User talk:Vacation9/Archives/2013/January

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.

Hi! I'm drafting an article on a game studio called Toca Boca. Since you were so friendly, I was wondering if you could give me some pointers. Thanks!

User:Bananasoldier/Toca Boca

Bananasoldier (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll give it a look when I have some time. Vacation^nine 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See you there!

• Friday, Jan. 4th at 1700 UTC/11AM CST
• #wikimedia-office

--EpochFail^(talk|work) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for reminding me. Vacation^nine 22:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Vacation9. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
Message added 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I replied to you. :) --EpochFail^(talk|work) 20:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(blp material removed)

(talk page stalker) I have added a heading. Much of the above message is itself a BLP violation against the other user and should be redacted and oversighted, as have similar comments at the Help Desk and Talk:Brandi Hawbaker.--ukexpat (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Requesting oversight. Vacation^nine 03:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vacation9. Minor request here. It appears that when logging in to STiki you have entered your username with a leading space, i.e., " Vacation9". The MediaWiki API is letting you login like this, but STiki's database istreating this typed out version and the whitespace-less one (which you have also used on STiki) as two different user names. A fix for this will be included in the next version. In the meanwhile, can you remove this space when you login (its likely just being stored by the program at this point)? This is causing some leaderboard messiness where it appears you are a new account, and I am having to manually correct the database to map your work to the right person. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even notice that. I changed it to the whitespaceless one. Thanks! Vacation^nine 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for signing on with the project! Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi what I did that edit on User_talk:Sands32981 is that a other user name User_talk:Alameda15 blocked the user that should not be blocked. Carson30 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Um... what? Could you explain? Vacation9 03:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:AN and at the bottom at the page you see what happen? Carson30 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, believe you or not, but there is no such weapon as AK-47. And it's a shame that wiki has an article desrtibing AK as AK-47. AK-47 is a Hollywood tale. Ther is an AK, AKM, AKMS, AKMSU for 7.63x39. But no weapon ecer called AK-47. have good one.

Please provide references to reliable sources to back up your claim. It seems unlikely as it stands. Vacation9 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought warnings couldn't be removed for a set period of time. But I guess that applies to more severe warnings like blocks. Thanks for helping me understand! Ashermadan (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, users are allowed to since they're stored in the page history anyway. Only blocks, active sanctions, and shared IP notices should users be forced to keep. You're welcome though! Vacation9 23:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) haz givn u Lolcat! Lolcatz promot teh WikiLovez and hoapfully thiz one tuk away ur sadz. Spredd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Lolcat, or if tey hav one, give a cheezburgr for teh Lolcat 2 snak on!

Spredd teh goudnez of Lolcats to all cheezburgr buddiez by addin {{subst:Lolcat}} to their talk paj wit frendli messuj to all!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Google Search for Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Voice recognition

Google Takeout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blogger

Highlight (application) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Application

Trip Tern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Destination

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting that I fixed these. Vacation9 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God, I'm so sorry! Thank you so much for undoing that, I absolutely blew it. I appreciate your civility though, I deserved harsher. :) Cheers! And thanks. T.I.M^(Contact) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't fret, everybody makes mistakes. BTW, I fixed the double redirect on your User page by adding Template:Vandalism information instead of User:VoxelBot/Vandalism Information. VoxelBot is now editing the actual template page and that userspace page is simply a redirect now. Vacation9 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Technical Barnstar
		For fixing up the userboxes on my userpage within minutes, without being asked! It's a great example of collaboration._ T.I.M(Contact) 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you! It really means a lot! Vacation9 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I want to create an article for Gov 2.0 that does not redirect to e-government. Gov 2.0 takes e-government a step further by opening government data, utilizing social networking, and creating apps to improve citizen's daily lives, enable the government to be transparent, and improve the relationship between citizens and government. Is it possible for Gov 2.0 to have its own article? If so, how do I cancel the redirect?

