User talk:Racerx11/Archive 4

Rock paper scissors lizard spock - references ?
Hello, here is sample of very simple php implementation of game (human against computer) rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock.goodplace.eu. It is my page. If that is worthy for mentioning in Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock i would by gratefull. Thanks. F.R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.164.6 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

REO edits
It looks like I missed some of the vandalism to various REO Speedwagon related pages. Thanks for catching that! mwalimu59 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. See Long-term abuse/Hanoi Vandal if you are interested in further info on the guy Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Himalaya (S)
Thanks. Sorry about the screw up. I understand the need for consensus, but "Himalayas" is not a real word. It bothers me because if this was a word from any other language people would be up in arms. There are times you need discussion and there are times you don't. But I won't be editing it in anyway. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxndrdegrt (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572506801 your edit] to Rampisham Down may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * //www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/images/uploaded_files/Rampisham_Down_2000803.pdf Infobox mountain

re: Hanoi vandal
Hi - well... all-righty then. I have a habit of reverting all edits of banned/LTA folks regardless, and I must confess I know plenty about the Eagles but not so much about some of the other stuff. (A "radio edit" of "Hotel California"? Is he out of his ever-lovin' mind? When I was 12, I listened to all eight minutes of that song 45 times a day. Weren't no "radio edit".)

So I'll leave him to you. But there was no radio edit of "Hotel California". I don't care what anyone under age 40 has to say. :-D  K rakatoa    K atie   04:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, yes. That one of his was nonsense. That Eagles edit was a very recent one that I didn't see before you blocked him. I go through phases were I just blanket revert all his edits and then other times where I leave it be if it looks like it might be OK. Well done. Have a good day. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverts!
Thanks for reverting wipes on my user page :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Green Spring Valley
Hi -- you're quick. I was trying to remove a photo, which is a private residence whose owner does not want on Wikipedia, and I ended up doing something weird in the coding. So I tried again and it turned out just fine. I am not sure which of my changes you undid, but if you are putting the photo back, I ask that you refrain. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.167.69 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Replied at your talk page. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Look to windward
I'm going to suggest removing that analysis section again. My reason is the section will never be refd as it is clearly some editor's own mini essay. Unrefd serves as a sign to improve an article by adding refs, but original research can never be so refd.--Mongreilf (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem not to be around so I BBd and just did it.--Mongreilf (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That was an accidental revert and I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject matter. You are right about original research though and if you feel it really is OR (and it appears it likely is) and that it is best to remove it, I personally do not object. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why did you change Atreyu's album titles?
Prepositions are always capitalized in titles. Look at any title of anything. Also, look at the official capitalization on Atreyu's website, or iTunes, or any store that cells the CD. That's how Atreyu themselves released it. Prepositions are always capitalized in titles - fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdjd021 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read this? MOS:CT -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that I have actually done a bit more research, I see that there are conflicting views with different styles. However, Atreyu DID release it with a capital 'O'. So technically, that would be correct. But whatever, do what you want, I won't change it. Jdjd021 (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I haven't checked many sources but allmusic leaves it uncapped . I will leave your other changes stand for now and see what other editors do first. Eventually I may revert all those changes or yours and change "A Death Grip On Yesterday" back to "A Death Grip on Yesterday" -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  23:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Jdjd021 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

50.122.87.219
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind reverts like this, this, this, this, and this. None of those edits appear to be vandalism, and certainly don't seem to merit the use of rollback. Please take care in the future to use edit summaries and explain why you're reverting (unless in cases of obvious vandalism). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Jackmcbarn. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the IP's edit summaries were poor, his edits seemed constructive to me. I don't know a lot about the computer systems he was writing about, but the changes seemed reasonable at a glance. So I don't think reverting all of them was the right course of action here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be hard on you here, I really appreciate that you're doing anti-vandal work. Just some constructive criticism. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark. Feel free to revert my edits (if you haven't already) if you feel the changes themselves are ok. I would rather someone to do it that way than to simply let edits stand as is with those edit summaries.


