User talk:Hagerman/Archive/1

This page has been archived please do not edit it. If you'd like to discuss one of the topics below, do so by clicking here

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Hagerman/Archive/1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Karmafist 00:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Busch Gardens Tampa Bay looks fairly neutral now, thanks for adding your extensive expertise on the park. I added an {{expand}} message at the top to see if anybody else out there can help fill out the sections you started. Also, if you have any promotional photos or personal photos of the park, please add them!

If there's anything else I can do to help you with here at Wikipedia, please ask. Karmafist 01:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Busch_gardens_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Busch_gardens_logo.gif. 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.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Let the Cows Out"

Weird Al did not write the song, "Who Let the Cows Out," though. It's one of many parodies misattributed to him. If you want to find out more about that, check the wikipedia page on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.50.13 (talk • contribs)

Ostrich article

I wasn't experimenting. The sexual behavior of ostriches in presence of humans have been documented in real scientific research, that won the IgNobel prize. Please be a little less crictical and check out if the editing is a joke before just removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.202.194.62 (talk • contribs)

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you got it working! --Chris (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had no problems with the installation. Great work on the application and congrats on your recent adminship! Hagerman 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie

Sorry, I was unaware of the policy. 72.38.231.225 22:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we all make mistakes. I just wanted to make sure you understood the policy as it can be a bit misleading. Hagerman 22:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Provisional IRA actions

All I did was making a simple correction to a fairly basic spelling mistake - "IRA man abnd one Catholic" I apologise for not making this clear.

Yes, I saw the correction. However, you also accidentally removed the last portion of the page which is why it was reverted. Please review the edit you made to see the details. Hagerman 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Hagerman/Archive/1, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen 08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I see that you've reported me here. However, I think you've made a mistake since I have not vandalized. Feel free to check below:

GHe (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

G.H e 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He made a mistake. I was about to say something when he removed you from the list. =) --Chris (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kinda tired. GHe reverted a page at the same time as me and when I went to report the user I accidentally clicked on his username. :-) Hagerman 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay now that it's all sorted out. No harm done. :) G.H e 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstates

I'm sorry, about what I'm doing and I just know more NJ intersections, I may not be a road expert but I just know BIG intersections in NJ maybe not NY, but NJ.

Don't worry you're doing nothing wrong! I've just noticed you have been putting a lot of effort into improving many of the articles and I thought you might like to take credit for your changes with an account of your own. Hagerman 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you know what I do, I don't know why SPUI keeps taking them, unless NJ State highways aren't that big and US roads and Interstates are, are the roads, ok currently, where they are?

NJ roads

And thank you for your compliment, I try hard at what I do, Hagerman, if you have questions let me know about NJ roads.

Certainly, thanks for your contributions! Hagerman 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium

the vandalism to this page occurred with the addition of the nonsense "aptly named 'Godzillatron'" All other changes are just coordinated proof to show that crap can be added to any Wiki page. If you want to curb the vandalism, remove the nonsense and lock the page.

In that case the appropriate thing to do would have been to remove the incorrect statement rather than worsening the situation with the edit you made. If you feel the page needs to be locked, please submit a request for page protection from an administrator. Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Blaine

I am an executive journalist for the weekly world news. We have on good sources, this information. I would appreciate if you would refrain from oppressing the voice of truth and understanding. Fruits have feelings also.

If you are serious about your inquiry, you must cite reliable sources when adding content to Wikipedia. In addition, you must also maintain a neutral point of view, which I believe you failed to maintain in your edit. Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page.--1568 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome :-). Hagerman^(talk) 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rwake

please don't accuse me of adding nonsense. I was correcting your mistakes, which I hope you would change back. I saw Rwake's first show in 1994. I lived with them for five years. Your information is incorrect. Before you spew verbiage, get your facts straight. I was just trying to correct false information.

As I've stated on my user page, I make mistakes. When this occurs, feel free to revert the changes. It's important to remember that when you change dates on a page in Wikipedia and do not include an edit summary or cite a reliable source, it typically sets off a red flag to any editors who are watching for vandalism. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply, making sure to sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry

i was told to edit the elephant artictle by the tv.

i was revertin back after doing stuff

after i was changing the stuff i was always reverting back

In the future, please consider making your changes to the sandbox so that your edits do not confuse readers. Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 02:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, but no one appreciates what I'm doing, I just wish, I can do better, with NJ roads,

Continuing vandalism of "Peter Stearns"

I noticed that there is continuing vandalism of the entry for "Peter Stearns", some of which you have corrected. Would it be possible for you to revert to your last corrected entry for "Peter Stearns" and then lock the page, preventing further changes? It would be much appreciated. Thank you!

I have reverted the recent vandalism to the page. If you happen to notice any in the future, you are free to revert it on your own. I have added the page to my watchlist and if I notice the vandalism continues to occur, I will request to have the page locked. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.9***

It was me, just forgot that I've logged in from Firefox and not from IE6. Sorry :P --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 23:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just checking to protect your userpage from vandals :-). Hagerman^(talk) 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!! What's up?

hey

I am contacting you now. and u havent replied

that information was incorrect and lacked any citations

Your edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are inappropriate an do not conform to the NPOV. I've already reported you to an administrator. I hope when you return you'll consider contributing useful information. Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

leaving you another message, im adding valuable information to the whites page and you keep removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.3.56 (talk • contribs)

See my reply above, it took a while to compile. Hagerman^(talk) 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya well now i added my own section to it, stop abusing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.3.56 (talk • contribs)

I've blocked the preceding user for 24 hours in response to his repetitive vandalism. Thanks for the report. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alphachimp! Hagerman^(talk) 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an added note, it's great to see someone other than Omicron and CrazyComputers using VS. Keep up the great work. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. It's definitely the best tool available for fighting vandals. I think the only thing holding back its growth is the Linux platform :-). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding and thirding that, and adding: Yes! I finally beat you to one of the aircraft hijacking vandalisms! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did, it's turning into a competition! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just happy to see that more people are "seeing the light". Yes, I am very deluded. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Sorry About That I Edited The Page

Yes, I notice you reverted the edit the same time I did. For the future, please consider using the sandbox for any tests or experiments. Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Faris page

Hi, it was me that was editing the Sean Faris page. I deleted the links but forgot to add a reason. That page was very unorganized, with lots of unnecessary content (myspace "fakers" etc.), loads of grammatical errors, and tons of links).

I was sorting through the links and only left a main few but forgot to leave an explantion. Do you think they should be on there?

