User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2012/December

Spiffy!

Spiff, I think you're great, and Wikipedia is better off with you. I hope you don't leave for good but, if you do, you have my best wishes. Auf wiedersehen, Drmies (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

+ 1. And I'm going to need some help with translations in the next few weeks: the Vellalar mess is about to erupt once more. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

• News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner

• Featured content: The play's the thing

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables

• Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability

• WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

• News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell

• Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Coding thing....

I guess you havent really got what high expectations i have posted there. The discussion started with the issue of how some articles go unnoticed for ages. Hence the need to monitor all articles under the project and not just our watchlists. Secondly it went to the point of identifying what version is exactly best. If i come across some article that looks completely mess, it would take huge time for me to go in history and search for the best version to revert. If there is such version flagged, there is no point in me wasting my time and cleaning line by line again. Simple restore would work. (I have had to restore my versions many times on TV articles. But now i dont bother doing that either.) On treaded articles i would know what to revert to, but then everyone wouldn't be able to identify that. Hence there should be some way to identify a good version easily by all.
So are you now back to en wiki in full swing? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Flagged revisions isn't going to be a reality for a long time, so in the meantime, what I think you could do is the following, I used to do a variation of this before when I was more active:

• Have popups enabled.
• Choose small enough categories and go to them (or you'll have to go to individual pages on the cats)
• Select "Related changes"
• If for e.g. Vidya Balan is on that cat, then you may have about 10 edits to it on the page based on your time setting.
• However around the diff for all the IP/new editor edits on VB and check if any of the newer edits are reverts of those, if not, do a deep revert.
• With the above, there's a way you can bold edits that have happened after your last visit to the page etc. I'm sure there must be more customizing options.

Another alternative is to do an "edit filter dump" where you can get someone to write an edit filter to spit out the diff outputs on to a certain page for you to see, this IMO requires all sorts of discussion and approvals I think and is also a drain on the servers so may not be feasible, but I have no clue on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm! I know that this flagged version wont be a reality like ever. Lets try this in mean time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey pal

It's really nice seeing you around again, even if it's just for a little bit. Take it easy, and have a great Christmas and a happy new year. Remember the reason for the season: Gluhwein and roasted beasts. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks doc, wish you and yours the same too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi sir, some IP adresses username are vandlising the Priyanka Chopra article. They are changing the infobox from person to artist and that too with wrong infobox. Please, Semi-protect the page. That would be more helpful. Thanks.Pks1142 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with these infobox intricacies to make a judgment. Besides, it's only two changes. —SpacemanSpiff 10:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You edits to the 2012 Delhi Rape Case

Hello,

There are two things about your edits there concern me. The first is the statement about Mukesh, one of the prime perpetrators. As you probably know, I added the lines "and was forced to consume human excreta and urine" twice to the article, each time adding a different source. Both of the times, they were removed by you.

• The first source stated that "the spokesperson denied that this happened, but sources claim he was assaulted"

I agree this source is not clear enough on whether the sources claim he was merely assaulted or whether he was forced to consume it, and the spokesperson simply denied it.

• The second source is more implicit and direct in its wording - It directly states that this was done.

Because of this, I am adding the statement back to the article, with another line clarifying it had been disputed by the spokesperson.

The other thing which I find more concerning on your side is your continued removal of content. I understand your good faith behind those reversions, being your concerns for policy. But as long as the policy being::: broken is not severe (like BLP), there is no need for absolute reversions. The topic of the article is contentious but at the same time, is recent. Which attracts a large number of new editors, who find there is something they can edit. Rather than reverting all the edits and drriving them away, it shall be much more prudent to remove only the major issues, and let others (like copyvio; which can be rectified by copyedits) remain so that we can welcome these new editors as well as create a better article. If the article is to be good, it needs contributions from everywhere. Why have the article in relative shape for some time, when you can have it in good shape for a longer time? For these reasons, I request you not to revert every edit which makes the article in worse shape, but only the ones with serious BLP or equiavalent issues. A policy of minimal interference works best for newer editors.

Thanks and cheers! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be quite clear, you addition of eating shit is a BLP violation as it has been explicitly denied in the source you have added. Next, I will not sit idly by if there are any copyvios and I will block anyone who indulges in BLP or copyvios. If anyone can not edit according to policy after being alerted and warned about it, then a block is there to prevent further damage. So, please quit the patronizing. —SpacemanSpiff 11:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First, Calm down.

How is adding that a BLP violation? I showed you what is written in the source. The source corroborated what I added to the article. Also, Wikipedia is not censored.

If someone if adding any copyvios, that does not mean you directly warn them of being blocked. There was a way more polite way of saying it. And since a lot of what is being added are news, they are bound to look similar to whats already there. At the most, we can change them a bit here and there; but that does not justify removal of all the things you dont like. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear, you need to get off your high horse. If you write that a living person was forced to eat shit when the source you cited clearly contradicts it, it is a BLP vio. If anyone adds a copyvio, I will remove and warn. If the behavior persists, I will block. If you don't like the way our policy works, go work to change it, plain and simple. And stop with the malarkey of removing things I don't like, you have no clue as to what I like or don't like, read up on policy. —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Read both the sources again. See what is written there. Especially the second one. It clearly indicates that thats what happened.

Once again, copyvio in an article like this is a lot more questionable than any other article. Since most sources are news agencies, many of the words here will be similar to the agencies themselves. These kind of copyvios can be edited. They need not be removed completely.

The behavior shall persist only as long as you dont explain to them properly why what they added was copyvio. Just a automated warning is not enough to do that in the case of the newer editors. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not use the second source, that was a BLP vio. The second time around, you did not include the other bit about the denial which was in the source, that is a BLP vio. You are free to do what you want, I will remove copyvios the instant I see them and warn the editors with the appropriate warning, if they don't respond and continue to add back in I will block, quite simple. There's no reason to continue this chit chat as there's nothing productive in it. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm... What? What does the line mean? "You did not use the second source." I wrote what I read, and then added the sources. The second source completely agrees with what I wrote. And which "other bit" about the denial did I not include in the source?

Alright. But just to be sure you read it, Please Don't bite the newbies TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting absolutely nowhere, either you're unable to see what I removed or unable to understand it. The second source was not used, the only source explicitly stated that this did not happen. And you can't cherry pick sources to indulge in BLP vios either. I have no intention of biting, but you need to quit this sanctimonious prattle. —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the second source was not used? The information was posted, and the source was placed next to it. How else does one use a source?

The source you are talking of does not state that this did not happen.It simply states that the "spokesperson denied that it happened", not whether or not this actually happened. The second source, on the other hand, states that this actually happened. I dont see how this could be a copyvio.

Your intentions may not be to bite, but your actions certainly have been so, especially for everyone else who has been adding information to the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and wish you the same! —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK for reverts

Thank you - I realise now, your reverts are correct. I followed suit and reverted one more sensational comment by another politician in rape article. I fully agree that we should avoid much sensationalisation (mainly originated by news agencies) in these type of articles. Rayabhari (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, wish you and your the same too! —SpacemanSpiff 15:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock?

Following up on an IP that called Sitush and AnomieBOT and Kansas Bear meatpuppets, found this edit. The use of this image as a source is very familiar but I'm not sure who was misusing it. Any suggestions? And I've probably said this before, but Wikipedia really needs you. Your knowledge and experience would be almost impossible to replace. 09:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Sorry, haven't been online in a bit, just passing by now -- it appears to be Sridhar100/1000/sridharbabu. We've both added to the SPI, I can't remember what title it's located. I'll send you some notes over email sometime next week (real life and bad internet connection). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)