Jump to content

User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Lepricavark, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Lepricavark! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Lepricavark, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help
Thank you! I appreciate the welcome. Lepricavark (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I think we need some way to cool down after dealing with all that vandalism on Chad le Clos. —MRD2014 T C 02:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! That was crazy! I'm glad I didn't have to do it all on my own. Lepricavark (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lepricavark. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Referees

Thanks for adding the templates. It is a time consuming process so your help is appreciated. AIRcorn (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm glad to get some experience using AWB. I realized partway through, however, that I was mistakenly classifying every article as 'Start'. I will have to go back and review them once I finish the tagging project. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a plugin User:Kingbotk/Plugin that you may find useful. It can be easier though just to go on what other projects tag the articles as, especially well developed ones like WP:Baseball. As for assessing them I was roughly going top for refs/umps that manage the very top games (world cup finals, superbowls, hall of famers etc), high for ones that control other world cup games or other top games, mid for other international refs and low for the rest. It does vary a bit by sport and their are no hard an fast rules. Baseball already had a taskforce for umpires (now inactive) so I was just using their ratings. AIRcorn (talk)
In the handful that I've classified since realizing my error, I've been following the same practice: going by the other project tags. As far as importance ratings, I'd been leaving that alone, figuring it could be sorted out later according to your discretion. Or, if you prefer, perhaps we can draft some solid criteria later on. I guess my thought is that task #1 is to find all (or at least most of) the applicable articles. Lepricavark (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Personally I am not terribly concerned about getting the importance rating perfect in any case as it is virtually impossible to shoehorn different biographies into four distinct groupings. It is particularly challenging when the various sports cover such different geographies. Maybe we should get some rough assessment guidelines up at some point though, but you are right that the priority at the moment is the tagging. In case you haven't noticed Category:Sports officials is what I have been working through. Thanks again for your help. AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

People of the Japanese invasions of Korea

Thank you for fixing the categorization of all those pages! --Yellow Diamond (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you do it manually? It was probably overkill to list it as an AWB thing, in retrospect. I'm not sure how it works, but it's what I would have tried to use if I had access to it.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it was my pleasure to do it. I used HotCat to do it. I just got AWB access this week and, as an AWB noob, I am not entirely sure how I would have done the categorization using AWB. Lepricavark (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've found a great user-made script called Cat-a-lot that you can use in the future to instantly change or add categories! It's a lot faster than Hotcat, and I used it to add a lot more Samurai into this category.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the heads-up. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