---ACL- 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several of them seem like they can go, however, before making any drastic changes, I'd recommend getting everyone's opinion on the discussion page. I don't imagine there will be too many objections. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p-o-re

jekunm21

Weasel Words

Article : Bhakti Caitanya Swami

You added the Weasel Words tag to this article. Can you please make it clear what is weasely about it? Thanks Chopper Dave

I felt some of the statements such as "His Holines" [sic] might have been inappropriate to keep a NPOV. Feel free to remove the tag if you think otherwise. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job!

Good catch on the Bryan Breeding copyvio! Kukini 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Faris Page

I've added the proposal to clean up the page on the Sean Faris discussion page two days ago, but still no response. How long should I wait with no response before deleting them?

---ACL- 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go ahead and remove anything you feel is redundant. Hagerman^(talk) 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

school-stub

Hi! I noticed you've been sorting a lot of articles into {{US-school-stub}}. Now that this category has been broken by state, if you could use the template state-school-stub, that would really save a lot of time! Templates exist for all states on that format. The only exception is Georgia, which is GeorgiaUS-school-stub. Thanks! Aelfthrytha 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I didn't realize it broke down by state. I'll try to go in and help sort some of the articles out. Thanks for letting me know! Hagerman^(talk) 04:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've already got everything :-) Hagerman^(talk) 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policyowner Contributions

Why do you delete the factual information that I post regarding Minnesota Life and other mutual life insurance organizations?

I reverted the edits that were made because they do not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you have any other questions, feel free to reply. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policyowner Question

What specific comments are not neutral?

The main offense is the personal analysis that you added which promotes a site you obviously have an interest in:

Given these facts, knowledgeable policyowners decided in 2006 to organize to promote the prompt demutualization of the National Life of Vermont. They established a website http://policyownersfordemutualization.blogspot.com showing that National Life’s whole life policyowners would receive an estimated $11,211 per policy and its other policyowners would receive $1,548 per policy in a demutualization. These policyowners also established an email account National Life Policyowners for Demutualizationwhere people can communicate a desire to encourage demutualization on National Life so they can receive their significant, rightful financial share.

Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policyowner Promotion of Website

I apologize for my ignorance of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and the fact that I unwittingly violated that policy by promoting a website. Given your objection, I propose to modify the final paragraph of National Life of Vermont's Wikipedia page to read as follows:

    Given these facts, knowledgeable policyowners have begun to favor the   prompt demutualization of the National Life of Vermont. According to detailed financial data presented at http://policyownersfordemutualization.blogspot.com,  National Life’s whole life policyowners would receive an estimated $11,211 per policy and its other policyowners would receive $1,548 per policy in a demutualization.

The final paragraphs for the other mutual insurers would contain the same edit with the exception that the dollar amounts would differ.

I hope you agree that this modification cleans up the NPOV problem I have been causing. I look forward to hearing from you and re-posting.

That still doesn't eliminate the NPOV issues. The problems are:

Given these facts

Introducting personal analysis

knowledgeable policyowners

Not a neutral point of view to say knowledgable policyholders are doing something.

have begun to favor the prompt demutualization of the National Life of Vermont

What reliable source states this unreferenced fact?

According to detailed financial data presented at http://policyownersfordemutualization.blogspot.com

This should probably be mentioned as a source, but not your only source. Are there any online articles from newspapers you can find? Check Google news for some.

National Life’s whole life policyowners would receive an estimated $11,211 per policy and its other policyowners would receive $1,548 per policy in a demutualization.

This is fine as long as its cited from a reliable source.

Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XIV of France

Can you watch Louis XIV of France an anonymous user keeps changing the age of the monarch from 76 to 77, I dont think math was his major. I changed it twice and he just changed it again. Its been a featured article so there is no debate needed about his age. I have the math on the discussion page if you need to justify the change back.

You've got it, it's on my watchlist. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 04:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policyowners Latest Edit

Based on your latest constructive comments, I would like the last paragraph to read as follows:

National Life’s whole life policyowners would receive an estimated $11,211 per policy and its other policyowners would receive $1,548 per policy in a demutualization according to financial data contained in National Life of Vermont’s 2005 Annual Statement to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the company’s published 2005 Annual Report and shown at http://policyownersfordemutualization.blogspot.com.

All other mutual life insurance company postings would contain the same statement with changes made for the company name and the amounts of money.

I look forward to hearing from you.

That looks to clear it up for me as long as you add a link to another reliable source, like the stockholder annual report you mentioned for each respective company. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 05:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the source, criticism of Mutual life insurers does not belong on the wiki page for every single mutual life insurance company. You wouldn't go around posting "convert to christianity!" on all the pages about Islam, so we should keep "demutualize!" propaganda off of the pages for happily mutual insurance companies. Add all you want to the Demutualization page, but leave these companies alone. Crimson117 17:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Hagerman^(talk) 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus and Roxanne

Will you please stop marking this film as a child film when it is not one? It may be a family film, but that doesn't mean that it is for children to watch alone. There needs to be a family film stub category for films of this nature, as they are not children's films for there is content within that may not be suitable for children to watch without parental supervision, imo. - LA @ 06:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was doing a mass stub sort and I didn't see your edit summary on your revert. I do agree that there needs to be a family stub category though. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer Kumar Sethi

Thanks for the message. I will get back in 3 daysDoctor Bruno 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the last line in http://sumerdoc.googlepages.com/sumersethi'scurriculumvitae Doctor Bruno 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the licensing information. I've removed the copyright violation notice. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New (film)

That is a film which was banned by the High Court Doctor Bruno 01:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary (unsure of type) was in regards to the genre of the movie for stub sorting. If you know the genre of the movie, it would help if you could adjust the stub tag! If it is a drama film, the stub tag would be {{drama-film-stub}}, action is {{action-film-stub}}, etc. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't me...

