User talk:Kbh3rd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 St. Peter Sandstone 2 Can you help? 3 Your recent reversion on Talk:Christopher Columbus 4 Bidgee 4.1 Not impressed 5 Image tagging for File:Rockwoods.jpg 6 uncomformity image size 7 Getting started on a new bridge 8 Self-confessed sockpuppet 9 Thank you! 10 nice edit summary 11 Re: New Madrid Seismic Zone 12 dyslexia orthography

[edit] St. Peter Sandstone

You moved St. Peter Sandstone to the uncapitalized version. However, geologic formations are always capitalized as a convention. Could you please move it back? Thanks! (If you reply, I'll be watching your talk page so the thread can stay together.) Awickert (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after fat-fingering it I managed to move it back. After making the original move I wondered if I'd done the right thing, looking at how other formation names are presented. I'd based the move on how it is referred to in the text of this article. I suppose it should be corrected there. --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks - I should do that - I'll start going through the geologic formations category and fix a bunch of the formations. The idea is like "Mississippi River" - it becomes a proper noun because something like "Sioux Quartzite" applies to a particular rock unit. Awickert (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I forgot to say - I looked at your userpage, and thanks for all the articles you've created and/or edited! It turns out that a lot of those were ones I read before I even started contributing here. Awickert (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

--Kbh3^rdtalk 05:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help?

I note that you are both an Administrator and a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.

Big Dipper, an article that I orginally wrote and continue to maintain, is constantly the subject of puerile vandalism, not misinformation, but nonsense insertions and obscene graffiti. The vandals are always non-registered. How do I go about getting the page semi-protected so that only registered members can edit it? Do you have sufficient influence/authority to do it yourself?

Thank you.

B00P (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I looked at the situation yesterday, and unfortunately it looks like Big Dipper does not receive more vandalism that many articles. I say "unfortunately", because that means that many articles receive regular vandalism of the sort you cite. The pueri are ubiquitous. After watching and reverting vandalism for a while it is often obvious that certain spates are from schools. With the right watchlist you can almost follow the syllabus by seeing when particular articles are defaced.

An abusive IP address that can be identified with a school can be blocked a bit more quickly than otherwise, and I put a temporary block on one address that vandalized Big Dipper multiple times in a short period. School blocks can quickly grow to a full term if the abuse continues. I'll add Big Dipper too my watch list, which I usually check at least once a day. But though the damage is recurring, it doesn't seem to me to require protection at this point. If you find another admin who thinks otherwise, I won't dispute him. If I change my view after watching it for a while I'll react appropriately.

The Big Dipper article looks good, and I understand your proprietary interest in it. (I'm an astronomy merit badge counselor, after all.) It can become disheartening to see too much vandalism, and it's easy to feel the cause is hopeless after reverting case after case after case of vandalism. For myself the cure occasionally is to stop dwelling on it too much and do something more creative. That's partly why I was a little slow to respond here — I've been on a map-making spree lately, and was deep into creating this one yesterday when I received your message. Illegitimi non carborundum --Kbh3^rdtalk 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Excuse me, but I asked for some help in keeping Wikipedia working properly, and I'm being told to "stop dwelling on it." Since my last edit of the article there have been, as of this moment, fourteen mindless vandalisms, eight reverts, and exactly one useful edit. All the vandalism is done by non-registered jerks. While any article is subject to vandalism, of the ones I am involved with, this one attracts the most. I want legitimte additions; I don't want the barbarians fouling things up for the rest of us.

You are quite right about it becoming "disheartening to see too much vandalism." Is it too much of an effort for you to restrict editing of this one article to registered editors? I'm sorry, but I feel as I'm being brushed off. Being told that other articles are also attacked in no way solves the problem. If you were robbed, would having the police tell you that lots of people are robbed, so don't worry about, satisfy you? I suppose I can always stop wasting my time writing and copyediting for Wikipedia.

I urge you to reconsider, and semi-protect this page. Thank you. B00P (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is at WP:RFP, a.k.a. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The subject can be discussed further, if needs be, in that forum, making it superior to a request on one single admin's talk page. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. You might be interested in taking a look at the activities of Kingsupaspence.

B00P (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent reversion on Talk:Christopher Columbus

I'm sure I've done this by mistake also -- see [1]. I've cleaned it up and blocked Gama brain (talk · contribs). dougweller (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually check recent revisions, too, along with the perp's recent edits, but obviously missed it this time. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you clearly do a great job! There just isn't time, is there? One thing I wish more people would do is check the IP addresses, I keep finding IP's that have been vandalising forever and no one has noticed they are a school. But lack of time and automated tools... dougweller (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bidgee

Hi. Was this a mistake? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that was a mistake. I've removed the block and left my apologies on the unintended victim's talk page. I tried to, or meant to, block an anonymous user who was repeatedly vandalizing Lightning, and whose edit history consists soley of vandalism. Thanks for the notice. --Kbh3^rdtalk 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to the anon user's page (where you left the message related to Bidgee's block) and applied the 48 hour block you were intending to make.--VS ^talk 02:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, no worries then. Just wanted to confirm. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kbh3rd - if you are about can you meet this request please--VS ^talk 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have dealt with the autoblock problem in your absence. Cheers.--VS ^talk 05:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not impressed