Thanks, Cmharts

Yes, that is completely possible. Why I reverted your edit however is because you blanked the redirect. This sounds like a great page project, and all you need to do is edit the page replacing the redirect with your article. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Basically, canceling the redirect is the same as creating a new page, but you edit the redirect and replace the content with your new article. Happy editing! Vacation9 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm actually wanting the file you mention deleted as it should have been uploaded using my Wife's account and not mine since she it is hers. Please delete the file as it's not immediately obvious as to how to go about doing that other than just remove the license such as it automatically gets deleted (as is obvious we're complete new-commers to wiki)? Thanks Dsth (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• In fact, that's why I intended to undo this user's revert before someone else edited, because I knew you wanted it deleted by request. I put it up for deletion for that reason. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the user just needs to send in copyright permission from his wife to OTRS. No need for deletion. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I don't work with images much. Vacation9 22:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, the way to delete a file is not to blank the page, but to tag it for deletion under a copyright criteria of WP:CSD. However, in your case, did your wife take the photo, but you uploaded it with your account? If so, you can have your wife send an email to the wikipedia OTRS, who handles copyright permission along with other information. This proves that, even though it was uploaded with a different account, you have permission to upload/use it. Thank you! Vacation9 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So I just noticed that {{defcon}} is at 5, even though I've spent the last few hours cleaning up after 2 different LTAs. Would it be possible for VoxelBot to monitor protection logs for summaries like "Persistent vandalism" or "sockpuppetry" (etc) and block summaries like "vandalism-only account" "LTA" etc. I'm not sure how this would fit into the counting algorithm, since theoretically if protections and blocks are being made the amount of vandalism should reduce...yet for LTAs it can mean vandalism is even higher. Just an idea :) Legoktm (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's tied into Huggle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Vandalism_information/descriptions • Jesse V.^(talk) 07:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore, see VoxelBot and the BRFA. Legoktm (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Legoktm as always. While this is certainly a good idea, I can see some problems with this proposal:

• This would add another layer of complexity to the program and I believe another API call.
• Protections can, and do, occur a good time after the vandalism actually occured
• Getting protection data would be redundant since the vandalism has probably already been reverted, and thus counted by VoxelBot.

So like I said, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it's best for VoxelBot at the moment. Vacation9 12:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Last I checked log events are also included in Special:RecentChanges. Is the same not true for the API? It should be possible to get everything in one call.
• That's a good point, but only applies to protection. What about blocking? Especially for certain summaries like "LTA" or "abuse"? Legoktm (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the redundancy issue applies to blocks as well. If a user is blocked with a summary after that, it may be quite a while after they actually did something and it's not a DIRECT sign of vandalism. Vacation9 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that certain block summaries should be counted over others. It makes no sense if you add in a block for "incivility", but if you add one in for matching "4chan" or "Long-term abuse', it does imply more vandalism. The difference with LTA vandals is that they will continue to attack with multiple accounts/IPs/etc, until they decide to stop for the day, which is why inflating the count to indicate a higher level of vandalism makes sense. Legoktm (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembebr however that our goal is to provide a real time idea of vandalism. If it is long term abuse, it might take a while to go through the Sock Puppet Investigation, get the Checkuser done, etc. It just wouldn't be real time like we want the count to be. If the bot is counting blocks from vandalism that was three or four hours ago, it wouldn't really make sense. Vacation9 12:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Legoktm and I talked on IRC and decided to implement checks only in cases of long term abuse checks, since they are pretty instant and are counted as vandalism. Vacation9 12:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're sick :( It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm just happy I'm not down with the flu. Vacation9 12:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice that I email revdel requests re the ref desk speculation. But my understanding is that if you email oversight they can see your email address, which is problematic since I was stalked before and don't want any connection between my wikipedia and real lives. (And I don't want to set up a dummy email for wikipedia that I will never remember to check or the password for.) Am I mistaken in that impression? If I am not mistaken they can see my email address, is there an alternative? There are warnings that the use of IRC is also not fully anonymous either. Forgive my paranoia. I'll watch here for your answer, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 January 2013

