User talk:Lucas7yoshi/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
Well hello there!
Think you'd be interested in this? Always nice to have someone join the team :) Synorem (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Will certainly take a look into participating in the academy. I appreciate the information! Lucas7yoshi (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your contributions. I see you reverted the same vandal ten times in that article, and what I see is that you placed vandalism warnings. What I don't see is a request for semi-protection, or a report at WP:AIV--considering the user names and the frequency, surely you realized that something was going on. Next time you see such serial vandalism, please don't revert (because you are just doing the vandal a favor), and report right away. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now you reverted them no fewer than 23 times in that article, and placed only one request at AIV, for Rondiotalia--after you had reverted them seven times, and after you had reverted Italievero three times. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, apologies for the trouble w/r/t to that - Admittedly I had not seen such a serial vandal prior (all prior instances I had dealt with have pulled back once reached final warning).
- I was a little bit uncertain on the best approach given the article had been nominated for deletion I was not sure if requesting protection would've been the right move. Part of this was is my recent adoption of using Huggle and that I had not quite registered the fact that it does not warn users to the next step if its been quick enough (by default) so they didn't get to the highest step quite as fast as they may have otherwise.
- Definitely will strive to better handle instances like this in the future. I greatly appreciate the feedback. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I *thought* i had reported the secondary account, but it seems I did not. I'm not sure quite sure what happened there and will be sure to double check when in the future to ensure these things actually go through. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I hear you. Yes, some of them are really persistent, and I should have semi-protected the article after I blocked the first batch of socks--some people are just really lousy human beings. I find it always helpful to *not* be quick on the draw with rollback, though I know very well how enticing it is. It's a good idea to check the history and in this case that history shows that someone is targeting it, and warning them won't help (nor, BTW, do you have to start at Level 1 and diligently work you way up--when you report at AIV you can explain why you're doing what you're doing if you jump from 2 to 4 or whatever). And when you do, in cases like this, you see that rolling them back makes them just revert you, and we end up with a history of dozens of BLP violations, which often, as in this case, have to be revdeleted. (Of course in this case I also nominated it for speedy deletion so you can't see that anymore, but it was a mess.) You will find, if you continue with this work that this kind of case is a minority, but when it happens it's awful, and there's at least one serial vandal who targets BLPs in this way.In short, I guess I'd say this: check the history, see what's happening. If it's serial abuse, don't roll back but alert an admin, via AIV or some other way--and let them handle the blocking, revdeleting, semi-protecting. Thanks for getting back to me, and enjoy editing. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good, appreciate the advice and I will be sure to apply these suggestions moving forward. Wasn't sure on stuff which you've covered here so that's very helpful.
- Thanks again and I hope you have a great day! Lucas7yoshi (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I hear you. Yes, some of them are really persistent, and I should have semi-protected the article after I blocked the first batch of socks--some people are just really lousy human beings. I find it always helpful to *not* be quick on the draw with rollback, though I know very well how enticing it is. It's a good idea to check the history and in this case that history shows that someone is targeting it, and warning them won't help (nor, BTW, do you have to start at Level 1 and diligently work you way up--when you report at AIV you can explain why you're doing what you're doing if you jump from 2 to 4 or whatever). And when you do, in cases like this, you see that rolling them back makes them just revert you, and we end up with a history of dozens of BLP violations, which often, as in this case, have to be revdeleted. (Of course in this case I also nominated it for speedy deletion so you can't see that anymore, but it was a mess.) You will find, if you continue with this work that this kind of case is a minority, but when it happens it's awful, and there's at least one serial vandal who targets BLPs in this way.In short, I guess I'd say this: check the history, see what's happening. If it's serial abuse, don't roll back but alert an admin, via AIV or some other way--and let them handle the blocking, revdeleting, semi-protecting. Thanks for getting back to me, and enjoy editing. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I *thought* i had reported the secondary account, but it seems I did not. I'm not sure quite sure what happened there and will be sure to double check when in the future to ensure these things actually go through. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Jean Seberg
Hi! I didn't provide an additional source for the edit I made to the Jean Seberg article because I was using the same source that was already cited for the entire paragraph to provide additional context to the sentence that was already there. I'll put my changes back in. 50.101.208.224 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the trouble, if its all appropriately cited then it's good. Must've just not looked like that from the diff only. Thanks for your contributions Lucas7yoshi (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yup, I see what happened. I hadn't seen there was a citation in that section as in the diff it was quite small courtesy of it being a link to the definition of it, but the citation does back your edit.
- Thank you for pointing it out, it helps me learn and better my Counter Vandalism skills. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries! Thank YOU for your dedication to keeping Wikipedia honest! :) 50.101.208.224 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Nintendo Network
Hey! I'm the one who made the edits removing the direct Pretendo mentions in the Nintendo Network Wikipedia page. I just wanted to say, mentioning Pretendo directly could be bad for the creators and users if Nintendo caught wind of their project and shut it down. Would it be alright if I found some way to mention Pretendo without directly putting the service itself at risk? That way, people looking for the service can be guided towards it with less risk of Nintendo getting involved. 2600:1700:F8C0:950:BF9F:B431:3144:BE79 (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whilst I understand and appreciate your intent, I'm not sure the removal of it from Wikipedia is going to do much. If it's already been covered by (and cited in article from articles by) IGN, gamesradar, and nintendolife, it's fair to say Nintendo is likely already aware of it.
