User talk:Racerx11/Archive 2

Hanoi Vandal discussion (cont.)

 * It's going to get gruesomely long very quickly, I'm afraid. How many Elton John/Carpenters fans, who change song lengths as part of their behavior, do you suppose there are in Hanoi? My guess would be: not too many. We're now at September, 2009 with . A total nightmare... Doc   talk  00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe we should step back and look at what we are trying to do. If the goal is to get a complete list as possible then maybe we should start catagorizing by date or something. So far there's the recent batch from the last couple months. Not much in 2011, but a whole mess from 2010...now '09 etc. Should we group them like that for a while? or do you have something else in mind? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to go out for a bit, but I'll put some thought into it. I'll create the subpage when I get back, and we can go from there. 2011 could be just as rife as the other years, and I would guess that it is. I'll let you know when the subpage is up. Cheers :> Doc   talk  01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm ready to create the page and dump all the so-far known IPs on it, but part of me wants a new name for this one. "The Hanoi Horror"? "The Hanoi Harlequin"? Some would claim that WP:DENY discourages this sort of thing, but I prefer presenting evidence. Who shall this scourge be known as? Doc   talk  07:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Im fine with "The Hanoi Vandal" or maybe include in the name something about the subject of his vandalism like "Track List Vandal" just for example, but I will let you decide on the name. Since you have mentioned WP:DENY, there have been couple things on my mind related to that.


