User talk:Vendettax/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vendettax has no immediately available Internet access and will be taking a wikibreak of indeterminate length.

[}{] Any communication is welcome here. I normally reply within hours, if not minutes. [}{]
[}{] Click here to get my attention. [}{]

-}/\{- User Page. -}/\{- Contributions -}/\{- Toolbox/Recent -}/\{-


Notice: As of late, most of my edits are (sadly) made using 640x480 screen resolution. Due to this, I sometimes make formatting changes that are incorrect. Please be understanding when leaving comments - I am trying very hard and working to correct my errors. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Welcome

I notice you have added the WikiProject Kentucky userbox to your user page, but have not added your name to our Membership Department. Adding your name there helps members of our project keep track of each other, so please add your name there if you have a chance. I understand from your talk page comment that you want to get involved with a project. We'd love to have you at WikiProject Kentucky. I'm among the most active members right now, so feel free to bounce ideas off me any time. Among our other reasonably active members are Soldan, Seicer, Stevietheman, and Dale Arnett.

The best way to get involved is find something you know a lot about (or are really interested in) and start editing. Are you in Kentucky? What part? You could get started with articles related to that. Or you could look for something you know a lot about in our "Close to Good" or requested articles lists.

Recently, I've done major work on the William Goebel article (promoted to good article last month) and the List of counties in Kentucky (promoted to featured list this weekend.) The key to getting these recognitions is pretty simple: Cite your sources. Any editor can clean up bad prose, but usually only the author of the text can cite the source the information comes from.

Hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have more questions, or if you have a particular interest to start on. Acdixon 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


WikiProject Kentucky		 Welcome to our project!
Thank you for joining WikiProject Kentucky. Please take a few moments and look over our project page and the various project departments. We encourage every member to find their niche and work on the parts of the project they most enjoy. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask on our project talk page. Again, welcome!

Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputes resolution

I was impressed by your Talk:Neil Clark (journalist)#Disputes (point-by-point) approach to an extremely unpleasant situation. Great work there. — Athænara ✉ 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry M. Caudill

How interesting that you're related to Harry M. Caudill. Are you from Letcher County, Kentucky? It's one of my favorite places. Badagnani 00:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Secret Shows

i dont know if you care but the notability of myspace secret shows was proven and in a matter of days it'll be back up. And about myspace secret stand up its intergrated into the new article. Just telling you since you want to delete both entries. Too bad huh?65.11.27.42 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I "wanted to delete both entries" since they had issues with third-party proven notability, as explained by numerous other editors on Wikipedia. Contrary to what you may think, if the article is recreated with these issues taken care of, I'll be very happy with it being here. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All right sorry it is confirmed now and in a new location with much much more check it out and see if you like it and could you help me add pictures to the (sorry idk wat they are called) information boxes MySpace EventsMartini833 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That already seems much better than the one that was deleted. I will admit that I have not been editing for too long, so I'm not proficient with images and things yet. I've mostly been doing wikify and cleanup. I'll be glad to check the article over for things like that (probably tomorrow). You might want to use <ref> ... </ref> tags in-line with each sentence you are attributing to that source URL, and then use <references /> in the References section. I think that would be more effective than a list at the bottom, especially given the notability arguments with the subject. If you decide to make it that way, I may be able to help with the code. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi i added some stuff which i would like you to rewrite in your style. And could you leave the picture i promise theyll look better when MySpace Secret Stand Up gets more shows. Martini833 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comedor Escolar Project

No problem. It seemed better in this case to put the two together and get one slightly bigger article. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!

Thanks for showing me around =)

Blissyb has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Blissyb 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

List of MySpace Events

was made to MySpace Events shorter. i reposted it and it was deleted again. I put it in the deletion review. What do you think?