very low key

I would love to speak absolutly non-confrontial with you, but absolutly will not be back here unless you ask. Sorry if I have overstepped. Sammy D III (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm willing to listen. Lepricavark (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to be polite. I am hostile toward Toddst, I do not AGF him, that is why I am here. But he isn't an admin, he just looks like one to me. I so screwed up posting here, I should have done it so differently. This account is four years old, but I'm not wrong. I was not trying to invoke seniority, which I know doesn't exist, just that I wasn't a drive-by grade-schooler.
One minute is common? I have had people talk to me about whether something was vandalism, is that unusual? No checking? What do you look at, just number of bytes somewhere? Not even contribs? If you saw what I had done before, would you have reverted me? Wouldn't moving something to "Archive 1" seem like good faith? One minute just seems so fast, I sure can't deal with it.
This one might be awkward. Do people think that Toddst did not attack me on that talk page, or is that just AGF to him?
Please don't be insulted. Why did I pick up you two "young guys"? I was hoping for a couple of old-timers, but I guess the admin closing counts for two.
Thanks for listening. Answer whatever you want, truth is not insulting to me and I won't use anything you say anywhere else. Damn, here's that real world, I can only avoid it for so long. Have a nice day/night. Sammy D III (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but quite frankly you are overreacting. Everyone makes mistakes and it appears that Toddst1 made one in reverting your edit and warning you on your talk page. He would not have made that mistake if you had used an edit summary. At any rate, what happened is not a big deal since you never got blocked and Toddst1 archived the page himself anyway. I don't understand why you are so offended by Todd's actions. You removed a bunch of material from a talk page without explaining in the edit summary that you were archiving it. To Toddst1 (and probably anyone else), it looked like you had simply blanked the material. There was certainly no reason to bring the situation to ANI almost 10 days later. You even admitted your ANI post was 'revenge'. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish, but there is nothing that needs to be done to Toddst1. We don't punish people for simply making a mistake. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, overreacting, especially since I thought it was admin abuse. That was bad. He really looks like an admin to me. I so should have been somewhere else.
I'm pretty sure that I had made the archive, and only the little floppy disk flag was missing. Is it hard for you to check? There is one at M123 too.
I don't know how far I can push this, I really appreciate your time. You seem to be pretty NPOV to me.
Yea, the revenge related to the admin screw-up. Damn, if I had recognized that he wasn't an admin.
Is it understandable that the only sanction I ever asked for was for a couple of old-timers to check him out? I'm not sure how much of my slander covers the actual point up. One edit summary missed.
Thank you very much. Sammy D III (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
This entire situation has spiraled way out of hand. Sammy, I'd advise you to just let it go. Ultimately, no real harm has been done either to you or to the encyclopedia. I don't think you will be able to accomplish anything positive by continuing to talk about this situation. Just let it go and work on improving articles and this will all blow over very quickly. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it has spiraled. At least it is at my talk page and pretty much out of sight now. Thank you for listening, it meant a lot. Sammy D III (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me that that is actually a polarizing issue to some. I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and over here that issue is far less polarized. It can be interesting to see those cultural differences when conversing with someone from a different background. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope my message didn't come across as rude. Sometimes I get too edgy. Lepricavark (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course not! I've been told that Dutch people (especially those from Amsterdam) are among the rudest and bluntest people in the world (we call it honesty) and my limited experience traveling the planet seems to confirm that. I have noticed that foreigners (in general) are far more polite than what I am used to. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lepricavark!

Happy New Year!

Lepricavark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! Happy New Year to you as well. Lepricavark (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just curious about a relist

I just saw the relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATMIA (I was away for a couple of days) and I was wondering if you could expand more on your decision to relist. I completely agree that there is a high IP/SPA count on the discussion, but other than the nominator there is no support of the nomination (and the support of three experienced editors who are AFC reviewers). Why not close as keep? Primefac (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the consensus was not clear enough to justify such a close at that point. Given the amount of unusual activity at the discussion, I was hoping more editors would weigh in. I certainly may have made a mistake and I apologize if that is the case. I'm not really comfortable closing it myself after having just relisted it. Lepricavark (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Nah, it's cool. Unless it's overwhelmed with delete !votes, it's likely to be kept (no deadline and whatnot). I was mostly curious is all. The proliferation of SPAs makes sense (as is a desire for more input considering the wall of reasoning given by the nominator). Thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiGnome

You might want to add {{WikiGnome topicon}} to your user page... Narky Blert (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but I'm actually looking to become more involved with writing content. Lepricavark (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nomination

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations#Ohconfucius. I've changed my mind about his nomination. Buster Seven Talk 05:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, should we move it to the accepted nominations section? Lepricavark (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Now I've seen the further discussion at the nominations talk page, so I'll hold off on any thought of accepting the nomination until that discussion is resolved. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

EotW faciliatatorship

Hi Lepricavark! I've seen your good work at EotW recently, and seeing as I've been getting old and wizened as EotW facilitator, I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to take the facilitatorship (which I originally took on back in May only as an interim role). That essentially involves awarding the award weekly on a specific day (I do Saturday, it was Sunday before) and doing anything else necessary to make sure the award continues to work. Buster7 also seemed supportive of the idea over email. Would you be interested? Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't guarantee that I'll be able to do it long-term, but I am willing to give it a try. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Can we do a test run this Saturday? I'll be relatively free if you run into any issues, but the process is fairly straightforward and essentially consists of:
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm open to doing a test run. Lepricavark (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Good Luck. I'm sure all will go well. Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think it went fairly smoothly. L235, I hope you will continue to participate at the project. Lepricavark (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent job on this award. I'll certainly stick around as "facilitator emeritus" or something like that – I'll certainly be here to answer any questions or give any advice, and I might stick my head in nominations again (I tried to avoid nominating/seconding people when I was facilitator to prevent any appearance of impropriety). One thing that worked for me was setting a calendar notification every Saturday (or whatever day you choose); that helped in making the award a routine and help prevent me forgetting the award (as I was prone to do; see how many were accidentally skipped through last summer). Ping me if you ever have any questions. Best of luck! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree, well done. Also agree about waiting to second...at least for the two week period. It gives others a chance to comment and add their thoughts. After two weeks I would sometimes second but usually only if there was a shortage of nominations. Buster Seven Talk 07:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the kind words! I also agree that I should try to refrain from nominating and seconding as much as possible. Hopefully we will get enough nominations from others, including you two. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I protest