I'm sorry but you should be more careful! Sometimes I really wonder why I bother with this project since I've put a lot of time, effort in trying to improve the project whether it be reverting vandalism, adding content, citing content in unsourced article ect. What I can't get over is that you didn't double check, Juliancolton left a message (above and I like to thank them for doing so) 11 minutes after the block but it wasn't partly removed until 1 hour and 47 minutes later but after coming back home from TAFE I was wondering why I couldn't edit then looked up at the page I was trying to edit to see that I was blocked! It wasn't until 4:29pm (My time and 05:29 UTC) which is almost 6 hours blocked! I think to thank Steve for trying to get the autoblock to unblock me (which failed) but unsure if J.delanoy fixed it or it fixed itself. Now my block log is a complete mess which is a mess that I don't want. Tell you the truth I'm still fuming over this and it doesn't matter what anyone says as the damage has been done. Now I have to see if I request a rename of my account and have my edits moved to see if the block log move with it as well. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee, people will see Steve's annotation. You want an example of how mistakes can happen? Look at my block log. These things are relatively common and not a big deal. Contrary to your opinion, most users would not judge you based on your block log. You do great work around here; don't let a harmless error get the best of you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How can't you say that your block log is the same when you blocked yourself, It's not as I haven't blocked myself it has been other administrators. If I ever decide to request for Admin-ship it will make it harder since some people will just look at the block log without reading it's meaning and I've even had editors trying to user my block log in debates so how can you say it's no "big deal"? Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You put a big addendum at the top of the RfA explaining to other users. If someone opposes per your block log then they're going to look awfully stupid. Also, 'crats take that sort of thing into consideration. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to but a addendum in a RfA because of the actions which were done by other administrators! I've seen some past RfA's were the block log of a editor (similar to my block log) only to have it voted against just because they had blocks in the block log! So who's to say that my block log will not be used against me? No one can because it can't be guaranteed that no one will use it for there own benefit! I've also asked you how can you say that my block log is no "big deal" but you haven't answered my question (Not the only question you haven't answered). Also if I make a mistake when editing (whether it be editing, creating or moving an article or even reverting vandalism which also re-adds a past vandalised page [It has happened in article in which are a huge mess in terms of vandalism])? I'm not going to lie but there are trigger happy Admins (Not many but there is some) here which will block as soon as they see that edit and see that user already has a blog log (without reading any of the reasons) and blocks that edit. So if you call my blog log "no big deal" then you're very wrong as it is a big deal. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee - you are a great editor. If you ever decide to run for Admin I'd be more than happy to nominate you and then spend the first 100+ words on explaining that the blocks are incorrect. I'm certain that Pat would do so also. If others didn't see that as a fact then that would be their and Wikipedia's loss. That said, I am a little disappointed in Kbh3rd not having a bit more to say about this, I mean I've seen the first apology but I think another one for the continued autoblock of your IP (unless I have missed it somewhere and then my apologies) should have come quickly. Everyone makes mistakes - I have done this once myself to a good editor and was mortified - and couldn't say sorry enough. Oh and I should answer the question that you ask above Bidgee - it was I who managed to turn your autoblock off. Stay sane my friend.--VS ^talk 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bidgeei, you have reason to be miffed, but I extended a simple, straightforward, sincere and honest apology and can offer no more. I am careful about such things, and you can be sure this episode will only enforce that. I did not add explanations and excuses when I apologized as those would, to me, seem to detract from it -- I wanted to apologize, not to impress. But you and VS seem to demand more...

As for no action for close to two hours after the block was initated, I make no apologies for sitting down to dinner with my family. My wife frowns upon laptops at the table. As soon as I saw the message from Juliancolton I lifted the block against your user id and apologized on your talk page.

Besides eating dinner a least once a day, I actually have a real life outside of Wikipedia. This is my first chance to revisit this. There is also a matter of timezones to consider. Criticism by VS concerning timeliness is out of line.

Concerning the autoblock, from Wikipedia:Autoblock:

It is important for users to understand that administrators do not set autoblocks; once they have blocked a user with autoblocking enabled, autoblocks are set by the MediaWiki software. Autoblocks do not appear in administrators' block logs, and the administrators are not notified of them. This is a necessary consequence of Wikipedia's privacy policy, to keep logged-in users' IP addresses private. So while the IP address responsible for each edit is recorded by the MediaWiki software, this cannot be accessed, even by administrators and even when the user is blocked.

