undo their actions, yet they continue and post antagonistic comments in the "reason for edit" box.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

All of my edits are factually correct and whenever I give my side of the story, my dialogue is wiped (deleted) but don't worry. I print off all the threats and all the dialogue I write that is wiped.

Yes, I understand that, but why did you copy and paste the Edit Warring notice many times? To make the user notice? You can just report them you know, one edit warring notice is enough. Vacation^nine 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I did not know that. Thanks Vacation9, very helpful. :) Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure thing, always glad to help Vacation^nine 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The smiley face is a dead giveaway as to who is in the wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Pippin did this in good faith because all edit warring notices link to a different article. Vacation^nine 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Takeout Typos

You're welcome! Thank you for taking the time to write that small message; it means a lot to me, especially because I'm a beginner!

Bananasoldier (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! Have fun editing! Vacation^nine 07:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)