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism to Boeing 777 will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. Hagerman(talk) 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, since you are using AOL, you should disregard that message. Since AOL uses a web proxy you share your IP address with hundreds of users at the same time. The vandalism was made by one of those users. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 02:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to pull the plug on Policyowner

Policyowner has once again (8/31) defaced the New York Life wiki article with his demutualization commentary.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=New_York_Life_Insurance_Company&diff=prev&oldid=73024364

This comes after you gave him a final warning on 8/27. I suggest you ban him and his IP. Crimson117 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an Administrator usually won't block a user unless they have received the full range of warnings within the last week (see Administrator intervention against vandalism). Blocks for the first offense are usually short and will only last for around 3 hours unless it is blatant vandalism. In my opinion, the best solution would be to contact Policyowner directly and work to resolve the dispute. I believe the best solution would be for him to add content in a NPOV on the subject to Demutualization as that seems to be the most relevant. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to pull the plug on Policyowner

Policyowner has once again (8/31) defaced the New York Life wiki article with his demutualization commentary.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=New_York_Life_Insurance_Company&diff=prev&oldid=73024364

This comes after you gave him a final warning on 8/27. I suggest you ban him and his IP. Crimson117 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an Administrator usually won't block a user unless they have received the full range of warnings within the last week (see Administrator intervention against vandalism). Blocks for the first offense are usually short and will only last for around 3 hours unless it is blatant vandalism. I would contact Policyowner directly and work to resolve the dispute. I believe the best solution, as you also mentioned, would be for him to add content in a NPOV on the subject to Demutualization as that seems to be the most relevant topic to his context. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policyowner defaced the New York Life article again with his demutualization propaganda. I've sent him an email and also added it to his talk page. If he doesn't respond, however, I really want to pursue getting him blocked. I'm tired of reverting his repetitive edits Can you please point me to the documentation of blocking procedures and requirements? Thank you. Crimson117 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you warn Policyowner with the full range of template messages each time he violates the NPOV, you are permitted to add a request to Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, it might be more effective to follow the dispute resolution course and request arbitration if he still continues. If you choose take proceed using dispute resolution, I'll gladly assist. I hope this helps, thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An important Puerto Rican disabled Florida artist that deserves recognition

Good Evening, Mr. Hagerman:

Most artists of our day become the darlings of the art trade because their art has become a current fad. This is not so With John Ayes.

Ayes has given much of his time to his community via donations of his art, acquiring and sharing many of his venues with his fellow artists and he has worked really hard at succeeding within his chosen field despite his many disabilities. He suffers from closed end gluacoma, was born color deficient in the perception of primary colors and he is totally hearing impaired. Yet his art has been showcased on Channel 31 fox news, TV 31 The Melbourne Arts channel, Access Osceola TV on Britehouse, within many local news papers and within national magazines: Culture Magazine, AARP Segunda Juventud - Encore, and within Art-i-Facts, the Polk County Cultural Art Board's magazine. He has won many awards in his field His art has been exhibited in the Orlando Museum of Arts, First Thursdays, Brevard Community College's Moore Multi Cultural Museum and Bartow's History Museum in Polk County, Florida. His art has also been exhibited on behalf of VSAFL, Very Special Arts of Florida dedicated to establishing and enpowering disabled artists within Florida. His art and his biography has also been showcased within third grade school text books that have been published in Puerto Rico's public school system as an inspiration for children to gain from.

His art inspires as well as motivates because of his many disabilities.

John Ayes' article deserves to be inserted below his name within the Famous Puerto Rican Artist's listing herein within Wikipedia.

Please note: There are links within the article about Ayes that can serve as source verifiers, especially the link that will take you directly to Segunda Juventud's Web Site.

Thank you,

Respectfully,

Carmen L. Browne. clbr54@aol.com

71.1.152.160 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I declined your request to create a new article was that the article already existed and was deleted around 6 hours ago due to non-notability. If you disagree with the articles initial deletion, you are always free to open a deletion review. I hope this helps. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fronteer Records

does a record label have to have sold albums or be written about elsewhere to be included in wikipedia? the reason the fronteer records article should be included in an encyclopedia is simply that the label exists. that is merit enough

why the label is "important" is subjective and it is unreasonable to require such an explanation

it exists and that is the only reason why it should be included

please reconsider —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.168.209 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I strongly disagree with your opinion that an entry should be made for a company that hasn't done anything (See What Wikipedia is not). There are guidelines which a company must usually meet to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Since your company does not meet those requirements, I declined your request to create an article. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fronteer Records

there are two very specific things fronteer records has done that are explicit in the article: (1) it has played shows (for money) and (2) it has creative output. it is also important to note that your definition of "company" is subjective and forcibly applied here. fronteer records does not consider itself a company or business because we have made no profits. "non-profit music collective" would be a truer classification. sales are funneled back into creative activity. it is true that in the future fronteer records could become a business, but the uncertain future is hardly relevant here.

these points are moot however, because other labels (which sometimes are companies) have articles on wikipedia and have objectively done nothing more than fronteer records has: ie make sells, have creative output, and exist. perhaps they have made more money, have more members, or have been in existance longer, but those things are not relevant. if you would choose to add a label description to wikipedia based on that label's purported importance and/or influence, then you are not being objective.

also i do not like the idea that one person gets to decide what articles can exist on wikipedia, no matter how many people decided on the guidelines and rules. the interpretation here seems careless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.168.209 (talk • contribs).

I understand your concerns, but the existence of a company doesn't imply notability. It must earn its notability through its actions. I assume you are a stakeholder in "Fronteer Records." If you are having to create an article, its probably an indication that the label is not yet ready for an entry on Wikipedia. Once an organization grows to the point that it warrants a Wikipedia article, another editor will probably create one on their own.

Regarding the last line of your comment, I should make something clear as you appear to have overlooked the first line of the Articles for creation page:

This page allows unregistered users to create new articles with the assistance of registered Wikipedians. The easiest way to create a new article, however, is to create a free Wikipedia user account and then log in. No personal information is necessary to register, and registered users can create new articles without the hassle or delay of the Article for Creation process.

There is nothing stopping you from registering an account of your own and creating the page unless you have a reason for remaining anonymous. Keep in mind, the page will most likely be flagged for speedy deletion shortly after creation due to non-notability. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fronteer

fronteer records is not a company, i don't know how i can make that any more clear.

your idea of notability is reasonable here: until someone not connected to the label posts an article about it, it is probably not notable.

but again i see a lot of subjectivity here. i don't think notability is a very good guideline for anything's inclusion in wikipedia. every entity that exists should be included. anything about which there is information should be included. philosophically speaking, this seems the most encyclopedia-like, objective, truly comprehensive, and most importantly to the ideal of wikipedia, "free". notability can never be objective, and i strongly disagree that existance does not imply notability.

i do appreciate your being reasonable and thoughtful in your replies. i was aware that i could register and post the article, but i didn't want to. if i do are you going to immediately go mark it for non-notablity? what if a number of people edited it, added to it, or said that they'd like to see it remain? would that make a difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.178.168.209 (talk • contribs).