Honestly, I think that any and all mention of other pages that you've fought other editors over - such as that list - should be kept out of the ongoing AfD for MySpace Events. Sometimes other editors will get distracted over related things that they disagree with, and it causes a lot of negative impact on the decision of whether to "Delete" or "Keep". Other than that, I think you should probably not fight the editors on the subject - if MySpace Events passes the AfD, after so much hard work and argument, maybe it's best to let the list go. I'm not saying that it wasn't a valid contribution, but it doesn't have as much content as the main article, and lists seem to be generally discouraged here. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Civility

Thank you for the compliment! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Events AfD

why was MySpace Events deleted? Martini833 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted because enough people voted to delete it in the AfD, which can be read here. I personally don't think there was a consensus to do so, but it's up to the person that reads through the arguments and closes it to decide. Please do not recreate this article under that name or any other. It is important that you follow this policy, because future contributions of yours will be more likely to be looked down upon if other editors think you are trying to bend the rules. I think that the AfD failed in the first place because everyone was so busy worrying about previous attempts you had made to create this article, under different names. Please keep that in mind, and add the material to the main MySpace article. *Vendetta* (whois [[User talk:Vendettax|talk]] edits) 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

well im sorry but i guess were not friends Martini833 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)i take that back it was just tht ur last comment was a bit strong Martini833 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Its really nice to be appreciated. :) 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

 Archive_1, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA.

I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me,
and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have.
Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing!
Hemlock Martinis 22:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (re: CVG->VG)

Hi Vendettax. Thanks for retagging CVG->VG in a number of articles. I just thought I'd stop by to provide a pointer back to the discussion about the move. (I went and looked it up to make sure the retagging was legit--you know, just to be safe.) --Alan Au 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I had been working on this task for a few days after being told about it by another editor, but wasn't aware of the discussion itself. I appreciate being pointed towards it; I was able to read up on what has happened as well as leave a note in case I can help with more things once this is fixed. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya Welcome

Ur very welcome..that's actually one of my favorite pages so I try to keep it unvandalized..=]Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pleaseeeee

Can u sign my autograph book pleaseeeeeeee?..=]Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't fix redirects that aren't broken

I noticed this edit of yours recently and reverted it. It's courtesy not to alter other's comments, especially those from long ago. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Pagrashtak 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that edit. --Hemlock Martinis 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with fixing links in older comments, but the problem is that Vendattax has been fixing literally thousands of links to Computer and video games to Video games, which is not required, since they don't form a double redirect. This is an extremely tedious and unnecessary task, which just bloats edit count. This is a task better left to a bot. If you are using a bot, it is unauthorised. If you want these fixed, it is easier to simply request someone with a bot to do this for you. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It creates confusion for someone reading archived discussions. Dead conversations should be left as is is most situations. I fail to see how fixing a redirect from a discussion in 2005 helps anything. Pagrashtak 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It just helps in navigation, I guess. Vendettax was probably using the Whatlinkshere page, it's possible he could've just overlooked the dates. I's just link/redirect fixing (which isn't changing the appearance of the message in any way). Ven also leaves a note in the edit summary, so if I checked his contribs, I wouldn't see it as disruptive at all. - Zero1328 Talk? 09:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a few thoughts regarding both comments, and think it is easier to represent myself here rather than copy-and-paste. First, let me say that I am fully aware of the policy on fixing redirects. I was offered the job of fixing these links by another editor who knew that I liked repetitive tasks and maintenance work (to clarify and respond to the "tedious and unnecessary" comment: I do not find these edits tedious. They actually help me relieve stress, if you can believe that). The redirect only exists because incorrect terminology was used in an article name, and a consensus was reached by the project to change it several months ago. It appeared to me that the people involved did not have enough help at the time, and this never was finished.

I was happy to jump in and start fixing these links, and worked on the first 1400 or so entirely by hand. I then began using a script (that falls under "Assisted bot" per the policy). Before doing so, I familiarized myself with the bot policy, and determined that this does not require authorization, since I'm approving each edit before it is saved and not leaving it unattended. I have a very slow computer (200mhz) and found it to be much easier for me to work from a command prompt rather than a full web browser. The removal of the browser is really the only difference, and even after I determined how to use the script, I did a large number of the edits by hand, just for fun.