First of all, I think you are confusing revdel and oversight. RevDel hides a revision from non-admins and Oversight hides revisions from non-oversighters. RevDel usually not extremely sensitive so it is generally accepted that you can publicly request RevDel, although it's not recommended. Oversight is usually extremely sensitive however and should never be discussed in public. But to address the main issue, first of all remember that Oversighters are over the age of 18 and extremely trustworthy. They have been elected by the community in public elections. They will never reveal your email address or stalk you. If you want though, you can always create an alternate email account for Wikipedia as many do. If you would like to use IRC, there are some security issues. I am familiar with your paranoia; I use a cloaked IP and a Tor connection to IRC and have around 150 passwords for various sites. Freenode allows the use of Tor but you have to have a NickServ account and identify via SASL because of past Tor abuse. You can also request cloaking of your IP with your Wikipedia username. TL;DR You are required to use Email or IRC for Oversight (but not necessarily RevDel) with no exceptions, and there are ways to do this safely. Vacation9 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that raises even more questions, but just one and a follow-up that you can help me with. Should this have been a revdel (as I suspect) or an oversight? (I basically didn't think the matter should be available to public users doing searches.) And if revdel was okay, what would be the best way to make the next such request if I absolutely do not want to use email and am unfamiliar with IRC at and confused by how to use it securely? If it comes down to just bothering admins, that may be the best way, since I have only done this a handful of times over a few years. Thanks, again. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you can see in the deletion log the edit/summary was only RevDel'd. This didn't really qualify as libel. It was disruptive or offensive however so it was RevDel'd per WP:RD2. In the future, you can request RevDel in the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel (on Freenode). There only ops can see your posts and only admins are OPs. RevDel is extremely quick there. For Oversight, you can just say "!oversight" in either #wikipedia-en or #wikipedia-en-help. If any are online, an Oversighter will be pinged and should help you with your request (in a private message, don't give the diff in the public channel). If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. I might also suggest changing your signature a bit so that people know who posted the content. If you would like to use a nickname, you can, but people should be able to see your real username somewhere in your sig per WP:NLS. Vacation9 02:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I understand what you've explained and will link to the diff here on my user page for future reference. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! Glad to help out! Vacation9 03:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your warning message for my edit in the Calicut page. I agree that I may done the mistake of not citing the source but the information was very much factual. The official name of the Calicut city is infact Kozhikode. I hope this counts as a source, The quick dumping of ‘Calicut’. To quote the article,

"A 63-year-old order issued by the Government of Madras confirms that the ‘Municipality of Calicut’ shall henceforward be called the ‘Municipality of Kozhikode’. The government order number 150, dated January 27, 1949, shows there was minimal objection from the public to the name change".

Please advise me how to make this significant change. 58.68.91.114 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to ask somebody else, as I have to go right now. A user moved the page to Calicut so you may want to contact them. Vacation9 13:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was in no way ready for the big time. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• An article doesn't exactly have to be perfect to be created. They showed it was notable and it had quite a bit of content. The user could improve it later on. You do have a point, but I had to go, and they were continually contacting me and I thought it deserved the accept. Vacation9 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked at it yesterday and edited it some; it may well be notable, but they managed to stuff it full of unencyclopedic stuff again. I don't really want to tell you what to do, but you don't have to feel obligated to accept something if it's not yet ready. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright then. I don't think it was stuffed full of unencyclopedic stuff, just a few spam links here and there. Thanks for cleaning it up though, I don't have the time right now. Vacation9 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spotify, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tomahawk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all your amazing efforts helping me with that big amazing task :D — ΛΧΣ21 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Vacation9/Archives/2013 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I really appreciate your comments and your support. I'm curious, how did you see my application? • Jesse V.^(talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I watch various editors' talk pages. I happened to see it on postdlf Okeyes' talk page. Vacation9 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Oops, I meant Okeyes. Correcting. Vacation9 01:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi ho,

thanks a lot for substing all the ş → ș, but there are several mistakes already. Romanian, Moldavian and Gagauz are the only languages that use ș instead of ş. Turkish, Azerbaidjan and some others use te ş correctly.
For example, [1], [2] and [3] were not good ideas. I really meant literally only the articles in Romanian geography categories!!

Better stop and re-think this job! --JøMa (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that after I started. My first method was simply searching for the "incorrect" letters and replacing them after review by me. I then realized that the letter was incorrect only in cases like you mentioned. I reverted quite a few of the edits but must have missed the ones you mentioned. AWB has been getting a list of the pages in the proper categories (which takes a while because it needs to recurse). Sorry about that. Vacation9 16:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vacation9. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
Message added 17:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.