 * To say his edit summaries "were poor" is an incredible understatement. The edit summaries were declaring the edits to be vandalism! I can not fathom letting those stand unless the are clearly not only good-faith, but also clearly constructive, useful and encyclopedic. In other words, if an editor adds a summary that announces he is vandalizing a page, the edits should be assumed to be bad-faith unless clearly, with no doubt, prove to be otherwise. Just my opinion btw.


 * Point taken on making better use of edit summaries on my part. At the time thought (and to be honest I still think) I was simply dealing with a troll. Note: It was AFTER I had restored his edits, removed the warning templates and sincerely apologized, that the trolling behavior stepped up a notch -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  02:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And the excuse the IP used about trying to "defuse the situation", that was bullshit. What situation needed defusing? He had just received this edit and this apology from myself when he then began adding those stupid edit summaries. I thought it was over. He re-escalated the whole thing. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  03:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does seem like he was trying to bait you--recent change patrol is a thankless task, for sure! Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking about staying away from it for a while. I would still like to make everything right with this. I think I will revert my latest reverts and restore the IP's content. If you think that's a good idea, I will soon take care of that. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  03:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ed Viesturs
Hi, I saw your query about whether ol' Ed was born in June or July. The article said July when I started revamping it back in May & I assumed it was correct even though it wasn't sourced because who screws up birth dates? Well, I guess someone did. I looked & several sources say June, so I changed it & sourced it. Nice catch. ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Grand Bonhomme
Hi Racerx11 - I've responded at Talk:Grand Bonhomme, but to cut a long story short it looks like the Peakery height may be incorrect - it's certainly in the minority of web sources for the height. Grutness...wha?  06:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more at the talk page. There seems to be some real confusion about this one. Grutness...wha?  01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User: 203.122.223.123
Hello Racerx11, we appear to be having a problem with the above IP editor, who keeps reverting our edits with their trivia and poor spelling. I have reported this to MaterialScientist, who previously banned this person - another note to this admin., may not come amiss? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "Appearance in media" and "In popular culture" sections are lightening rods for this kind of stuff and it can be difficult to keep those sections trimmed and free of puffery and fan cruft. In this edit he added a popular culture section where there was none. I have also replied at MS's talk page btw. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  13:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Peakbagger_ref_template
RedWolf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Making your talk page more user friendly
I notice that your talk page is getting quite long. If you wish to have your talk page auto-archived (like mine), you can put the following at the top of this page:

Hope this helps! —hike395 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will do that. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

California Fourteeners Template seems incorrect
The list of less-prominent peaks seems incomplete/wrong: see Richins' web page for a complete list? I would recommend just leaving the minor peaks off the template. —hike395 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I used the table at List of California fourteeners as a guide. Note that Thunderbolt Peak is placed in the lesser prominent table, where as the source you provided seems to list it as full-fledged fourteener. I can remove the lesser prominent peaks, but how should I handle Thunderbolt? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I did some web searching: seems like half the fourteeners lists include Thunderbolt, and half do not. :-( What would you think is the definitive source? —hike395 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh, I was hoping you were going to tell me:) I would have to do more research myself to give you an answer and it's getting late here. I will look into it more tomorrow. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  04:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, did a little more research and here is how I see it. The list of major fourteeners here at List of California fourteeners seems to be consistent with the sources if one assumes a prominence cutoff of 300 ft. The problem is there is no lower cutoff for listing the less-than-300 ft prominent peaks. (For example, is a 10 ft rise near a summit ever worth mentioning?) I suspect the source you linked set the bar pretty low on the prominence cutoff which would explain the greater number of peaks listed. But it doesn't give the prominence for any of the peaks at all, so we can't even guess what their cutoff is.


 * The problem with any list like this is no matter how many peaks you list, it will always be "incomplete" as long as you are willing to reduce the prominence cutoff a little more. So your idea of simply leaving out the less-than-300 ft prominent peaks seams like the best solution.


 * But...there is still the problem of Thunderbolt Peak. As I look through the sources, I see that the majority of the sources actually do consider Thunderbolt as a fully qualified fourteerner. One could rationalize this by assuming a prominence cutoff of greater than 200 ft (if it were 200 or greater than they would also list Polemonium Peak with a prom of 200'-even per most sources, and most if not all do not include Polemonium).


