User talk:BadaBoom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User name[edit]

Has got a good ring to it! I was looking through my talk page history and thought, who's that? So I thought I'd post to say it sounds good and if you need any help with anything drop me a line. --Chip123456 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. BadaBoom (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm 72Dino. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lamborghini Murciélago, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I reverted that content again. Please provide a source as it sounds like opinion and conjecture right now. 72Dino (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article Miura bull, to which I've added a link. If you give yourself the trouble of reading carefully, you'll see that first Miura bulls fought in 1849, while this Murcielago nonsense is dated 1879. Please stop deleting sourced materials. Instead, why don't you find sources that prove the existence of "Rafael Molina Sanchez" (who is not mentioned in ANY matadors lists or records), and the Murcielago bull, who, despite allegedly being the grandfather of the most famous fighting bulls breed is not registered anywhere as a fighting bull. BadaBoom (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tupolev-121[edit]

Are you going anywhere with this? as it is looking to get deleted unless someone rescues it!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dayem! I forgot about it! Yes, I will! BadaBoom (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

500D[edit]

The f-stop was 0.0 with no lens and with the Vivitar it was 5.6. I don't have the software loaded to this computer to view the full EXIF, I just looked at the data that the camera shows which doesn't include focal length. I think the focal length would probably be 0.0 as well with no lens. I don't want to bother uploading them to commons just to check.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother. We found out what we (or at least I) wanted to know - a lens that the camera doesn't "see" (and most telescopes don't have any electronics in them), doesn't send the information to the camera to be recorded in EXIF. So it's possible to have an image with "zero-zero" in f-number and focal length. Thank you very much. BadaBoom (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I was curious myself anyways.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antonov An-74, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Meta Wikipedia[edit]

If the appeals process on the Russian Wikipedia doesn't work, you can go on http://meta.wikimedia.org and check the procedures there. There was a case where Meta found Turkish Wikipedia admins were not properly behaving. Document what happened and make your case there. If you need help finding specific pages, I'll be happy to do so :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The appeal process in Russian WP absolutely doesn't work. The admins, the checkusers, the... whatever other "positions" there are, are the same couple dozen people, who are very tight and extremely protective of each other. So you're basically complaining to the offenders. Like I said, trying to appeal got me blocked in a matter of minutes. I tried going to metawiki, but I couldn't find where to post a complaint. Help in that direction would be very much appreciated. Another good question is, what happened to those Turkish Wiki admins? AND to the person who complained? BadaBoom (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Meta:Requests_for_comment/Sysop_abuse_on_the_Turkish_Wikipedia has the information. I'm trying to find the page where a decision was made... Meta:Requests_for_comment is the main page WhisperToMe (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Any luck? :-) I can't seem to find any result. It seems like an extremely lengthy battle with no visible consequences for the offending (or any) parties. It looks like a battle not worth undertaking. Your opinion? Have you ever seen anyone actually winning such a thing? BadaBoom (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't followed it a whole lot, but the impression I had is that the scrutiny improved the Turkish Wikipedia. I don't know of quotes offhand, but I think it ended up better after the reuest. I would contact some of the parties involved and ask for advice, perhaps. Or you can ask the Meta Admins WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC).
Meta:Requests_for_comment/Sysop_abuse_on_the_Turkish_Wikipedia#Unblock it seems like towards the end some users were unblocked WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Userfied[edit]

I a copy at User:BadaBoom/List of surfing areas. MBisanz talk 17:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Leo711[edit]

Please note that after your username change, you are no longer permitted to edit under your old username. I have therefore blocked that account, as you should always use your present one to edit. Thanks, King of ♠ 00:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)