Jump to content

User talk:Vacation9/Archives/2012/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Gleann Loch - citation needed

I am new to editing Wikipedia so I would be grateful for your assistance. I see you have noted citations needed for Gleann Loch. Could you tell me where I am going wrong? Most of the data is from the quoted PDF source and others such as coordinates and elevations are taken from widely available extracts from sites such as Google maps. Can you tell me what other citations are needed? I intend to create a significant number of articles relating to similar subjects so your assistance would be much appreciated. Braddy55 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires Reliable, Respectable Third Party references. It also helps if you use In Line Citations. Your source is a Primary, First Party source. If you can find reliable third party news about the loch, that would be fine. Happy editing! Vacation9 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft GA nom

I left some comments over at Talk:Minecraft/GA1. I haven't finished, so I'll probably add more over time as I continue my examination. • Jesse V.(talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Should be able to respond soon. Vacation9 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Honestly I had really underestimated your diligence. You're making progress! • Jesse V.(talk) 01:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The development date is verifiable. You can use waybackmachine.org if the links are dead. Do a Google search for: "May 10, 2009" minecraft • Jesse V.(talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder, you and the other editors have another 24 hours to complete the issues I've specified. At this time I'll do a final assessment and decide whether it's a GA or not, per WP:GAN, which says "The review process itself should take, at most, two weeks." • Jesse V.(talk) 06:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but there were a number of issues that remained so I had to fail it. Please feel free to improve the article and resubmit when ready. I'm willing to do another review when you are. • Jesse V.(talk) 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your great speedy deletion tagging! Have you seen Special:NewPagesFeed? Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I use Special:NewPages. I have tried Special:NewPagesFeed, but I prefer NewPages more. Vacation9 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ivan Franko class passenger ship

Please add this information to the article's talk page and review WP:N about the Notability standards. This page doesn't have significant coverage and citations are not independent of the subject/self published.
If you can add reliable third party references, please do so to indicate that this page is notable per WP:N. Otherwise, the page will be nominated for Wikipedia:Speedy_Deletion and will be deleted. Vacation9 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • third party references? Soviet Fleet! Is it o.k. Ivan Franko" class or the problem is ... You don't understand our language, по-русски понимаешь? Kannst Du eventuell Deutsch schreiben bzw. lesen, sorry, I have lot of references, that exist in German or Russian, but not in English, what can we do? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the tag after you added these references. Thank you! Vacation9 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Zurmang Gharwang Rinpoche

Vacation9,

Why did you request the speedy deletion of the Zurmang Gharwang Rinpoche page based on importance or significance? Zurmang Gharwang Rinpoche is an important and significant religious leader for many thousands of people. We are academics in the field of Tibetan Buddhist studies and so are knowledgable on this subject. Please remove your request or let us know the specifics of your objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel & Allie Aitken (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please add reliable secondary sources to indicate the notability of your page. Otherwise, it is not possible to verify the importance or significance. Please see WP:N for more information. Vacation9 (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed speedy deletion of Allegheny City Central

Christ, what a mess. Please see my talkpage, Bradsp's talkpage, and the article talkpage. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. At the time, the article was simply a copy with a couple name changes. Vacation9 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Ramleh, Iran which already has a specific stub template - it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 07:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Vacation9 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion: Novomer

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this company is developing one of the most promising advances in renewable polymers, as cited in Boston Globe, Scientific American, MIT Technology Review, Fast Company and Discovery News among others. If that isn't notable to you, Vacation9, then you have no business touching business, environment or materials-related entries on WP. Please find something productive to do with your time. Kind Regards, Keitsist (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well then the article should say that. State those claims with in-line citations, but be sure to write from a neutral point of view. As the article stands right now, I'd have to agree with Vacation9. I'm sure the article can be fixed. And let's try to avoid attacking the editors and instead focus on the content. Thank you. • Jesse V.(talk) 17:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Jesse V.. The page at the time of tagging did not have any indication of importance or third party reliable sources. Vacation9 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:NRVE. In particular, that "(n)otability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Importance is irrelevant to notability. Further, the article when tagged had a valid, hyperlinked reference to one of the world's most respected science and technology publications. Your overzealous speedy deletion request for a seven minute old article under active editing erodes the trust and good faith required for producing a valuable reference for dynamic knowledge. My comment above was not a personal attack but an entreaty to the requester to work within his/her limitations. Thank you. Keitsist (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
While this may be true, the article at the time contained one article and was a very short article. If the article was indeed under contstruction, you should have added an {{under construction}} tag. Please also review Wikipedia:TPG#YES about talk page guidelines. You attacked me and insulted me with your comment. If we could please end this conversation now, I can remove the speedy deletion tag as you added more third party sources. Vacation9 (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Again, my comment was not to attack but to personally request that you cease a pattern of behavior that is objectively injurious to good faith. The work of patrolling new pages is a valuable one, and I thank you for your contribution to it, but it must be carried out with the same due care as you expect from those who add material to the article space. Best regards, Keitsist (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vicco Group