I appreciate your feedback. When I made my suggestion above, I did so with no intention of marking the article for speedy deletion. My concern lies in covering myself for posting something that I consider to be non-notable for you. If you create the article, I will not interfere, but I do feel that another editor will feel the same as I do about the topic.

The number of edits for an article doesn't mean anything with regards to the notability of the subject. There are plenty of internet forums whose members work together to create an article on Wikipedia which is subsequently deleted because it fails to meet the guidelines of web site notability. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding "Policyowner"

I read your post regarding the unethical activities of "Policyowner" and I completely agree. He should be banned. I work for the parent company of Minnesota Life, and we discovered yesterday (Oct. 30) what he'd been doing (e.g., demutalization articles posted under company names - New York Life, Nation Life - Vermont, etc.).

Thanks

Cmgonzo 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal spread trading

Chris, I prefer Mac OS X and my primary computer is a Powerbook G4 15 inch. I am not convinced the Intel was an improvement. Jobs just wanted all the Apples using the same platform. The G5 ran to hot for laptops. Some say the Intel is doing the same. OS X rocks!

Am I responding in the correct place?

In any case I removed a stub suggestion of yours in Seasonal spread trading. You can put it back, but the reason is because trading commodities is not stock exchange stuff. Commodities are necessities; no one needs a share certificate. Generally commodities are influenced by climate. Stocks are not really seasonal. So asking these stock exchange people to mess with our stuff is not a good idea.

We finance trades out of unrealized capital. They will not let the reckless stock players so this. It is forbidden. The essential nature of trading is different. You can make a lot of money in stocks only if you have a lot of money to start with. You can make and lose fortunes on a shoestring trading futures. Seasonal patterns make it safer. GT

Jesse Livermore

Jesse Livermores book was mentioned because he operated pretty much under the same rules commodities markets use today concerning pyramiding and building up a stake trading on a shoestring.

Sorry if the mention confused you, "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator," by Edwin Lefèvre is about a stock operator of old who trades like futures traders do today. GT

To let you know about "Policyowner"

I am not sure what your past conversations were with User:Policyowner, however to update you he has been blocked indefinitely for his repeated posting to several insurance compaines pages. I am letting you know as he has posted on his talk page a statement that he hasworked with you on various edits until and that you approved a template for his posts. Just wanted to let you know about the issue as he is working to get unblocked. Thanks for all your hard work to build wikipedia. TheRanger 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Just to be clear, I don't condone the controversial edits they have made regarding demutualization. While I did provide some constructive feedback in the past, I don't agree with Policyowner's decisions to promote their own site. It was my original intention to assist the new user in understanding Wikipedia's NPOV, however, the attack edits continued. I fully support the block. Thanks again, Hagerman^(talk) 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From going back and reading the talk and post that went on between you and policyowner that is what I thought you side would be, so thats why I let you know. For your information even though he is block he is back with sockpuppets the latest was User:Spotlighter (which is now blocked) and also a couple IP edits. I'll keep a eye on the insurance company pages and try to keep this at bay. Thanks for your help making wikipeida the best it can be. TheRanger 01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Society

Good Evening Haggerman, I am a member of the Cyrus Society. We felt that this is a great tool to allow curious people to find out a little history of the group. The Z society also has a site on Wikipedia and we felt it is a good way for curious people to see what exactly has impacted them. If anything on the site needs to be fixed we are happy to do so thank you. Frank —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyrus Society (talk • contribs).

I understand why you'd like to create an article, however, you must cite sources in your article that prove the subject is notable. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reply. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Middle School

This is not nonsense, though I agree some of it is. I am afraid the school is not very good being a student I know. I am generally against vandalization of this site, but for stuff like this you should let it slide. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.78.185 (talk • contribs)

Can you cite a reliable source? Please take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of views. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to reply. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 03:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD speedy delete question

I am in full agreement with your comment regarding the "Michelle Zakarian" page. My question is - and no one has been able to give me a good answer... What is to be done when the author is sitting there removing the db-whatever tag from their page? (and they weren't challenging it, they were just removing the template) I saw this done for what looked like about 12 hours once!! It apparently wasn't allowing enough lag time for any bot to pick it up. A one timer doing this isn't vandalasm, per se, but is there a way to override their continual removal of the template from their page?SkierRMH 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user removes the speedy deletion template, you should add it again and warn the user with the {{drmspeedy}} template. Every time they remove the template, add a new warning to their page, incrementing the template: {{drmspeedy2}}, then {{drmspeedy3}, and finally {{drmspeedy4}}. If they remove it again after you leave the fourth warning, you may put a notice on administrator intervention against vandalism and the user will be blocked from editing by an administrator. I hope this helps! Thank you, Hagerman^(talk) 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry MacNeil became Nandi Devam

I am rather new to Wikipedia so please forgive my clumsiness at this. I looked up the name of the sixties musical group that I co-founded (Sopwith Camel/band) and found my name there (actually my old name) and when I clicked on it, it said that thee was no page for that name, but that one could be created. I just wanted to do that, using verifiable information from already-existing web sites, and I wanted to reference to my new name, because I have a current web site under that name. Is this OK to do? —the preceding comment is by Nandidevam (talk • contribs): Please sign your posts!.

Generally, it's a bad idea to edit an article about yourself. It's best to wait for someone else to add the content on their own. See guidelines on autobiographies for more information. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverting

I would like to show you my appreciation over your recent vandalism reverting, you beat me to revert at least 20 times today. We need more people like you here on Wikipedia. Keep up the excellent work! :) Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback, you actually beat me to a few reverts as well! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha. "The Lonely RV Holiday Club." (speaking for myself) It sure beats video games and TV reruns. :P ^~DBS ^Talk/_Contribs

Agreed! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Spree

My vandalism spree has ended. All "modifications" have been reverted It was immature, but more just an experiment to see how long nonsense could stay up, especially when it pertained to "obscenity." Judging by your rapid resposne, Wikipdia indeed appears to be quite reputable. Kudos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.51.179 (talk • contribs)

Hopefully you'll use your editing power to do something positive with Wikipedia this time around. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 20:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How thoughtful. ,:) ^~DBS ^Talk/_Contribs 20:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the kooks

i can assure you the changes i made were correct —the preceding comment is by Birdie23 (talk • contribs): Please sign your posts!.