 * Are there certain things that we shouldn't talk about at this point, assuming the vandal could possibly be monitoring our discussions? For example, should we not mention how it could get any worse (if that's possible): "At least he hasen't done x or y yet." So we don't give him any ideas? Also, it's probably not a huge secret about how or what we have been doing to deal with this and other vandalism, but there may be a few tricks or techniques that are not obvious. Should any technical details on how we have been dealing with this vandal be kept to ourselves, just in case we know something he doesn't?-- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  12:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thought on the name. As cool as "The Hanoi Horror" sounds, I have been hoping you don't choose that particular name. In addition to WP:Deny concerns, it sounds too much like a story from a Vietnam POW. Brings to mind Hanoi Hilton specifically. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hehe - I was half-kidding about the names: he's just the Hanoi Vandal. As for WP:BEANS, I'm not sure what to say about it at this point. We're mostly backtracking, looking for his older stuff, and he's been steadily focused on the Miles/Eagles/Eric Carmen/Gary Moore thing for a few months, so I don't think there's much we can spill the beans about. I should be able to start on this in a little bit - RL stuff and all. Doc   talk  20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Half-kidding eh? Man, I thought you were serious, really. I thought you were gonna come back with some wild name like "Hanoi Insidious Vandal". Could you imagine? then calling him by the initials like that other one from New York?! Haha. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  21:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "HIV" wouldn't go over too well ;P Any name that either glorifies (he might actually be proud of the "Hanoi Horror") or disparages him would be frowned upon, so I created the page at User:Doc9871/Hanoi Vandal. It's the basis for any WP:LTA report if necessary. I'll add some sort of description of his behavior, and all I've done is put the list of known (so far) IPs in numerical order. You can edit the page as you see fit: if you think the layout needs tweaking, go ahead and do it. And thanks for reverting the guy at the Eagles article! I don't know if I can revert again per 3RR, but what that guy is adding does not seem correct at all. The only mention I can find goes back to September of last year, where it says the Eagles might do a musical. Nothing from this year, and certainly no 2014 opening nights listed anywhere that I can find. Doc   talk  22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok great. I will check it out later and maybe tweak it. We should probably give the guy on the Eagles article an edit war warning now that you mention it. I also researched the claim and only found the same stuff you did from last year. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc, I have broken the list down into recent and older IP's in hopes it may be useful to have it that way in the future. Pretty sure its accurate but I will double check it later. Added a couple more to the list while I was at it. Also added some comments for the more notable IP's. Do you remember running accross any more from 2011 other than the one I noted? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  07:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. Until April of this year I had no knowledge of this guy, and only then because of his bizarre attempted Eagles additions. My hunch that he'd have been just as active during 2011 as the others is based on speculation, really. You opened the Carpenters floodgate, you clueful bastard! Same dude, no question. He may have taken a break (forced or not ;>) in 2011, but the jury's still out on his activities. I'm getting a good picture of the guy. Probably a little older than me (mid-40's to early-50's), probably from the U.S. or U.K. originally... and some more stuff I won't reveal per the beans thing. Keep digging! Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the same feeling about 2011 but wondering why we haven't stumbled on to much from that year. I remember looking into that one we have from '11 and it didn't lead to anything else. I will check it again though. That's why I'm very interested in any more from that year and of course any more from this year. I suspect there are still outstanding edits of his floating around and anything more recent may reveal those. Let me know if you find any. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  07:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc, you may not like the looks of this, but have a look at this and this. The IP geolocates in Korea and the user held on to it for a while. But man, some of the diffs look eerily similar. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... interesting. We'd have to see if there was any times where that IP was editing at the same time one of the Vietnam IPs was. Note from a just-discovered IP was followed by  a few days later. There are now so many IPs in the 2008-2010 section that it's time to make three sections, I believe. If there's no times where the Korean IP and any Vietnamese IP conflict, then it's possible that the guy went on vacation in Korea for a couple of months at that time - who knows? I agree that the edits are eerily similar.  Doc   talk  04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Already on it. So far no cases where known IPs have edited between the Dec 09 - Feb 10 time frame. Still checking though. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I went though the entire list twice to make sure I didn't miss anything. No conflicts, nothing from between December 29, 2009 though February 13, 2010. I'm pretty sure it's him. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Korean IP adds a bunch of crap about Delta Goodrem, not Amanda Seyfried, being a lead. : Just-discovered Vietnamese IP reinserts the exact same edit. Good work - I think this one is confirmed. It seems he went on vacation or a job assignment or something. Doc   talk  04:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meant Feb 13th just above. I have now changed it. Sure looks like it's him, but I did add a disclaimer anyways. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt we even need a disclaimer: look at the history of this template beginning in January, 2010. Korean IP edits it extensively, then 3 different Hanoi IPs come along. It also appears that the vandal was a fan of Green Day for awhile. Doc   talk  05:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Im convinced -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  05:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More proof: on Elton 60 - Live at Madison Square Garden, first edits it. The Korean IP appears a few days later, and in February  returns to it.  Doc   talk  05:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave this here before I turn in. contributions lead to this. Both in Hanoi but the latter IP is nothing but military weaponry. I dont think its him. Coud be wrong though. Im done for a while. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how much worse it is. I just discovered . Not only are they an Elton John vandal, but looking at the history starting at July 9, 2010 here shows who they were dealing with. This is utterly absurd... Doc   talk  06:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same story at Christmas with The Chipmunks (2008 album). . Il Divo, huh? Nightmare... Doc   talk  06:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know. I had no idea it could get this bad. I have been taking some time to see if some of this stuff survives in the current articles. I don't have a good technique to do that quickly or efficiently however. And of course since many of the edits or parts of them appear legitimate, well you see what I mean. I wonder if its even worth worrying about anything that's fairly far back in the histories. Just saying in general. Talk to you later. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  06:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, I am blown away. I've never seen anything like this. I'm desperately trying to convince myself it's some other nut, but it has to be the same creep. The sheer volume of IPs used to repeatedly insert the same garbage over and over again is just staggering. There is something seriously wrong with this individual. I mean, "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word" was actually written by the guys who wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and that song appeared in the film? What kind of a mind would even dream up such utter nonsense? Very discouraging. Well, TTYL :> Doc   talk  07:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it does feel like being a detective sometimes. Thank you. Very kind of you. There is a level of interest in it and dare I say enjoyment involved in somethiing even this tedious. Like an old joke: It must be fun, we're not getting paid. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanx
Thanks for helping me on Wikipedia. WanderingE1000 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sensitivity? to low oxygen
Thanks for drawing attention to a gnarly passage! And i hope you'll also learn more about WP:BOLDness from Talk:Sherpa people. All's well that ends well! --Jerzy•t 08:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
I just wanted to thank you for your recent edits to the Jimmy Robinson (recording engineer) article. Your revisions were excellent and so improved the article as a whole, I thought.. thank you :) --GingerPatrick (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pikes Peak elevation above Colorado Springs
Colorado Springs is at 6,035 ft in the city center. The elevation in the city limits ranges from 5,740 to around 7,200 ft. You keep saying that it rises only 8,000 ft above the city, but that's just the city center. The reason I said up to 8,400 ft is because I'm counting the whole city. Again I use the words "UP TO". Also I know 14,115 ft minus 5,750 isn't exactly 8,400 ft I'm using it as a base number rather than saying 8,365 ft, this is the only reason! Plus 14,115 minus 6,035 doesn't equal 8,000 exactly, it's just a base number. We're only talking about the summit, so why did you mention that not all of Pikes Peak is at 14,115ft. The summit is all that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course only the summit matters. I mention not all of the mountain is at 14,115 ft to point out the ludicracy of your own statement, choosing the use the low point of the city. And damn, why can't you just edit from one account and sign your posts?! You are confusing the hell out of me! I posted this at your IP adress:


 * "No, what I said is that it rises approximately 8000 ft above the city and I said your estimation wasn't even close. My point is by your logic, a 5800 ft peak could also be descibed as rising above the city, even though one could look down on it from downtown. Why would anyone measure the low point of a city and compare it to the high point of a mountain? Take the difference between the two official elevations." - Racerx11


 * Please reply here from now on. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  03:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all a 5,800ft peak would not be considered a peak in Colorado Springs that's a hill, and yes you would have to look down on it from Downtown but that would still make it a hill. What is your point? We're only talking about Pikes Peak and your phylosophical argument is totally unrelated.

