Misplaced Pages

User talk:Raeky: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:27, 29 July 2011 editRaeky (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,784 edits →WP:NOTVAND← Previous edit Revision as of 14:03, 29 July 2011 edit undoAoidh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators58,130 edits →WP:NOTVAND: ReNext edit →
Line 83: Line 83:
::::::::::I didn't say you used the rollback function, nor did I suggest they are the same thing. What I ''did'' suggest, is that rollback users are expected to understand which edits are and which edits are not considered vandalism. Again, I '''strongly''' implore you to read ] so that this misunderstanding does not occur again. Thank you. - ]] 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::I didn't say you used the rollback function, nor did I suggest they are the same thing. What I ''did'' suggest, is that rollback users are expected to understand which edits are and which edits are not considered vandalism. Again, I '''strongly''' implore you to read ] so that this misunderstanding does not occur again. Thank you. - ]] 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
:{{od}} Quite frankly for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally, , quite possibly isn't the absolute correct procedure, but after-all not everything has to be followed to the letter (]). When dealing with articles that have a HUGE amount of POV and disruptive editing, like this one in particular, providing lengthy or precise reversal reasons isn't always time-efficient. And TBH, these POV edits are vandalism in my book, even if it doesn't follow ] to the letter. You should also read ]. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) :{{od}} Quite frankly for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally, , quite possibly isn't the absolute correct procedure, but after-all not everything has to be followed to the letter (]). When dealing with articles that have a HUGE amount of POV and disruptive editing, like this one in particular, providing lengthy or precise reversal reasons isn't always time-efficient. And TBH, these POV edits are vandalism in my book, even if it doesn't follow ] to the letter. You should also read ]. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
::] doesn't apply when your actions ] good-faith editors, and refraining from incorrectly calling edits vandalism neither improves nor maintains Misplaced Pages. THAT is common sense. Period. There's another button right next to the vandal one that doesn't have this issue, so time-efficiency is no excuse. I trust this will not be an issue in the future. - ]] 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


== Mushroom Observer Uploader offline == == Mushroom Observer Uploader offline ==

Revision as of 14:03, 29 July 2011

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
This is Raeky's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
edit count | edit summary usage

Template:Archive box collapsible

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit (see also link fixing) of User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For

Hi, since you requested that a note be left on your user talk page regarding all edits to your user subpages, I just wanted to drop a note letting you know that I edited the "See also" section of User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For, or more specifically User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For/doc, to link directly (rather than through a redirect) to the {{User admin since}}, {{User admin somewhere since}}, and {{User bureaucrat since}} templates after they were moved from User:EVula's userspace to the main template namespace following a discussion on User talk:EVula. —Lowellian (reply) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. ;-) — raekyt 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FP nomination of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

Hi Raeky. I just wanted to inform you that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is up for Featured picture again. The nomination can be found here. I am informing you as you have previously participated in a Featured Picture review of this image, here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at Creation–evolution controversy, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages guidelines. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. - SudoGhost 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely your mistaken, it's a standard vandalism edit on that page, that coutnless IP's and new accounts try to do. I'm confused by your comment above! — raekyt 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTVAND, and take care not to label such edits vandalism in the future. Good-faith removal of what, on first examination, appears to be an NPOV violation on the article is not vandalism, and never will be. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just because you made the same edit previously doesn't make it not vandalism. Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times. — raekyt 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Using an edit summary is not required, and editors are not required to read through talk page archives to learn if any consensus has been made for any particular section. They are also not required to sift through hundreds of diffs on the article's history to see if the edit is "approved". Essentially vandalism by the English definition of the word is not the same as Misplaced Pages's definition and usage. Editing against consensus is not vandalism. Just because you don't like the edit doesn't make it vandalism. Just because the editor isn't aware of a particular consensus on a subject and didn't use an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism. Even if they're dead wrong with the edit, it doesn't make it vandalism. Even if intentionally disruptive (which it was not), such an edit is not vandalism. Take care to remember this and to avoid any confusion in the future. Again, read WP:NOTVAND. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You can disagree, but I stand behind my assertion that they was vandal edits. — raekyt 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not by Misplaced Pages's definition. Continued labeling of non-vandal edits as vandalism is disruptive and can lead to blocks. - SudoGhost 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I challenge you to see if any of the other regular editors of that article would consider those vandal edits? — raekyt 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
What other editors believe does not concern me. Vandalism is very specifically spelled out at WP:VAND. That edit did not meet that criteria. Therefore, there is no vandalism. It is no more complicated than that. I don't care that you reverted the edit, what concerns me is that you used an inappropriate label for that edit, when that edit is specifically spelled out at WP:NOTVAND to be not vandalism. That a user with rollback rights does not understand what is and is not vandalism is troubling. Take more care in the future, and be more conservative with your use of the "Rollback (Vandal)" button. There's another button next to it, "Rollback" that works just as well, and doesn't attack the edits of other editors in situations that does not call for it. - SudoGhost 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I obviously didn't use the rollback function, I used TW's functions to do the reversal... they're not the same thing. — raekyt 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say you used the rollback function, nor did I suggest they are the same thing. What I did suggest, is that rollback users are expected to understand which edits are and which edits are not considered vandalism. Again, I strongly implore you to read WP:NOTVAND so that this misunderstanding does not occur again. Thank you. - SudoGhost 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally, , quite possibly isn't the absolute correct procedure, but after-all not everything has to be followed to the letter (WP:IAR). When dealing with articles that have a HUGE amount of POV and disruptive editing, like this one in particular, providing lengthy or precise reversal reasons isn't always time-efficient. And TBH, these POV edits are vandalism in my book, even if it doesn't follow WP:VAND to the letter. You should also read WP:UCS. — raekyt 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:IAR doesn't apply when your actions bite good-faith editors, and refraining from incorrectly calling edits vandalism neither improves nor maintains Misplaced Pages. THAT is common sense. Period. There's another button right next to the vandal one that doesn't have this issue, so time-efficiency is no excuse. I trust this will not be an issue in the future. - SudoGhost 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mushroom Observer Uploader offline

Yesterday I want to use your great Mushroom Observer Uploader but if I opened the URL only a site with the message "Site Suspended - This site has stepped out for a bit" appears. Could you fix the problem or give me an alternative URL to a working version of your tool? --Ak ccm (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Raeky: Difference between revisions Add topic