Jump to content

User talk:Boomer Vial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.49.80.251 (talk) at 15:16, 18 December 2017 (→Hey: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!
If I see something such as a box, template, image, etc., on another user/user talk page that catches my eye, I will "borrow" it. More than likely without asking. ;) Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!
















ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Boomer Vial. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Rika Tachibana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rika Tachibana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 I'm not sure what you're talking about. I did not (speedily) close the discussion, and I did take part in the AfD article.[3]. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you were a participant of the AfD discussion, I was simply leaving a message informing you of the deletion review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 Oh. I didn't even know that was a thing. That's what I get for not clicking on the link before replying. Thanks for the heads up. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with signature

Hey there, fellow editor. While trying to add a contribution link to my signature, I managed to botch the entire code, and was forced to reset it back to the standard signature. Can someone help me with the code so my signature is as it was before, please?[4] Thank you, very much. Boomer Vial (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can paste this into your signature box - [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<font color="darkgreen">Holla! We gonna ball!</font>]]</sup>. If it does not help, search for help in the village pump. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 08:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As well as that, how about this - [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:Boomer Vial|Holla! We gonna ball!]]•[[Special:Contributions/Boomer_Vial|Contribs]]</font></sup> or Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!•Contribs - Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FriyMan Can you make the "contributions" text the same color as "Holla! We gonna ball!", please? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll try. It is quite confusing. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 10:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go - [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]<sup>[[User talk:Boomer Vial|<span style="color: darkgreen;">Holla! We gonna ball!</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boomer_Vial|<span style="color: darkgreen;">Contribs</span>]]</sup> or Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! • Contribs - Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 11:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FriyMan Thanks, a bunch! Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! • Contribs 04:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minesweeping

I've noticed that a certain long-term sockmaster and abuser has gone quiet. So, I was wondering what would be the quickest way for me to do a non checkuser sweep for any sleepers, or Bonadea trolls that might of fell through cracks. All of their targeted pages are high-traffic, and digging through them by hand would be like mining for Painite. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 07:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're familiar with naming patterns, there's no way for a non-Checkuser to find sleepers. How could you possibly tell which account that hasn't edited yet, or hasn't edited disruptively yet, belongs to this sockmaster? Conversely, if there's no perceptible disruption at this time, is looking for sleepers that may or may not exist worth the effort? Huon (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huon That's the thing. Nsmutte does their best to hide their edits with inconsistent naming patterns, and only editing to high-traffic boards. Perhaps "checkuser" was obviously not the correct term to use, there. Let me rephrase it as "Is there anyway for a normal editor to more quickly find such LTA-linked accounts without all the revision mining?" The rationale for asking this question is that I figured there's got to be a quick way for normal editors to be able to track erratic LTA accounts without having to dig to China in the revisions history trying to find what they are looking for. They might have gone quiet, but looking at the consistency in which they make sockpuppets, I don't believe they're anywhere near done being disruptive. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 02:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think there's some easy shortcut here. CheckUsers have the tools to look for technically connected accounts. Without those tools (or when those tools fail; they're far from perfect) we have to rely on behavioural evidence - and that means checking the contributions or page histories. Huon (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huon Well, it was worth asking, anyways. You never know if there might be some easier way of doing something unless you ask. Thanks anyways. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with resizing images

I found a picture of a beautiful (what I think is a) Boat Orchid to add to my userpage. Question is, how do I resize the image so it fits better on my page? I can only figure out how to make it a thumbnail. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Vial - what you need to do depends on exactly what you want the picture to look like and how large you want it. Sizing a basic image with no caption is easy (see Example 1). However, you want it to have a caption, it'll need the "thumb" parameter added... which will add some slight complications. The "thumb" parameter requires the "upright" parameter, which means that you can't set the image size like in Example 1. You instead have to use the "upright" parameter to set the ratio of its original size (see Example 2).
In a nutshell, if you want a caption, it requires that you handle the image size differently. Otherwise, you can just explicitly set it. My examples are below:
Example 1
Explanation: An simple example - no caption. 300px wide and on the right side.
Code: [[File:example.jpg|300px|right]]
Result:
Example 2
Explanation: An example with a caption. It's 15% in size compared to the image's original size, and it's on the left side.
Code: [[File:example.jpg|thumb|upright=0.15|left|LOOK HOW TINY I AM!!!!]]
Result:
LOOK HOW TINY I AM!!!!
The pages you'll want to read through (and the ones I referenced when building you those above examples) are Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, and (the one that helped me the most) Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. Please let me know if you need help with anything else, and I'll be happy to do so. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah Thank you for the detailed response. I added the resize of the image using the first example. I'll let you know if I have anymore questions. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 23:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding fan cruft