- Removal of it from Wikipedia is... not the way to deal with it. I do agree that more publicity can equal trouble for fan projects, as i've seen a fair few times, but the can of worms is already opened for Pretendo so theres not much point in pretending. If Wikipedia was giving step-by-step instructions on how to do it then that would be bad and maybe could cause trouble for Wikipedia more than anything.
- The existence of similar tech for prior Nintendo platforms, and the fact they persist to this day, suggest they probably won't do much about it if I had to guess (I am not a lawyer mind you).
- The mention in the Nintendo Article is also in line with the RiiConnect24 mention in WiiConnect24 so it's comfortably fitting and consistent in that regard. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's true, it won't do *much* in terms of protecting the service, but the purpose isn't to deal with the entire issue singlehandedly by dancing around it, but rather to add some form of aid towards preserving the fan-project for the sake of doing a good service. If the chance to give it less publicity over time is there, I guess it's just a matter of whether you personally believe it's right to try and contribute towards that. I don't exactly agree with the mention of RiiConnect24 and WiiLink in the WiiConnect page either, but trying to push at it all at once isn't exactly the best or most respectful way to approach it. If the mentions really *have* to stay regardless, then I can't do much about it. But at the very least, I hope Wikipedia can at least play some part in preserving these fan projects to the best of its ability. Thanks for responding to me respectfully, and I appreciate you listening and talking with me :) 2600:1700:F8C0:950:BF9F:B431:3144:BE79 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- They don't explicitly have to stay, but it's a matter of WP:CON whether or not it stays. If you wish to discuss it further, the place to do so would probably be the talk page of the article to try and gather consensus.
- My opinion is it's reasonable to include given meaningful citations and relevance, and the consistency with the other article.
- I'm not sure if theres any explicit policies on the matter - I am far from an expert, but as far I can tell there isn't really anything written anywhere to say why it shouldn't be there, so that leaves it up to aforementioned consensus.
- If you wish, you can start the discussion about it on the talk page and see if anything chimes in. Besides that though, I appreciate your understanding and respectfulness as well and hope you have a good time on Wikipedia. Side note: Creating an account is always a good idea :P Lucas7yoshi (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's true, it won't do *much* in terms of protecting the service, but the purpose isn't to deal with the entire issue singlehandedly by dancing around it, but rather to add some form of aid towards preserving the fan-project for the sake of doing a good service. If the chance to give it less publicity over time is there, I guess it's just a matter of whether you personally believe it's right to try and contribute towards that. I don't exactly agree with the mention of RiiConnect24 and WiiLink in the WiiConnect page either, but trying to push at it all at once isn't exactly the best or most respectful way to approach it. If the mentions really *have* to stay regardless, then I can't do much about it. But at the very least, I hope Wikipedia can at least play some part in preserving these fan projects to the best of its ability. Thanks for responding to me respectfully, and I appreciate you listening and talking with me :) 2600:1700:F8C0:950:BF9F:B431:3144:BE79 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Please pay attention to the edits you're reverting.
You've restored vandalism and this isn't the first time you've incorrectly reverted something as vandalism. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I realized the mistake after it was reverted by someone else. I had, to my view, initiated a revert that the edit prior reverted, but it seemed to slip over to someone elses revert of the vandalism.
- I'm not entirely sure how this happened, and I don't want to blame Huggle, but I will pay close attention to try and avoid this. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Follow up: I believe what happened was the setting "Automatically refresh page in case there was another edit made to it" caused this, as I looked over to my Stream Deck to press the button, the page refreshed and since my eyes were not quite looking at the diff didn't notice it flick over to the reversion by the IP user.
- Have noted this and am now avoiding looking away from the diff while performing actions. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
archive bot test
this test talk page entry is solely here to get archived, ideally in 3 days. If it doesn't, then that would be not ideal. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for working to fight vandalism on Wikipedia! -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Recent Changes Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your work patrolling recent changes and combating vandalism on Wikipedia. Adam Black talk • contributions 01:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Lucas7yoshi (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
My editing of a Philippino actress.
I suppose you altered my correction of "comedian" to "comedienne". My alteration was correct, because female "comedian" is indeed, a "comedienne". 110.144.162.26 (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I see what you are talking about about and taking a look at the article for Comedians it seems to agree - my reversion was based on what I had observed and admittedly I hadn't heard of this fact!
- Apologies for the inconvenience - But I will note taking a look at some other female comedians pages they seem to prefer "comedian" in the lead, but if you'd like you can make the edit again and leave it for consensus to decide. this *may* be covered in a MOS page but I'm not able to dig much deeper at the moment. Lucas7yoshi (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2024
- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24
- Comix: Generations
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)