User talk:A930913/Archives/2010/Jun

Fair use images
Hi!

Unfortunately, we can't use fair use images on talk pages (which can make discussing images - and templates that use them - tricky.

To get round this, link to images and templates instead:

will display as: File:Activistboatclash.jpg

will display as:

Both are linked to the underlying image or template.

Hope that helps, and explains why I've been refactoring your comments!

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's why ;-) Basically, U.S. law (Wikipedia is legally based in the U.S.) allows us to claim "fair use" on copyrighted images, but we can only use them in certain places (the article itself, and on the image's file page).
 * Sorry, I try and avoid IM and keep everything "on-wiki"!
 * Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I read it on MFA or somat that anyone can use it for non profit if attributed to them. I'll try find it. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 14:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic
There is nothing about a template that isn't less susceptible to vandalism than an article. The policy is clear; non-free content is not permitted in templates. There is no wiggle room on this. I've remove the image again. Please do not re-instate it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it satisfy the criteria now? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Hammersoft is right - apologies, I should have thought of this sooner.
 * I can't see the image now - so in that respect, yes, it does appear to satisfy the criteria ;-)
 * Could we use the template for the text only? (Not sure if it would help, but it would avoid the FUR issues).
 * TFOWRidle vapourings 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring seems to have subsided now, so we can probably survive without the template if it really is inappropriate. The new caption was also designed with better sourcing to deter good-faith damage. We can also insert a &lt;!-- comment --> alerting editors to the talk page, though we tried that before and it didn't help. Your effort is much appreciated, 930913. &#151;Ra&#64257; 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it's rather pointless to be using a template for this work. It will only be used once. Templates "should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." (ref: Template namespace). Apparently, the point is to stop some revert warring/vandalism. Templatizing something doesn't stop that. The contents of this template should be put directly into the article, and the template deleted. If editing continues against consensus, then seek help at at noticeboard, such as WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One big gain for me was the opportunity to move discussion about one caption to a separate talk page - but I'm inclined to agree with you in retrospect, that this idea isn't a go-er. TFOWRidle vapourings 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reverting was done by different people each time, rarely breaking 1RR. We change it, some layman changes it, and then we can't revert under 1RR.The template makes it harder for those people to change - only those that know of the template and how to change it can change it. Also, if they found out, greater protection can be given to the template, leaving the article editable. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't how to handle a situation like this. If consensus has been gained for the material to be a certain way, and more than one editor insists on changing it, then seek to have the article semi or fully protected (see WP:RFPP). You don't use templates to 'prevent' people from changing things (it doesn't work anyway). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is semi, full would stop all good faith edits. So far, the template has worked fine. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 15:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use templates to make vandalism (and thus editing) more difficult. Just like Hammersoft said above. Perhaps it "has worked fine" but it's still not appropriate. Please stop. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with TreasuryTag. This template needs to go. You've been shown how to solve the problem. Please take advantage of those methods. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that you are teetering on the edge of 3RR with that template. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 16:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I only reverted it once; the other was an edit. May I suggest that you file further complaints using the appropriate section in my sig. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ignore your suggestion, but would like to point out that you reverted three times:   I will not be engaging in further debate about the 3RR, but the warning stands. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 16:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that 1RR may apply here instead of 3RR. A930913, be very careful and listen to advice here. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic
Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannator  ─╢ 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif
Are you sure that this edit was what you meant to do? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope o.O I wonder why that happened. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You did it again
. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it would seem that when we both revert the vandalism, if you revert it after my page load and before my submission, TW goes ahead and overwrites you and the vandalism. Any suggestions? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a note on the Twinkle Talk page would be in order. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For your information
Hello A930913. Thank you for reverting an item of vandalism on the Gandhi (film) article. I wanted to let you know that the IP actually vandalized the page twice. If you look at the page history here you will see that IP 203.161.118.138 made two edits in a row. You reverted the second one where they changed the title of the film in the infobox. If you take a look at their first edit here you will see that they blanked almost the entire cast list. Oftentimes vandals like to try and hide some of their vandalism by performing several edits in a row so whenever I see an edit that has vandalized a page I look at the editor name or IP number if their name/number has made several edits I keep hitting the "← Previous edit" command until I get back to their first edit. Then I can revert all of the vandalism at once. Please don't take this the wrong way - you did not do anything wrong - as someone who has been fighting vandalism here for several years I am just trying to give you more info in fighting these people in the future. Keep up the good work and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've since found the TW rollback vandal tool that automatically does this :) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 16:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)~

Bot?
Is this a bot of some sort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.123.119 (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a human bot, programmed by G-d. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi, A93. I've been having a peep at some of your (generally excellent!) vandalism patrolling, and have identified one or two problematic reverts. For instance, this undid as "vandalism" an edit which appears to have been made in perfectly good faith (we have a whole article as evidence that the fact added was true; if you feel it was misplaced – which it probably was – that doesn't make it vandalism, at all). Just exercise a little more care – perhaps an extra two seconds' thought per page – and you can be absolutely sure that what you're doing is 100% correct :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that, in conjunction with some other Virginia articles edited by the same IP and took it to be a smear vandalism, on the basis that it was an IP edit, uncommented and unsourced. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good advice, but make sure you're especially careful with rollback. I'll template you so you have "The RulesTM":