Well I'll agree to disagree with you, the only reason I'm using the low point of a city is to show what the whole elevation difference is from Pikes Peak to the lowest point in Colorado Springs. I mean people say that Mount Rainier rises 14,411 ft above Seattle, but the highest point in Seattle is 500 ft above sea level, and the highest point in the city center is 250 ft asl. Also Mount Rainier is 65 miles away from Seattle and its actual base is at 1,000 to 4,000 ft asl. So using your logic Mount Rainier only rises 10,000ft or so above Seattle even though the difference in elevation is 14,411 ft? No one would agree with this statement, but using your logic this is what the case would be!

Do you not understand the point I'm trying to make, it's very simple and You're being way to specific! Looking from 5,750 ft to the summit of Pikes Peak 15 miles away or so from southern Colorado Springs is a difference of around 8,400 ft, this is all I'm trying to say!

You say Ludicracy? how is using 5,750 ft more senseless than using 6,035, they're both just numbers from certain points in the city. Downtown is at 6,035 ft yes but theres more to the city than just downtown. Denver is only at 5,280 ft on the south side of Downtown, but varies from 5,170 ft to 5,660 ft overall in the city limits yet it's still known as the Mile High City. Do you have a problem with this? You should going by your logic. Anyways this argument over 8,000ft vs 8,400ft is totally not worth my time, so just do what will make you happy.

Also sorry I didn't sign, and forgot to log in twice. I wasn't aware of this process because wikipedia is just a past time for me it's not my life and I don't always remember small things like this non stop every day! So if I didn't sign a couple times forgive me for being human.––Hogs555 (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who knows the elevation of the city or checks it would find the statement either immediately confusing or just plain false, so I don't think you are doing it right at all. But I really don't care anymore. You didn't even bother to sign your last post and when a person is editing from both an unregistered IP and a registered account and posting unsigned comments from both the IP and the registered account, well that just ticks me off. Like I said at your IP page, if I thought were deliberately trying to deceive me, I would be reporting you for Sockpuppetry. As it is, it's just annoying and not worth the trouble. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I just said, I wasn't aware that there was an action called signing for talk pages, I do now and will remember. Also I didn't realize I wasn't still logged in when I posted changes and comments under my IP address, it was a simple mistake. Understand?

Trying to deceive? That's really what you thought? You're correct this is annoying.

If all of this ticks you off then get over it, as there was no deliberate deceiving behind any of this!–Hogs555 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hue Sat  Lum  22:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Led Zeppelin DVD move
Racer,

Follow the instructions at: RM. Assume the move is uncontroversial when you list it and link the talk page discussion in the reason for move parameter. If it is indeed found to be uncontroversial by the admin who choses to deal with it, it will be moved. If for any reason the move is deemed controversial, it will have to go through the normal RM process. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mike, I ran this by the editors at the talk page. We'll see how it goes. For the record, I believe the normal RM process to be seriously flawed for reasons that were all too obvious last year at the Shishapangma page. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Consultation
Mr Racerx11 I had previously tried editing the Tilicho Peak article. You have dissapproved of all the data and re-instated the previous page. I respect that and understand that I am new to this wikipedia editing and I would like your guidance on this matter since I want to edit Tilicho Peak in order for it not to be a stub anymore. Could you possible point me in the right direction so even I could contribute something to the wikipedia. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by SujanTamrakar (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read Copyright violations. The problem is your edit was a blatant violation of this important policy. We cannot simply copy word-for-word text from the sources. Also, the images posted appeared to have originated from the same source, but you have claimed in the fair-use rational that they are your own work. Then for some reason, you filled the external links section with links to websites about Lhotse, a completelty different and unrelated peak. So that is why I reverted to the old version. There was hardly anything usable. It was either irrelevant or "copyvios". If you need help, I will be glad to work with you. -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Good to hear first hand that a former vandal has become a productive editor and that the smallest of actions can have profound effects...but of course it is you who is to be congratulated. No one was more instrumental in your "reform" than yourself. Bravo friend! -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  12:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Kuz'kina mat'"
"I will show you Kuz'kina mat'" means threat - "I will show you!!!" -"You will be sorry" - " I'll kick your butt" It has only one meaning -threat. Very common idiom in Russia (a little bit old-fashioned though), nothing mysterious about it. It doesn't mean " I will show you new thing". Reference: any russian know it :)

But if you think that you as English speaker know better, well, it is your article. It has a mistake in translation now. I will not try to change it again. It is up to you.