I've reverted the revert. Please make sure you cite a source for the change. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

dear sir , i deeply apoligise for my behaveure and comments i am a boy of 12 and was dared by my friends once again i apologise your sincerly the boy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.255.90 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Sp-Un-Ka

I made a article refering to the Sp-Un-Ka tribe of Stains, Reading on the 23rd of November 2006. It portrayed a group of people that live in a way, that may seem differant to you. I think that it showed people that, even if others live differantely, they should be respected and encorouged. The deletion of the article is an uttermost disgrace as it had great anthropological meaning, portaying a fair and objective view of the world - these people in particualr. I am new to wikipedia and don't know all the details on how it works but i'd like you to re-think about your speedy deletion decision, Thank you, Daniel Rutter, Chris White, Michael Scarborough, Neal Monk, Matt King and Will Eldon (Sp-Un-Ka) —the preceding comment is by Djrutter (talk • contribs): Please sign your posts!.

I'm not an Administrator, so I don't have the power to speedy delete an article. Looking at the history from the article [1] it was deleted because it met the the patent nonsense speedy deletion criteria. If you feel that the article should have not been deleted, you are always free to open a deletion review. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers dude, sorry about that, i was just a bit angry.

Daniel Rutter (Sp-Un-Ka)

Thanks

What was that all about? Wavy G 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure, did you do anything to upset him? I just happened to notice because the edit he made was unsigned :). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never even seen him before. I checked his edit history, and he doesn't even appear to have edited any of the articles I frequent. Oh well, no problem. Just gave me a little scare for a second. Thanks again. Wavy G 08:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned

Hi, actually I did sign, but no problem [2]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I just added the functionality for my bot to sign WP:AIV pages and it malfunctioned. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what happened is that after I copied the template, I removed the "--" that is before the ~~~~ since my sig already has hyphens in it. Since it was a little different than the norm (my sig doesn't have a space between the hyphens and my sig), maybe the bot didn't recognize the sig. Cool bot though, all these bots really do help out the project automating the mindless stuff. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should automatically recognize a signature regardless of the -- (I personally don't use them either :-) ). The problem was that I added a condition to search WP:AIV and forgot to tell the bot to look for a signature before adding the unsigned template for those pages. It appears to be working now, though. Thanks! (Going to see if it catches this unsigned comment) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagerman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

HagermanBot

Hi. Nice bot you've got there. That'll certainly help on my userpage, I'm forever having to sign people's comments for them – Gurch 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool bot! It worked perfectly. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a talk page comment, realized I'd left it unsigned as soon as I hit "save", went back, and your bot had already tagged it. You're running it unbelievably fast. Any chance you can set it to give a 30-second grace period before signing posts or something so I don't feel so inadequate? :) Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about putting a delay on the inserting of the unsigned comment, however, I felt it might result in more edit conflicts. Currently, the bot signs the comment 3-5 seconds after it was left (depending on Wikipedia's response time). If someone leaves a comment on my talk page while I'm browsing, I might already be inserting my reply before 30 seconds has expired. When I go to save, since HagermanBot put in the unsigned comment, there is now an edit conflict. You can see the dilemma :-). Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. cool bot. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had quoted an article on my Talk page (three indents), then reverted to the indent level of my personal comments (two indents) to sign my post - and the bot added the unsigned template (diff). I see where the bot got confused, but it was slightly annoying. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the behavior to prevent that I'm will<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ing to try it. Because you broke up the insertion of your comment into seven edits, the bot mistakenly asssumed one of those edits (which met all of its criteria) was a new comment. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the bot do my talk page as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything special to make it work for a specific talk page. It should notice any unsigned comments on any talk page automatically and sign them accordingly. Keep in mind it will only work for comments that have been left after it went into operation, it can't go back and plug in signatures for old comments. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at your talk page, there was a comment left recently that should have gotten a signature but didn't because the bot was busy signing another comment at the same time and missed the event where your talk page was edited. I'm going to run the process to edit a page on a seperate thread and see if that clears it up. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's now running all edit checks in a seperate thread so it can process multiple edits simultaneously. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disable this bot, or at least give it a delay of an hour or so. The instant response causes an edit conflict every time I attempt to remove unsigned trolling/vandalism to talk pages. — CharlotteWebb 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot serves a very useful purpose, so I don't intend to disable it. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise. Zetawoof had suggested a 30 second delay, which is reasonable. However, as I stated above, I think a delay will actually result in more edit conflicts. Would you mind taking this discussion to Requests for Bot Approval so that we can get the opinion of some other users in the process? Hagerman^(talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this bot from checking my contributions, or remove it from my talk page? SchmuckyTheCat 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you don't wish to take advantage of the bot, just put  somewhere on your talk page and it will stop checking. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this bot. It worked great on my talk page today. Saved me the time of dragging out the "unsigned" template and checking the history to see who was complaining this morning. — coelacan talk — 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoy it! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#if

The bot leaves superfluous code fragments from the substed parser function in the template. Since human convenience isn't an issue here, could you find a workaround for this? Femto 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. It now no longer uses the unsigned template. Instead it places the equivilent output of a substed unsigned template without the #if component. Thanks! (I'll leave this unsigned as a test of the new signing method) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagerman (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yea!

Yea! Hagerman Bot! It's annoying when people don't sign posts. Thanks for helping out :) Cyberia23 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree! :-) Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delay

I just went back to sign my comment and this bot had done it already for me - perhaps you could add a small delay mechanism that gives users a little time to realize their mistake and correct it themselves? Thanks, Richard001 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up for discussion on bots for approval based on some comments I received above and I haven't received any feedback yet. By design the bot doesn't have a delay because I felt it would cause too many edit conflicts when another editor went to reply. The quicker we can add the signature, the less likely the user is to get to an edit screen before the changes are made. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi - great bot idea - really helps out :) I've just got a slight concern about it adding a sig to null edits (like this. Perhaps you could get it to recognise "null edit" in the edit summary and not leave the template? Thanks M a rtinp23 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! It's supposed to catch null edits, but I see where it's failing on that example. Let me make the changes and recompile... Hagerman^(talk) 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've released a new version that addresses that issue. :-) It doesn't depend on any special edit summary, it will just recognize that adding a bullet doesn't justify a signature. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unwanted signatures

HangermanBot keeps adding my signature when I have not signed with the normal four tilde signs. I usually just sign by typing my username and I prefer it that way. However, this Bot keeps appearing and adding another signature. I find that ann<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">oying. How do I make it stop? -Sensemaker