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your signature
The "complaints" link in your signature is very funny, but I don't think you should be using it when issuing warnings to miscreants. A person you issue a warning to is all to likely to want to complain for real. I know that I would be absolutely furious if I genuinely wanted to complain and had followed such a link. It is certainly not going to persuade any vandals to reform. So please, either change your signature, or consider using an alternative sig when you are issuing warnings to editor's talk pages. Thanks,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, how can I use an alternative sig without having to manually change it before and after revert batches? 930913(Congratulate) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can, as such, but a solution might be to write your alt signature on a user subpage then instead of signing your posts write .  You can include the time and date stamps in the template with  (five tildes).  You could not do this with templates that automatically sign for you, of course, so it would have to be your "normal" sig.  Another solution is to create an entirely separate account just for the purposes of vandal fighting.  If you do this, be sure that you openly declare on the userpages that the account belongs to you so you don't get accused of sockpuppetry.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dove
Thank you for your dove. In that spirit, would you consider having File:Warntrestagoperating.png deleted? You can do this by adding db-user to the page. Thanks in advance. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, may I enquire as to what this is for? :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On, people kept asking me for my wiki name, because on IRC (CZ) I go by the name b930913. This redirect will put them on the right tracks. 930913(Congratulate) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted section
Hey. I wonder why you reverted the changes I made to the "overstating poverty" section. Everything said there was supported by citation and I stayed balananced in terms of academic skepticism. I understand that you find those claims suspicious, but they are not my claims. Claims being made and published by major research institutes should be included in an encyclopedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk)
 * I'm sorry if I wrongly reverted your edits, I wasn't sure of your edits, so I asked at and we decided that it constituted POV. Words such as "claims" or "alleges" are often used by people seeking to discredit the subject in question. I suggest that you bring up your content on the talk page and when a consensus is reached, moving it over to the article with an edit summary saying so. 930913(Congratulate) 02:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jasmebo
I reverted you at Jasmebo - sorry! I realise it looked like the article creator was misbehaving, but it's OK to remove prod tags: it simply means that the "proposed deletion has been contested" (in this case by the author).

I'd suggest if you - or anyone else - still felt that the article should be deleted, the next step would be an WP:AFD.

I should possibly declare an interest here: I declined a speedy deletion request on the article (purely because I didn't feel it qualified for speedy deletion; I have no comment on the article's long term deletion prospects!)

Cheers, TFOWR 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: another editor has opened an AfD. TFOWR 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! When I see removal of tags with no edit summary, I tend to think, better I revert the tag rather than a sneak attack getting through. Do you mind telling me what tags can be deleted and what can't be? Gratz on becoming an admin btw. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks! Tags like - article improvement tags - can be removed by anyone, if they think the issue has been address (if I added a reference to an unreferenced article I would replace the  tag with a  tag, but other editors might not know about "Refimprove").  tags are similar - anyone, including the article's creator - can remove them.
 * (I'd like to always see edit summaries, because it makes our lives so much easier. But in practice many editors simply don't know about edit summaries).
 * The tags that absolutely must not be removed include tags for active discussions (this article's AfD tag must not be removed during the AfD discussion), serious issues, etc.
 * My advice would be to assume an edit is not vandalism unless you're absolutely certain - you know now that if anyone removes an AfD tag from Jasmebo it can absolutely be reverted. Other edits, if you're not sure either wait and watch - see what another editor does - or ask me ;-)
 * TFOWR 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't go on IRC though 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 17:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable acceptance.
This edit wasn't obviously correct... Communications trenches are used to "transport men, equipment and food supplies", not primarily to communicate. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:A930913/Tips_and_tricks_for_vandalism
Hey,

I wanted to let you know that I deleted the above page. I know that you were trying to be funny but both it and the edits on vandals talk pages are not. Pages very very similar to that have been led to arbcom cases and aren't appropriate. As always if you have questions please feel free to let me know and I'm happy to talk either privately or on wiki.  James  ( T   C )  05:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Any feedback on the tool?
Hi :) Any feedback on the tool (wpcvn)?

--Dc987 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe. :) It's brilliant, you the one who made it? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Still a very early alpha. But I've decided it's a good idea to push it out and start using it. Just to see what's working what is not. And get feedback.
 * If you have improvements suggestions - you are very welcome. The thing is also open source (LGPL), so if you are into python/javascript hacking...... --Dc987 (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It could do with a diff (size difference from last edit) column. How is karma calculated? It seems to be working rather well. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Size is easy to add. Karma is based on the reverts/edits analysis in the wikipedia dump (Wikipedia_database it's a bit outdated already :( Apr/2010). Hope new dump will be available soon. --Dc987 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the dump gets outdated, may I suggest recalculating before each listing if it's not too much strain. Editors using can see more accurate karma and also see their karma rise. Seeing karma rise will surely hook editors onto the tool :) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to recalculate it in a few days with more precise algorithm. It should get better (though still outdated). Real-time update... yes, certainly possible. But I'll need an account on the toolserver (don't have one currently) & to do a few more hacks.
 * I was also planning to add an 'AI' mode - so instead of showing the recent changes table it would try to use its own brains and show juiciest unreverted/unpatrolled vandalism diff available :)
 * Gotta go to sleep. See you around. (I'll add the size column in a day/two).
 * --Dc987 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be back in a few hours. --Dc987 (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)