Hello Vacation9. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vicco Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ciglenik

You do not understand disambiguation :) [1], [2].--Sokac121 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The first tag was accidental. I meant to tag it with a disambiguation speedy deletion, which I did. It met G6 as a disambiguation that included two or less pages. One link also lead to nothing. Vacation9 (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Info to add to iOS

Hello, you might not have seen but I've replied to you on the iOS page about the info I've asked about adding there. I think it's ok to leave the second piece of info, since I don't have another reference to use there. Since there's no issue with the first one, can you add it to the end of the "History" section? By the way, if you're interested, I've also posted requests at the iPad and Cloud computing pages. Thanks, --Rkrueger (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Copperville, Maryland

I intend to create both of the articles linked from Copperville, Maryland shortly (in fact, I created one just after you tagged the disambiguation page). In the future, you should wait a bit longer before tagging new disambiguation pages for deletion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I understand. However, at the time, the page was an orphaned disambig that referred to no other pages. It would be easier for editors to understand if you tagged it with under-construction or simply made the disambig after the pages. Vacation9 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rose Public School,Madhubani

I'm not surprised the bots missed it, but [3] is very openly copied from here, not the other way around. WilyD 08:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Your recent editing history at User talk:77.96.180.241 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You apparently need to review WP:BLANKING. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I was careful to only revert twice. They did revert my changes and another editor's changes while blanking, and violated the three revert rule. I apologize for reverting, however the three revert rule still applies for them. Vacation9 (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

valencia open 500

Sorry, i made a mistake because i didn't know it. I'm not a vandal at all. I hope to make better in the future. Best wishes

Thanks! Your edit still did qualify under WP:VANDALISM and the tag is still rightfully placed on your talk page. Happy editing! Vacation9 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: 216.253.197.254

Hi, I just saw the warning you left. It might not be the IP's fault for the blanking because of a bug going around right now. Cheers, SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Vacation9 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Level 3 Warning

to this IP's user talk page...
Your Warning was a Level 3...for a first vandalism-edit? I applaud your zeal in fighting vandalism, but was wondering why you used a Level 3 when this was a first offence and also the IP's only edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that a Level 1 was for an obvious good faith edit that was vandalism, a Level 2 was for vandalism with no assumed faith, and a Level 3 was for vandalism with obvious bad faith intentions. (After a 3, a Level 4 for final warning.) Is this not true? Vacation9 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember reading that, in any case it probably is not a guideline but an essay or an individual editor's thoughts. I would think that WP:AGF on a first edit should usually apply (unless the edit is so egregiously disgusting that it should immediately be reported to a vandalism noticeboard like WP:AIV). Many new editors try out edits, maybe their first one is stupid, maybe it's offensive, maybe it's ok....but in any case, I think that an appropriate IP-Welcome(encouraging a registered account or for a clear IP-vandal) might be a better first response coming from more-established editors. I tend to try to generally follow ClueBot's pattern of Warnings, especially for IPs which are not always coming from any one particular person. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A constant user

Hi, Vacation9.

An user, User talk: 99.242.222.52, insist in adding unreferenced films in the List of films based on Marvel Comics and List of films based on DC Comics. What can I do? or, I'm on an error? Thanks. Greetins.OscarFercho (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The page has been protected due to edit warring/unreferenced content. This means the IP can't make these edits any more. If this happens again, you can report the user to the admins if they add the content more than three times. You can also request the page to be semi-protected. Vacation9 (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacation9/Archives/2012/October&oldid=1083641276"