 * Because most of the sources consider Thunderbolt a proper 14er, including the source you gave which you seem to feel is very reliable, and the fact that currently Thunderbolt Peak is the only peak of those in question that has its own dedicated article, I feel Thunderbolt should definitely be included in the navigation template. Does that argument make sense to you?


 * Now for the other loose ends:


 * Should we leave List of California fourteeners as is in light of this? or tweak it some? or revamp it entirely?


 * On the template itself, should we have Thunderbolt Peak displayed in small text as I did before to indicate lesser status by some sources?


 * On the template for the Colorado Fourteeners, do you have the same feelings about the lesser prominent peaks in Colorado? Are there similar problems there as well?


 * Let me know what you think about all this and hopefully we can take of the fix(s) soon. Thanks

-- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One website that the Mountains Wikiproject relies on is Peakbagger. Their California fourteener page uses 300' of clean prominence and lists only 11 fourteeners, excluding Mount Muir and Thunderbolt Peak (click on Prom-Ft to sort by prominence). Here's my suggestion: put those 11 fourteeners into bold the template at normal font size, put Mount Muir and Thunderbolt Peak in smaller font, and leave the rest out of the template. As for the list article, I would recommend having it match the Peakbagger list, and cite to Peakbagger.


 * I think that the Colorado fourteener list/template can be handled similarly: the Peakbagger fourteener page is here; except the cutoff seems to be 280' for some reason, yielding 53 fourteeners. Looks like there are 6 more "fourteeners" if the cutoff is at 200'.


 * Does that sound good to you? —hike395 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine with me except those changes to the list articles might not go over to well with other editors. Idk, maybe it will be fine. Should we link this conversation at the talk page and perhaps seek a consensus first? Or just be Bold and do it. If it's bold you like, how about I make the changes to the templates and you take the bigger and higher profile job of the list articles? :-) -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean bold in the last comment. But, I am happy to be bold and modify the list articles. It's part of natural editing. —hike395 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I understood. I'm clear on your suggestion. That's great. I will make the template changes later this evening. Thanks for working with me on this. Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok Hike395, I made the changes to the templates so you're up next. Note that I have left the peaks ordered by their elevations, except of course the lesser prominent peaks we have separated; although those are ordered among themselves also by elevation. I assume you will keep the similar default sort by elevation with the lists? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Condolences
I had answered the queries. JamesBWatson shall answer, whenever he's on. You are an experienced editor. In near future, I don't think I will ever see you edit warring, because you have better ways of handling the issues. You are actually aware about the different definitions of edit warring.

I've checked the contributions of, I would like to say that he should get well soon. He should forget the things that happened, he will surely have his answers once the admin is back to WP. Viewfinder is not even topic banned, he can edit every single page. I am only saying this because he seemed useful contributor. Thanks  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. My concern at this point is the larger issue of how this rule is handled and enforced in general. I feel now that my posts should have been driven more so by this concern, over what I see as a flawed policy, rather than by my frustration over User:JamesBWatson's actions. Thanks for your time and understanding. -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  22:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Zugspitze
Hi Racerx11, It's really not worth it - I prefer to add new mountain articles than argue over a single word on an existing one. You've left the rest my edits on Zugspitze in place, so that's got to be an affirmation! Actually I was hoping one day to turn Zugspitze into a featured article. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK that's cool. A little background on my involvement of that page. I converted the infobox a couple years ago. It was still in German form I believe, with the parameters and some field values still in German in edit mode, but displayed in English in read mode. This was a result of an earlier edit which brought the infobox in from German Wikipedia I assume. When I converted the infobox I thought about removing the key col and isolation information then, but I left it in, because at the time I was more concerned about preserving as much as the original information as possible. My most recent changes was part of a general effort of mine to clean up the mountain infoboxes of Wikipedia, at least those of the world's ultra prominent peaks. So deleted that information then. If you like the data to stay, I can live with that, but I should mention that for some reason the Fern Pass and Parseierspitze key col information is longer visible on my browser in read mode. There is just a dash (-). I might suggest reverting back to the version before my latest changes if you don't know what happened there or can't fix it. thank you. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just included the use of the isolation parameter to give it a better look. Removed the stray dash and noted in the edit summary that key col info does not display, just an fyi. Also I guess there is no parameter for key col. I tried 'key_col =' and 'saddle =' and both failed to execute. All in all the infobox still looks better now that it did a moment ago, don't you think?  -- Racer X11  Talk to me Stalk me  02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement - I like it! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. Sorry I removed that info earlier, I was under the the mistaken assumption that the page was one of the very rare few that displayed isolation and key col data in their infoboxes. I have since learned there are many more than I had expected.
 * One question: I know "↓ Fern Pass" indicates key col/saddle, but what exactly does "→ Parseierspitze" refer to? As explained, this data is currently undisplayed. Would you like me to edit the syntax so it is visible in read mode? -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