~~I'll make it so that if the bot recognizes your username in your edit it won't make a modification. Let me recompile the bot... Hagerman^(talk) 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~You should be good now. Please let me know if you have any problems. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Won't complying with this wish undermine the purpose of having signatures with a time stamp? -- Fyslee 14:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely. My initial reaction was for the requesting user to create a custom signature without a link so it still looked the same, but added a timestamp, or to put 5 tildes after writing their name to get a timestamp. I'm glad you said something to help justify my initial reaction. I'll revert those changes now. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! In my experience, users who deliberately don't use standard sigs are often those how are also engaged in behavior that attempts to contravene one of the things that makes Wikipedia work -- openness. (I am not accusing the user above of this behavior!) All our actions here should be open and above board, and capable of verifiability checks by other editors. The re-creation of the exact sequence of events in a discussion is essential. You've got a great bot here, and I wish you luck with it. -- Fyslee 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very insightful! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I am engaged in behaviour that goes contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. If you are not accusing me of this, when why do you want to disallow me the ability to opt out. If you are accusing me of such things, I fail to see what difference the bot would make. As long as I am logged in as Sensemaker, my actions can easily be traced anyway. I politely request that Hangerman turn his bot off for me. I was under the impression that he wanted to provide a genuine service to users who forget to sign occasionally (we can all be a bit absent-minded until we make a habit of it) -not force something unwanted upon those who expressly ask not to have it. Therefore the ability to opt out would be proper and respectful to the editors. I am sad to notice that he is hesitating in this matter but hope that he will not turn my request down. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am definitely not accusing you of anything wrong. You must have your reasons for doing as you do. You can customize your signature so it automatically gets added in the format you wish, with the time stamp. The crucial part is the time, not the signature itself. Talk pages get pretty hairy sometimes, and it can be very frustrating when time stamps are missing. It makes it much more difficult to figure out an edit history when that piece of information is missing. If you use a customized signature, the bot shouldn't touch it, but if it doesn't have the time for the edit, you would still be cheating other editors of a vital bit of information. -- Fyslee 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I fail to make sense of a message that starts "I am definitely not accusing you of anything wrong" and ends with "you would still be cheating other editors of a vital bit of information." I must respectfully request that you either stop saying you not are accusing me of doing anything wrong or actually stop accusing me of doing anything wrong. Please make up you mind.

Concerning your emphasis on the advantages of the bot I am sure that it might be somewhat convenient for you or others to use this bot to sign everything I write. However, I have now specifically requested to not have it implemented against my will. I would not force something upon you that you expressly said you did not want for my convenience. Now I humbly request that the same basic courtesy be extended to me. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I see you are from Sweden, and I'm an American living in Denmark. Maybe my choice of words is confusing to you, but I am not personally accusing you, I'm just stating how it can be perceived by others. When I write "cheat", I don't mean to accuse you of deliberately doing something wrong (in an ethical or criminal sense), but that others may feel cheated, whether that is your intention or not. Others need that information, and your actions are denying them of it, hence they may feel that you are cheating them of the information. There is a subtle difference, and it may not be understandable to people who don't have English as their mother tongue. If Hagerman wants to make an exception for you, then let him do it, but he will be ignoring the needs of other editors if he does it. If your edits are ever involved in any type of controversy, it will be unnecessarily difficult to sort things out without that information.

Will you please explain why you wish to deviate from standard practice here? -- Fyslee 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to deviate from standard practice. It was standard practice that people could sign their articles anyway they wanted to. Now you want to change the standard practice so that this is no longer possible. The person who argues for a change should have the burden of proof. If he wishes to impose his changes on people who really do not want them and expressly say so he or she must make a very strong case that imposing this change on an unwilling subject is warranted. I fail to see any significant benefit of the change and strongly dislike having them imposed on me for reasons of personal preferrences. I am not at ease discussing personal matters with complete strangers whose names I do not even know. Particularly not when such a discussion would be subject to a permanent, public record of which I have no control. I believe I shall have to respectfully ask you and Hnagerman to respect my wishes on this subject, just like I would respect yours if the situation was the opposite.

I have not been involved in anything I would consider a controversy. I have had a rather lengthy discussion over a minor piece of editorial but we did just fine without any bot adding stuff in my name against my will.

Once again, I would not try to impose a new order on you or force you to sign your name in a certain way if you expressly said that you did not want to do so. Please extend the same basic courtesy to me. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The basic way to continue signing your comments by hand, but to avoid having the bot sign your comment, is by putting in ~~~~~ after you type your name. 5 tildes will produce a timestamp, like this: 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC). This is what the bot is looking for in a signature. I realize that signing posts is not a rule, but merely a guideline (and considered good etiquette). If you don't wish to sign posts normally, you are free to break the etiquette. One of the features that I've mentioned on the bot description is that you are able to disable the bot on a one-time basis by placing !NOSIGN! somewhere in your edit summary. You will need to do this each time to override the automatic signature. However, I implore you to consider signing correctly to make your comments easier to interpret to other editors. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, you can sign your edits (or not) how you like, on the other it is quite acceptable for another user to add either the userid, time or both to a talk edit which doesn't conatin them. Nonetheless it might be worth allowing users to opt out of an automatic system - with an opt out list on a WP page (the technical details will be obvious to you)- after all everything is in history. This is part of the "bots are better behaved than people" mentality whihc is needed to avoid botophobia. Rich Farmbrough, 18:22 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Very true. That sounds like a great idea. I'll implement those changes this evening. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've implemented an opt out procedure. Thanks again, Hagerman^(talk) 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, an opt out option was all I was asking for. A sensible but persistant appeal to a gentleman's sense of decency and reciprocity almost always succeeds. I am glad it did so in this case too. I have done a simple test and it seems to have worked. Thank you. -Sensemaker

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 December 2006

Glad it's working out for you. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi! I'm rather into the whole bot thing, and I like programming, I've been hoping for a bot for unsigned comments for a while, could I take a look at him just to see how it was done, and possibly for use on a non-wikimedia project?(if you agree of course) Thanks! ST47Talk 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Let me put in some more comments and I'll post his source code to the HagermanBot user page later tonight. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the application has a couple of dependencies, I'm going to post the code on SourceForge. I've requested a new account, as soon as its added, I'll advise you on your talk page. Thanks again for your interest, Hagerman^(talk) 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks :) (will the bot autosign this even though there's a blank line?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ST47 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

EEP!