I'm curious, is plot additions covered under fan cruft? I made a few minor detail edits to James "Sawyer" Ford, and I want to make sure that I'm not violating any policies or guidelines in doing so. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out MOS:PLOT. It depends on context; particularly if it gets overly detailed, plot may be seen as fan cruft. In this case, I don't think knowing about the rope improves our readers' understanding of Ford. Huon (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huon I see what you mean about over-detail, it's just a tad annoying to read something knowing it's not fully accurate with the scenario it's describing. I see a few details here and there that could be tweaked for accuracy. Is it OK to add to details, so long as I don't go overboard in detail, or should I just completely avoid the ones like the one I mentioned above? My aim isn't to make Wikipedia read like Lostpedia, but simply be more accurate in the information that Wikipedia is covering. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 21:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reports to UAA

You seem too eager to report to user names to UAA. Please understand what should go there, and what should not. Please read the instructions for reporting to UAA. Promotional intent is not a username violation.

The top of the Admin page clearly states:
  • This page is for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked.
  • Reports are assessed according to the username policy and the UAA instructions. Please read those pages first.
  • Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not.
Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alexf I'm assuming you're talking about the most recent editors I reported to UAA? They were all using their accounts for promotional uses. Wouldn't this fall under WP:SPAMNAME? Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, never mind. I read through it again, and realized that the policy that would cover this type of usernames would be the one regarding writing self-biographies. Can I ask a favor of you though, Alex? Could you go double check the most recent articles I CSD'ed under G11, please? I have a feeling they might not be correct, and it would be better for a more knowledgeable experienced editor to go through them. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 20:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Sorry to bother but as you sent me a welcome... could you maybe check if i have not messed up other parts of the Age of consent article? I removed a completely unsourced table, or rather one sourced entirely to other Wikipedia articles which i guess is the same as being unsourced. I did preview it and it looked alright but i have never done such a substantial edit and am a bit paranoid that i messed something up (Usually i just fix random typos or comment. Things that are pretty hard to mess up, haha). No issue if not, just did not want to break anything and in general thought removing it was the way to deal with the sourcing issues. And again, sorry to bother and have a good day. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I did so as soon as I seen your contribution in the recent changes column. The edit was perfect, all the unsourced data was removed and nothing else was altered. No bother at all. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask either here, on your talk page, or the WP:HELPDESK. Thank you for doing so, and again welcome to Wikipedia! Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a relief then, haha. Happened upon it after lurking on ANI (yes i am weird, i know, haha) and thought i could and should fix it. One thing i was unsure about was the thing under the actual table which i thought may have had a place in the further reading section. But that was minor overall. Anyway, thank you for confirming that i am not completely inept, hahaha 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. You should think about creating an account with Wikipedia. It would make it a lot easier to keep track of tasks, policies and guidelines, etc. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 01:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it was rolled back. I guess some people prefer unsourced content... 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on their talk page, asking them why they reverted. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 01:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is in essence why i never bothered to make an account. I totally understand that people may object to an edit like that but with basicaly no pointer towards any policy reason it gets pointless. I guess that will have been the only time i removed unsourced content. It is not worth the time to argue over something so benign. The topic does not even interest me. Happened on it by lurking as i mentioned. But anyway, many thanks for treating me as a human and your assistance. Sorry for having bothered you with something, in the end, so futile, haha. Have a good day/evening anyway :) 91.49.71.240 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess i was wrong, turns out it is well worth my time trying to understand what... on earth... is going on, or rather what i did wrong... (better not curse i think, haha). This has moved from a disagreement to being utterly bizarre for me. I have no idea what their issue is anymore. But hey, english is only a second language for me so it quite enjoyable in that regard lol. Have to always take something positive from any experience so i am doing just that... even if not easy, haha 91.49.71.240 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is very much too pointy but would it be possible to start an SPI against myself? I have absolutely nothing to hide so if that could be put to rest i would not mind at all. And in regards to the single purpose account, my IP from yesterday(the one that made the edit) still even had contributions to the DYK talk in it. So it is more lies, bad faith and unfounded accusations against me by Softlavender. This is getting rather pathetic. And for what in the end? Me making a bold edit, then talking about it on the talk after it was challenged... is that not how Wikipedia basicaly is intended to work? 91.49.73.234 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wouldn't be a good idea. An administrator is already involved, and if they find Softlavender's actions to be as reprehensible as I found them to be, action will be taken against them. I would wait a while until after this whole thing is done, and leave a polite message on their talk page asking them to strike-out the comments. If they don't, that's on them. Bringing Softlavender into the conversation, so that this can be resolved. Also, for future reference, let's keep the conversation regarding the actions of Softlavender here. We shouldn't be discussing it on the article talk page. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 01:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed as much, I more or less wanted to point out if anyone wants to drag me to SPI, they have my full blessing and support to do so. Just to add in regards to the single purpose account... My ip changes every day, stays in the same range though. Hailing from germany every new IP starts with zero edits pretty much every day. But i have commented on a wide variety of topics, fixed a couple of typos or grammar(somehwhat recently in the "human wave" article as the most recent example), reported an error in DYK a couple days ago and before as well(so my IP range can be found in that archive), participated on the DYK talk several times(would be in the archives there as well). Longer ago i participated in an RfC on the "alternative for germany" article and some fallout from that(an ANI thread about a user named Joobo, was on their talk during an unblock request and asked Drmies a question relating to that), participate from time to time at ITN etc. Thanked The Rambling Man just a couple of days ago for the work he does at errors... and so on. I do very very little in the end but to call me an SPA is just preposterous. Just felt the need to point that out. 91.49.73.234 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that this is pretty much resolved, regarding my conduct anyway, i really have to thank you. So my sincere thanks to you for wasting some of your time to help out a random stranger. 91.49.80.251 (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning templates