Upon realizing the error of the block against your user id I immediately removed the block I had placed and did not realize that all that was going on in the background. It seems to me that there is room for improvement in the wiki software -- it would reasonable that when a user id block is lifted any associated autoblocks should be removed automatically. I didn't apply the autoblock. I was not notified that it was placed, and I was not notified that it remained when I removed the original block. I rarely if ever apply a temporary block against a registered user, so I did not anticipate the looming difficulties. The apparent trouble the other admins had in getting it fully lifted argue further for a more streamlined process.

There's more I could add, but I've already written more than I thought necessary. I'm sorry for the trouble. I am careful with these functions and can only increase that care due to this episode. The other option is to ignore it all and let the vandals have their way. Then there would be no reason for doing the good stuff.

This is the last that I have to say on the matter. --Kbh3^rdtalk 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for File:Rockwoods.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rockwoods.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] uncomformity image size

lot of the folks coming to wiki are looking for information and beyond that won't ever set their image size preferences so I tweaked the thumb to 200px, which also gives it a nice layout conformity with the other images on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozarkhighlands (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding which, Wikipedia:IMGSIZE#Displayed_image_size still stands. By giving a specific pixel size you override individuals who do set their preferences, and prevent the wiki software (present or future) from properly sizing it based on anonymous users' screen size. This is bad practice because we're all using different pixel resolutions on differently sized displays. That 200px exactly looks right on your display has little bearing on how others experience Wikipedia.

I understand and generally agree with the reasoning behind the larger images at the top of the article. But this is in relation to an ordinary thumbnail deep in the body of the article. If it requires a specific pixel size, then I don't see how Wikipedia:IMGSIZE#Displayed_image_size would ever have any bearing anywhere in Wikipedia.

To quote the Manual of Style:

Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

• Images with ave not give aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image
• Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts
• Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article
• Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
• Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

None of those conditions seem to fit this rather run-of-the-mill case. FWIW, I visited a site recently that was obviously created many years ago. The images where way too small for modern displays. Is someone supposed to go back and adjust the |200px| in a gazillion thumbnails on Wikipedia in 5 or 10 years from now? I prefer to let the software do its job. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

when setting the px I looked at the page all the way down to 800x600 screen resolution about the lowest res used and these days by almost nobody. the 200px seemed fine at that end of the scale and more appropriate with each step to higher res from that baseline. Ozarkhighlands (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several things you have not considered. Number of pixels is only one factor. The size of those pixels and the corresponding size of the screen will vary widely. Consider:

• PDAs
• Cellphones
• Netbooks, OLPC
• Print media, which is happening now.[2]
• Other things that neither of us have thought of and that might not even exist now on which it will work much better if the resolution of ordinary thumbnails is not set in stone to some dimension that looks good to one person now using one sort of technology.

I see no reason why official Wikipedia policy, which has been established with those contingencies and more in mind, does not apply here. None of the exceptions to the rule that I quoted above are relevent in this situation. In a way we're making mountains out of molehills, but in certain contexts these things matter. --Kbh3^rdtalk 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Getting started on a new bridge

Here it is, as requested, Boss!

Quite a while ago you mentioned that it would be neat to see pix of a bridge carved from a blank also shown, and here is the blank I propose to use for the next setup in the queue. I'm hoping that showing you this will motivate me to take further photos for the commons. Be well, and thanks for all that you do here, __Just plain Bill (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Three years and three months or so qualifies a quite a while ago! Still, it would be good to see and quite educational, IMHO. --Kbh3^rdtalk 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Self-confessed sockpuppet

Following your block of Ohjaypea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log), you may be interested in the oh-so-subtle name and edits of Ohjaypea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log). I'm an admin on an monobook-enforced wikibreak from my account, otherwise I'd block him myself! Regards, 94.196.138.129 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. THanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Bencherlite (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi, Kbh3rd- I want to thank you for reverting this. I am not sure if it's vandalism, but it sure is weird! Maybe they like the puppies? Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] nice edit summary

lol :) --Waldir ^talk 22:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, my talent is recognized! ;0) --Kbh3^rdtalk 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New Madrid Seismic Zone

I history merged the old edits from New Madrid Fault Zone to New Madrid Seismic Zone, so all the content edits are in the latter location. I use this method of history merging, which is usually kinder on the servers, but generates more log actions than the normal method. I'm going through this list of candidates for history merging. Graham87 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dyslexia orthography

single or one are the best options which was the meaning in the context.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a sentence that probably could be improved further, beyond my meager attempt to make it easier to parse. On first glance "sole" does seem to fit the phrase better, but once the entirety of the sentence is successfully digested, "one" or "single" are plainly more appropriate. I believe that "single" is the more apt phrasing, a point on which it appears that we agree. --Kbh3^rdtalk 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

the real problem for me is that unfortunately I have a communication disability, and these types of long sentences make up most of my written communications. I have problems trying to make these types of senstences shorter, and more comprehensable for others. This may sound strange, but due to the nature of my disability Auditory Processing Disorder I can make sense of whole range of written text, which may not always make sense to others, so for instance i can read what msot dyslexics write even with no corrections. So I do need to the support of others to help when it comes to making texts nore accessable to others. I hope you understand dolfrog (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)