So I forget to sign my comments. I've always found them and have corrected them, but this time you caught me. x_X Oh well. Thanks! Nifty bot this be. :) -WarthogDemon 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot again

Your bot signed an addition of mine to Talk:Tenedos; the addition of one bullet point to a list of bullet points, duly signed at the end. This is unhelpful. I suppose it is the sort of thing which will be hard to avoid; but do try. There are plenty of reasons to make such edits; and no reason for a bot to criticize them. Septentrionalis 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting the error. Based on your example, I imagine the best corrective action would be for the bot to look through the remainder of the section which is being edited and locate the next signature (if there is one). Then, compare the username from that signature to the user who made the edit. If they match, don't sign. I'll try to get that change rolled out tonight. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem has been corrected. The addition of new lines in a section will not sign a comment if the next signature in the section is by the same user. Thanks again, Hagerman^(talk) 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; a related problem would be stuff that is intended to be unsigned, like the recommended format in WP:RM. I'm not sure how that can be handled; in that case there is intended to be a signiature, but it will usually be in a different edit. Septentrionalis 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that includes a template, by design, will not be parsed by HagermanBot. So, I believe any Requested Moves edits will be handled correctly by the bot. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RM and consider any of the recent move discussions. Most don;t include the {{move}} template in the same edit or section; and many do include an unsigned addition of

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

That appears to have worked. :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks - must be getting late. NorCalHistory 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was my bot that put in the comment :-) Hagerman^(talk) 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot on the Help Desk?

I've been testing your bot (thanks, bot, for signing a message someone else left on my talk page); I'd like to request that you run it on the Help Desk as well as the other Wikipedia-space pages you use, if that's feasible. (It will save having to go into the history to find a user's contribs and therefore what that user is talking about). --ais523 11:22, 6 December 2006 (U T C)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll make the modifications to the bot later tonight. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when...

... has your bot been active? You signed my talk page! Thanks. (Patstuart, not signing, just to test you). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Anyway, maybe you could get the bot to work on some WP namespaces with serious no signage problems. I'm specifically thinking the Help Desk and Reference Desks. There's more of a problem on those than any talk page I know (also, there's never a case when comments shouldn't be signed on those. -Patstuart^talk|edits 1:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been active since December 3, 2006. Based on your feedback and ais523, I'll make the changes to the configuration tonight to support the Help Desk and Reference Desks. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great

This bot is great! I get a lot of comments on my talk page from vandals who rarely ever sign. This bot means I don't have to check the history each time. Thanks a lot! James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just realised this is your talk page, not the bot's. Your bot is great!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I award you Hagerman the da Vinci Barnstar for making such a cool bot which saves me a lot of time. James086^{Talk \| Contribs} 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) My first barnstar! Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot

Real cool bot!! I have a question. I have set my preferences so that I don't see bot edits in my watchlist. Why then do I see Hagermanbot oh so frequently?? — Lost^(talk) 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! The bot is currently approved for operation, however, a bot flag hasn't been granted by a buereaucrat yet. Once the flag has been granted it should not appear in your watchlist. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I like the idea. However like many people I am in the habit of quickly re-opening an edit to sign if I forget, or put the wrong number of tildes. Whether we'll get used to the bot doing it for us, or there should be a 20 second delay, I can't decide. Good work, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Well, the reason the bot reacts so quickly is to prevent the chance of an edit conflict. Since the bot makes the edit about a second after the save button is clicked, it's highly unlikely that another user will begin editing the page inbetween. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above about an opt-out list, you could have an opt-in list, which gives the bot permisssion to (actually) sign on behalf of foregetful editors! I'd sign up to that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Good idea! Expect to see that in the next release! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick!

You're a bit quick! I didn't sign my comment, realised, and tried to put it on, but it was already there! :-) Keep it up! Dr Santa 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice!

This is one awesome bot. :) --Ixfd64 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online

Hi! I also have a little online button at the top like you, but I dont know hwo to change the pic. Please can you show me how to change my button pic to your nicer shiner one. Thanks a million. p.s. check out this new template I just made, your opinions please. FrummerThanThou 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I went ahead and updated the images for you. What I did was open your User:FrummerThanThou/StatusChange2 page and change the [[Image:]] tags to reflect the images that I use.

About the template modification, I like the visual look of the design you created. However, I think that the term lead paragraph is incorrect. It should be lead section as the leading section can include up to four paragraphs for very large articles. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what gets watched?

I've just encountered your bot, at Talk:Irish dance. Aside from seeing it in use, is there any way to determine if a page is being watched by the bot? (deliberately unsigned, as a test) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a way to make sure the bot is monitoring a page? There are some talk pages I watch which have not had your bot watching them. Argyriou (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot description lists the pages it monitors. Currently, the pages it's watching are all talk pages (including User talk, Wikipedia talk, Portal talk, etc.), WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:AfD, and WP:DRV. Based on some feedback I received earlier today, I'll be adding the help and reference desks.

Due to an error in the framework that the bot uses to parse the wiki content, it currently doesn't monitor any pages with an ampersand in them. There were some issues relating to threading in the version that its been running until a few minutes ago. I've looked at the code to the framework and it turns out that the edit functionality is static. If you aren't familiar with object-oriented programming, static methods are accessed independently of an instantiated object, thus disabling the ability to process multiple edits on seperate threads. I've implemented a message queueing system which should correct that issue.

In simplified terms, previously if two people left an unsigned post at the exact same time, only one got changed. It's fixed now because all changes enter a queue and the process that edits the pages handles that editing queue.

Hope this helps. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 03:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little curious - what accounts for the bot missing comments like this one, where I added unsigned2 by hand nearly an hour later? Oh - The edit must either create a new heading or exist as an indent under an existing heading, which accounts for another example from yesterday, too. I wonder if perhaps that rule ought to be relaxed, as I suspect many unsigned comments are placed by people who aren't familiar with how to sign or indent properly. That may account for me not noticing your bot until tonight, even though I've been adding unsigned template stuff for a while now. Argyriou (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually planned in phase two of the bot. I've been closely watching edits like those to try to determine a pattern that I can use to make certain that its a comment and not the expansion of an existing comment or just a formatting change. I hope to come up with something in the next couple of weeks. Also, on that edit, even if they created a new section, it wouldn't have added it because the user removed a line near the top. The bot only looks at edits where nothing was deleted. Since the bot only came online on December 3, that's probably why you haven't seen it previously. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've given me an idea. If a user adds lines to a section that already contains at least one signature and the next signature (if there is one) in the section is not for that user, then add the unsigned template. I'm going to try it out tomorrow evening. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also add WP:BOTREQ to the list of pages? ST47Talk 11:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10-4, I'll add it right now. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Your bot is so cool, but I forgot to sign a page and he fixed it right as I was. Is it OK to delete his and add mine? He did it to me here [[3]] WikiMan53 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Don't hesitate removing the template left by the bot, he won't put it back. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More props

Great bot! Thanks! FreplySpang 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad you like it! Hagerman^(talk) 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Vandal Bot

I recently received a warning for allegedly vandalising this article:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bubble_Struggle

I have never been on this article, and as your name was on the warning, i thought i would just inform you that there may be a problem with antivandal bot, it also may be because someone is using my IP address possibly?