Thanks for the welcome!

Do you think I have been consistently too strict with the warning levels I used? As in, should the first warning always be level 1 no matter how egregious?

In specific cases, do you think I was too strict to the vandal I reported to AIV for vandalizing Troy, Missouri? And for the vandal who used racist language on Boswell High School, I used level 3 - was that okay, or should I have used 4im, or lower?

Thanks again! Win98fan (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how tendentious their editing is. I usually reserve 4im for the most severe cases, and generally start with level 1. The case of the Boswell High School vandal was more severe, and they were issued the correct level warning. There is no set-in-stone guideline that says "if they vandalize in X fashion, start with Y warning." It's more a rule of thumb. The warning for the Troy, Michigan vandal was a bit bitey. You always want to WP:AGF that one will stop vandalizing when leaving a level 1/2/3 warning template. If they don't, then the reviewing administrator will see that they were given plenty of chances, and assumed good faith that they would cease and desist. Hope this helps! Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Win98fan: Just to chime in, I'd like to apologize for this. You did nothing wrong, veteran editors do make mistakes and need to remember they too need to follow community norms. --NeilN talk to me 03:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN You might want to remind them, Neil.[5] Their attitude is way, way too bitey. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 03:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to avoid potentially more drama but yes, you're right. Done. --NeilN talk to me 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Neil! Win98fan (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC) (BTW, your message on that user's talk page has been removed)[reply]
@Win98fan: Yes, they're allowed to do that per WP:BLANKING. We assume they read and understood the message. --NeilN talk to me 06:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Airport

There have been several discussions in recent years after quite annoying trys by a few users (who create these climate charts) to place them in airport articles and the concensus always was that they to not belong there, therefore they always have been removed again by different users. They barely make any sense for an article about an airport rather than the location - thats why next to zero airport articles have them and they are not part of WP:AIRPORTS-CONTENT. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.14.157 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Which discussions? I don't see anything on the article talk page, so I'm assuming they took place elsewhere. Do you have any diffs to these conversations? I also didn't find where this is mentioned under wp:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 19:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boomer_Vial&oldid=815993110"