PA from other user
You know that you are encouraged to warn against the personal attacks? I have done that for you. But you should do as well.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 00:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I had to re-read that comment just now to see if was indeed worthy of a 4im. Sure enough, I guess I skipped over the word "idiot" when I first read it, and it appears to have been directed towards me. I was thinking the guy was just blowing steam. Thanks for taking care of that and point taken about warning against PAs.


 * For the record and for clarification for anyone else, this was the comment posted on my talk page, which was in response to this revert at Kangchenjunga. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He had talk:OccultZone#Personal attack.3F discussed about the warning, hope he's fine now.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
De728631 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Gintov
Sorry that it took me so long to block the vandal; I hadn't realised how many times you'd rolled the IP back. (I'm only just getting used to Huggle and how to see the user editing history properly!) --Tristessa (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Understand. Thanks for leaving the note!:-) -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rugby Club Stade Viennois
Hello Racerx11 im the new Manager of the former "Rugby Club Stade Viennois" which is now called "Stade Rugby Club Wien". after a long absence in the internet now im changing and updating all of our pages here. i want to remove the old wikipedia artikel to write a complete new one. as u realised i put some new fotos in it yesterday before deciding to remove and write a complete new page instead of this unprofessionally written site. our wensite is getting updated too so i wanted to do it all fast. i couldnt find out how to remove the page on wikipedia... can u help me out please? kind regards


 * What you are trying to do should be done carefully by even the most experienced of Wikipedia editors and NOT done in haste. If the name has changed then you need to "move" the article to the new namespace. See WP:RM. It also appears a file you uploaded was deleted due to copyright violations. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Additionally the link WP:Your first article might be helpful.


 * Most importantly you should consider NOT rewriting the article at all if you are who you say! WP:AUTOBIO applies here. Editors who are closely associated with the subject are encouraged to be extremely careful when editing those articles. Small changes done a little at a time would work best. Fix the things that you feel are the most important or are the most glaring errors. I would NOT recommend rewriting an entire article about an organization you own, manage, etc.


 * I have removed a bunch of stuff from the article that appeared to be old vandalism. You are welcome to add back anything I removed that should have stayed. I am going back to the article now to see if I can improve on what is there now. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

thnx a lot :) i will find someone who has the know-how to write in Wikipedia for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C 74 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Hi, I seem to be in danger of getting into another edit war. It is quite important because my edit de-orphans an article which my adversary wants to remain orphaned because (s)he does not think it should be there. Any advice? Viewfinder (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there no other page that it can be linked from? I am rarely involved in deletion process, but it seems to me a link from the year of birth would hardly make a difference one way or another whether an article is deleted. Or would it? Regardless, what I know now about edit wars, I would just let it go for a while at the 1998 article. If there is another editor who wants the article to stay, then they may come in and add the link there. In the mean time you could try to link it elsewhere, if you haven't tried already. Hope I've been of some help. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is Jacob Barnett, which was rejected for deletion but its opponents are contesting the rejection at WP:DRV. I will leave 1998 for now. Viewfinder (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fazlur Khan
The statement isn't untrue, but a couple of editors have pointed out that it's inappropriate to pick the aspect of the building invented by your favourite engineer and add "invented by my favourite engineer!". The article would be a mess if we listed the inventor of every technology in the article, and the user has offered no solid reason for singling this one out, instead choosing to edit-war it with vague "just adding this information" edit summaries while evading their block. WP:EVASION says that "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", but I wouldn't say this was even ambiguous. --McGeddon (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I have reverted user:2pacshakurr's latest edit to the page. Thanks for the explanation. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  19:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)