Jpimshteyn (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK my apologies, but it appears you may have got the wrong idea about one or two things. It wasn't because I think I, an English speaker, know any better and it is certainly NOT "my article". The short explanation is: I mistakenly interpretted your edit as pure vandalism.


 * For reference here is the diff, and as you can see the exact wording before your edit was:  '“We’ll show you Kuz'kina Mat!” in this usage meaning "something that has not been seen before"' . Now look at your changes. Note that, at a glance, they look strikingly like the blatant vandalism I see on Wikipedia every day. Specifically the wording "We’ll show you Kuz'kin's mother!...We'll kick your butt" to my eyes just looked like a kid goofing around. So I reverted and templated you. Sorry.


 * Now just a few minutes ago I did a very quick Google search and found this that states the phrase means "We Will Bury You", which sounds very familiar (I may have heard this before) and also is similar to what you are saying above, more or less. So I believe it is safe to assume some good faith here and believe what you are telling me. With that in mind, I will remove the vandalism template from your talk page and do my best to fix the "mistake in translation" within the article. Note that I will probably use "We will bury you" with the source I found, instead of "We'll kick your butt", just an fyi. On second thought, maybe "We'll show you" is best. I will try to find some more sources later.


 * It was all an honest mistake on my part and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * When making the change I noticed the statement was already sourced. I had somehow overlooked this. The source states:  'A major headache for translators, the famous Russian idiom equates roughly with the English “We’ll show you!”' . So I just changed the article so it states no more than that. Is this now acceptable? -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pico da Neblina
Re this edit: are you sure that the summit is within Brazil and not on the Venezuela border? If so, please can you give a citation. Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh...well technically "no" and "no", are the short answers to your questions. See article Pico da Neblina particularly the Common misconceptions section. As I recall, I probably just assumed this all to be accurate. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  18:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I cannot find any official citations, but I added the summitpost reference to Pico da Neblina which appears to be accurate. Viewfinder (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is also the Peakbagger page, and I have just added some better coordinates using Peakbagger as a source, just fyi. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These new coordinates show the peak to be entirely within Brazil using the first on the list, da Neblina ACME Mapper 2.0 after zooming in a bit. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ahh nevermind that last statement, these maps are have all kinds of errors, should have known better. I actually have to leave soon, will check into all of this when I have more time. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Peakbagger's coordinates are also unreliable, more than once they have misled hikers, on one occasion a group failed to summit an ultra in Morocco because of peakbagger coordinate misinformation. Peaklist coordinates are better. Re Neblina, SRTM data prove that peakbagger is about 30 seconds too far north but here peaklist's coordinates are also inaccurate. Comparison of this routemap with Google Earth and SRTM data suggests the correct coordinates are N 0:47:57 W 66:00:28, but that is my OR. Viewfinder (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Bronygarth
Actually, I saw what was happening on that page as i've been on that page before, as you can see, I only edited twice before as a joke, not the spree of last night that was done, I added that form of edit as a joke as well. Just check my history and you'll see how serious I am with my edit history, thank you.Corabal (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved
I moved it to Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal. Thanks so much for your help with this clown, and please enter what you find at this more official place from now on. Since 2007 this guy has been doing this: I think he qualifies for "long-term abuse", no? ;P Cheers, and thanks again! Doc  talk  07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks Doc! -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  11:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Though I would have prefered you actually moved it (preserving the edit history), as opposed to copy-pasting into a new page as it appears you have done. Is it too late to fix that? -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh - good question. Hadn't thought of that. Let me ask the admin who deleted the subpage... Doc   talk  11:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I see now the edit history has been restored. The admin (they do tend to come in handy at times) must have came through for us. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Aw, crap! I didn't even see this until just now... and good work! All are clearly the same vandal. We gotta figure out how to list them, especially as early ones: the only ones I don't like to list are ones from the 2010 Alvin spree, where so many IPs were used so furiously that it was mind-boggling. Again, good catch with this sockpuppet category! Cheers :> Doc   talk  06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I guess there was no SPI though. I have left a message at User talk:Avicennasis, the editor who created Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 58.187.64.7, just in case he has any info that may help. The other editor, who created the cat you linked, is no longer active. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Hey, let me show you this tool in case you've never seen it. Let's take the 58.187.64.XXX range, since only three IPs are listed in the suspected sock category. If you plug the range in like so, we can see a bunch of other ones (some are obviously him, and some are obviously not). Don't forget to check the bottom of the page for the next set. Plugging in the 58.187.42.XXX range, we get this, and so on. Let me know if you have any questions - it didn't take me long, with no range experience at all, to get the hang of it. A useful tool to have. Cheers :> Doc   talk  22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No I haven't seen that trick and thank you for sharing it! I will certainly give it a try:-) -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  02:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)