Regards, Jshaw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.60.60 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's from a while back, it was probably another user who was assigned the IP address you are currently using. Don't worry about it :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HangermanBot and {{tl}}

I frequently use {{tl}} in my comments, as do others. I think it would be great if the bot could ignore {{tl}} in determining whether to add an {{unsigned}} template. —Mets501 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming right up! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it should work now. Only referencing the {{tl}} template will still cause the bot to look at your comment. (Leaving unsigned as a test) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagerman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Something weird is happening at Talk:London Action Resource Centre

I made a comment which was signed and HagermanBot says in the history that i didnt sign. But moreover the comment doesnt show up on the talk page and of the previous comment, only half is showing, so something probably not connected with the HagermanBot is screwing up the page. But i thought i would mention it here anyways! Cheers! Mujinga 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking at the page there appears to be an open tag which is resulting in the ~~~~ tags you left not being parsed. That's why the bot is kicking in and its only adding to the chaos. :-) I'll take a look at the page and try to figure it out. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an open ref tag. It should be working now. Feel free to go back and replace the unsigned template with your signature. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey! thanks for the incredibly fast response! Mujinga 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) Hagerman^(talk) 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!

[4] AnnH ♫ 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot summaries

I'm not quite sure the change in the bot's edit summaries was good. "Marking an unsigned comment by XYZ" is okay, but in the case of vandalism, "XYZ said 'fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck'" isn't really nice to see in an edit summary, especially on Talk:Main Page. Just a thought. Good idea with the bot though. – Ch acor 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the old one certainly looked a lot cleaner and more organized in the page history. However, Kusma brought up a concern that the bot hides the last edit from the watchlist and makes it difficult to detect vandalism. Having a bot flag wouldn't prevent that since it would just hide the page altogether. Probably one of the reasons the edit was cleaned up so fast was because someone noticed the edit summary left by the bot... so maybe it's a good thing.

But I completely understand your point and I'll take it into consideration based on the feedback I receive from other editors over the next couple of days. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to that concern. I mean, look at [5]. It's hilarious, yes (made me do a spit-take all over my keyboard in fact) but it's not the best thing to go around leaving in the edit history. --tjstrf talk 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, hope your keyboard is ok! :-) Point taken, but don't you think it would have been more difficult to detect the vandalism had the bot not put their comment in the summary? Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Having your bot sign a comment is just as much of a clue-in for checking as a redlinked user or ip having made a comment without needing to actually quote them. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the bot is doing useful work, it stops an admin from being able to use the rollback button on an abusive comment if the bot gets there first. Would it be possible for it to only add its comment after a delay, say five minutes?-gadfium 02:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been talk about implementing a delay in the process for this very reason, however, we haven't reached a consensus as of yet. My reason to hesitate implementing a delay is that I think it will result in a lot of edit conflicts. The quicker the bot signs the comment, the less likely another user opened up the edit screen in between. In addition, if a user posts a reply between that time period, the bot cannot sign the user's comment as it would be too difficult to discern if the changes that occurred after the original unsigned comment have eliminated the need for a signature.

It is a topic of debate though, so we'll see where it goes over the next few weeks. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I was going to ask if there were a way to keep HagermanBot out of histories so that I could see the previous Edit Summary (and Editor).

Perhaps for Edit summaries, could HagermanBot write the previous editor and repeat the previous Edit Summary (within character limits of course)? Maybe text quote would be a good substitute for an empty Edit Summary.

Great and much needed bot, by the way. Thanks for doing this. — edgarde 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that sounds like its the solution we are looking for! Great idea! I'll make the changes now... Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes are live. Thanks again! Hagerman^(talk) 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the good work. — edgarde 03:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion :-) Hagerman^(talk) 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the edit summary quite helpful in reverting vandalism, as in 68.209.111.126 didn't sign: "NEED HELP WITH A RASH(PIMPLE TYPE) ON THE BELLY OF MY CORGI.". Patstuart^talk|edits 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagerman Bot

First off, I love the Hagerman bot! Great job. I have a suggesstion for the HagermanBot user page. Many other bots, such as anti vandal bots have humorous pictures of warcraft etc on there page. I propose that you put

-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. :D Bubba hot ep 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be in keeping with all those pictures of battleships that the anti-vandal-bots seem to have. I recommend it – Gurch 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's brilliant! It's on the user page now. Thank you, Chrislk02! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's funny, Chris. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issues

It seems to think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header needs signatures [6]—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I'll filter out that page. Thanks for letting me know! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on the Yadav discussion page.

Hi,

I am a new user of Wikipedia and a researcher. While reading the Yadava page, I realized that it was being used deliberately to create information rather than present the best current information. I decided to work through the discussion page to develop a concensus on issues and then make changes to the page. However, I have a user Ikonoblast who is just not interested in the discussion and keeps on creating hurdles/diversions making personal attacks etc. Today I checked and found that your bot has moved my last 2 comments from the discussion section. In these I have provided formal published references supporting my point of view. Note that no such quality references are provided about the information currently on the Yadav page. I had to go back and repost my information. Can you help me by making sure that your bot does not remove important information posted by me again? Thanks for helping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.54.196.28 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The bot doesn't remove any information from a talk page. It only adds an unsigned comment (as it did to your post above) when a user forgets to sign a comment. Take a look at the edits (1 and 2) made by my bot and you'll see it only added the unsigned template. It was Ikonoblast who removed the content. Feel free to raise any discussion on his talk page. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message moved from user page

ATTN: Can you please fix the picture of the penis on the Wikipedia page, it's locked and I can't get to it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.66.194 (talk • contribs)

I belive i have fixed it Rettetast 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm confused... Hagerman^(talk) 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]