Hi. I disagree with your NAC on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan McMullin where discussion was less than a full day. I notice that this sort of behavior is becoming more common but I don't want you to think it's appreciated. I took no position on that AfD but we typically let AfDs run their seven days so we know we got a fair sample size. I can see where there was a building consensus for keep and maybe you think a dozen editors chiming in is enough but now there's the issue of all those that might've opposed but didn't even see the AfD before you closed it. You're not even an elected admin and you're a relatively new so the community hasn't even placed trust in you for this. The claim that you don't want the banner to stay on the article isn't a valid reason, either. We prohibit editors from removing the banners operating under that same logic. I have been told that if we (the editors) allow these bad AfD closes then onlookers assume nothing was wrong. That's akin to saying that if your wallet is stolen and no one reports it then no crime was committed. I'm asking that you think twice about closing AfDs so early. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I would generally agree with you, but in this instance the eventual outcome was brutally obvious. Frankly, I was shocked to find that the AfD had been open as long as it was. In this case, I do think my concerns about the banner are legitimate as it reflects very poorly on our community that we would even seriously entertain the thought of deleting the article in question. I'm not comfortable with reopening the discussion myself as I really don't think it was a bad close, but I won't make a fuss if you or someone else does. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care about that AfD. I'm concerned with your editing. You say that "the eventual outcome was brutally obvious". So, should we determine RfAs based on the first 20 votes? We don't do that because the consensus doesn't form evenly and because we want the case to be settled without doubt. When you end the discussion early you create doubt as to how it would have panned out. You don't know the future and neither do I. If we don't let editors remove XfD banners because of how it looks (or any maintenance banner for that matter) then who are you to decide that what you think the public sees is more important than our processes? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't SNOW close RfAs as successful, but we do SNOW close AfDs as Keep, so I think the analogy is a little flawed. Still, I understand what you are saying, even if I don't entirely agree. Against my own judgment, I'll re-open the AfD as a courtesy to you. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I very much appreciate that. Thanks for you consideration. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the AfD will likely be snow-closed soon enough anyway, although likely by an admin this time. The nomination is completely frivolous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was shocked to see that article at AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Lepricavark, Chris troutman, Newyorkbrad: I have snow-closed the nomination. Neutralitytalk 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. Lepricavark (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adminship Anniversary

Thank you for the greeting on my anniversary. For the record I have owned two Buick LeSabre's in my lifetime. Cheers, NoSeptember 05:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. My favorite LeSabre is the mid-1990s version, but I learned to drive on one from the early 2000s. Lepricavark (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR

I invite you to comment on my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Lepricavark. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Lepricavark (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your contribution to the Birthday Committee. Have a nice day! :) Justmeonhere (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I really appreciate that. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Hollimon

On 23 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mike Hollimon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former Major League Baseball player Mike Hollimon became an executive for a player representation agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Hollimon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mike Hollimon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 13 years ago...

Dear Lepricavark: I am very grateful for your message. Usually, time flies by without us noticing it. So, thank you for reminding me of that. (ツ) MusiCitizen (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you appreciated the note. Thank you for your many years of dedicated service, especially in the field of writing baseball articles. Lepricavark (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! Keep up the good work. MusiCitizen (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lepricavark/Archive_1&oldid=1140435918"