User talk:SnoFox/Archives/2010/December

Welcome
Hello, Snofox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! gz 33 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Manual warning
Hi there :) When you are warning people manually, with Uw-vandalism2 please remember to put subst: before the template so it should look like --~ . In this diff, you just put in  . Just try to remember to subst: templates in the future :) Keep up the good work! -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I apologize. While I've been lurking Wikipedia, I've only recently become interested in contributing, currently via AV work. Can you explain to me why we substitute the template instead of simply including it? Also, what are your recommendations for automatic warnings, or should I steer clear of those? Thanks. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no need to apologize ;) It's a minor detail. I'd suggest you look at Requests for permissions/Rollback and request rollback. Once you request rollback, you can revert manually, or use two semi-automated tools, Huggle and Igloo. I use Igloo myself, but I find Huggle easier to understand for newer semi-automated tool users. I actually don't know why we substitute the template instead of just using the actual template. I think that it might have to do with the users not thinking they've been "templated".

About recommending automated warnings, if you're looking to go up for adminship to further your vandal fighting by blocking users, you are expected to have knowledge in many other different areas such as WP:UAA, WP:AN/I, WP:3RR and WP:AFD to name a few. Using Huggle, Igloo or twinkle to do most of your edits won't get you far if you're looking to request the extra tools.

Just some suggestions, if you are any way confused just leave me a talkback notice or something of that sort on my talk page and a reply here. Hope I helped! -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. While I am not currently interested in adminship, I may become ambitious enough to try for it eventually. Currently, however, it only sounds like some responsibility I do not wish to have, but only time will tell. :) And thank you for the suggestions. Huggle looks nice, but it looks like I'd have to run it in Wine or under my Windows VM, so I might stick with manual warnings until I come up with another solution. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 02:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well guess what :P I did look! Ah - you use a Macintosh. I believe Igloo would work if you request permission for it. Have you requested Rollback? -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 02:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh hey. :P Actually, I'm a Linux user. But regardless: I have not requested Rollback yet. I'm thinking I should patrol with Twinkle and an IRC feed for a while, and don't feel I need Rollback since Twinkle has some rollback buttons already, which I guess is not connected to the user rights system? Heck, I'm not even auto-confirmed. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Linux.... is there Firefox for Linux? Twinkle is unrelated to the actual rollback button, the actual one is alot quicker. I'm positive you're autoconfirmed. Check your preferences? -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I am autoconfirmed. Meh, someone told me I wasn't and I took their word for it. Anyway, Firefox runs nativly on Linux, yes. :) If you're interested, here is a screenshot of my desktop, with Firefox and Irssi on a terminal. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 02:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Igloo works with Firefox. You'll have to have rollback and request access to Igloo as well. -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I'll do that soon, then. Thanks for the help, and a well-needed boost into what I'm trying to do. :) -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

SUL Proof of ownership
I, SnoFox, wish to change my username on meta (Snofox) to "SnoFox" to unify SUL. -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 05:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

re:rollback request
To gain more experience, try patroling new pages reviewing the contributions of new users, and commenting on Articles for deletion. Morgan Kevin J (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot related change on Naming conventions
Hi, I had reported a false-positive for ClueBot and you have reverted it at Naming convention (programming). Although the edit was of good intention, and not vandalism in my oppinion, I have taken a deeper look , and decided to delete the text that was originally added after all ( just as the ClueBot had suggested ). Main reason is that although the link to ECMAScript does in principle make sense, it does not contribute a thing to the Naming convention (programming) topic. Further, the JavaScript link that is prominently present on the line where the edit was done , has on that JavaScript page , also a very clear pointer to ECMAScript. My change is located here:. I inform you here, since you may want to consider what to do with the (yes? or no?) false positive now. Thanks and sorry. Ptrb (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ptrb. Thanks for the follow-up. The false positive has already been sent to ClueBot NG's review interface to see if other editors think it should have been bot-reverted or not. This simply means there is one more edit out of the thousands we are already attempting to classify. While I believe it is too late to retract it from ClueBot NG's review interface, it should not cause any harm -- The edit will be classified and used in the bot's training or skipped depending on what the reviewers think. Thanks again -- SnoFox(t&#124;c) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)