As I mentioned on Pagrashtak's talk page, I fail to see the harm that my edits are causing other editors. If anything, they benefit the project by removing links to a page name that was widely considered incorrect. What if, in the future, someone decides to be bold (again) and restructure it separately into both "video game" and "computer game"? This would contradict the point I'm trying to make in regards to decided-upon terminology, but it is still a fair example. That restructuring would be impeded by eight thousand outdated links to a page naming both "computer and video games". This type of fix is specifically condoned in the policy that I was referred to about fixing redirects. I was also told by multiple editors that this particular task should be completed, and should not cause any harm whatsoever. I am not using this as an excuse, but simply pointing out that there is no strict consensus against what I've been doing to help, if so many others do not share the views expressed here today.

To be perfectly honest, I resent both the implications posted that I am either unfamiliar with the rules ("read the policy") or have some personal motive, such as "bloating my edit count". Both are false. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about my edit count - I find it a poor indicator of someone's quality, dedication, and intentions. The only place on Wikipedia that I see the desire for an impressive edit count is during an RfA, which I have no intention of participating in anytime soon. Rest assured that if I do participate in one in the far future, I will personally discount any of my own edits that are of questionable importance. Before attempting to work on this issue, I wikified hundreds of articles in the Wikify project, and received no complaints about that, which is a similar task meant to "make things right". If anyone is for some reason interested in my other work, this can be referenced via my Toolbox. I am not pointing fingers, only trying to express that the views posted come off as unusually critical when you consider what they are about.

I've got the best of intentions here, and I was only trying to do what I could to help the project as a whole. Since my attempts at this have obviously disturbed some editors (even though I respectfully disagree with that view and the points made in it) I will no longer be working on this task. I hope you have a nice day. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 13:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these edits shouldn't cause any harm at all. I was just pointing out the fact that actions such as these are very tedious (because it's repetitive,) and that a bot was more suited to the job. If you like doing something like this, feel free to do so; I don't really mind. Fixing redirects is a job pretty much ignored on Wikipedia, usually they're ignored since they don't cause a major problem until double redirects are made. Nonetheless, it's still an issue. - Zero1328 Talk? 13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this comment, and I'd like to add that whenever I personally do tedious tasks I always do them manually to reduce errors. --Hemlock Martinis 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Same here, actually. Ignoring the fact that I currently don't have the ability to program a script or bot, doing it manually has the added benefit of making you check the rest of the article for errors. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The script I was using did require manual input before it would do anything, and printed a full text version on the screen (with colour highlighting) so that any other errors could be noticed. If I did see any other errors, I would decline changes in the script and open the page with the web browser instead. If this temporary computer were able to process things normally, I would always go for manual editing for the reasons you've stated. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Db templates

I think something is broken; they are not displaying correctly (for example, the "reason" from a plain 'db' has disappeared), along with the pink box and top half of the template on all of the others. I noticed that you were the last editor on the template page here. I'm sorry if you were already aware of this; I simply thought it couldn't hurt to mention it. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I belatedly realize that your edit was from quite a few days ago; now I'm really not sure what's going on. It could just be my browser, though they were fine a moment ago. Hmm. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The speedy deletion templates all transclude {{db-meta}}, which someone had briefly messed up at the time of your comment – Gurch 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reverting

thanks for the reminder ill be more careful in the future..=] me + ma sis luv us sum Pretty Ricky!(wat waz dat?) 00:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Chelsea photo

It seems unlikly you would have seen it somewhere else before unless someone took the picture from wiki and is using it elsewhere. it's a photo of my friend Stephanie who lives in CT. Lyo 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coeck

Hi Vendettax,

Browsing on the internet, I'm currently looking for information about Armand Coeck. I need some info about him for the brochure of a concert program. Seems you've marked the wiki article about Armand Coeck as spam. I checked the link of the editor you've mentioned, but didn't found any info. Can I still read that text somewhere?

Thx,

Ludwig

First Edit

Happy First Edit Day, Vendettax/Archive 1, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

FROM YOUR FRIEND:  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Party on Vendettax!

Happy First Edit Day, Vendettax/Archive 1, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Best wishes on your first edit day Vendettax! Cheers --RobNS 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day Vendettax!

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Vendettax/Archive 1 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Best wishes and cheers! :-) --RobNS 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rev. Thomas Aitken

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Rev. Thomas Aitken, by Koavf (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Rev. Thomas Aitken fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Talk page for deleted article.


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Rev. Thomas Aitken, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Talk:Rev. Thomas Aitken itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)