User talk:Kingpin13/archive/2011

This is an archive of past discussions.

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

January 2011 (approx. 18 topics)

Talback (Again again)

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Flightx52's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 07:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter Approval

Hi Kingpin13, I'd like to request permission to use WikiAlerter by assisting countervandalism and NPP while at work. Thanks! Nick Wilson (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WA Feedback

Hi Kingpin, thank you for letting me test out WA; It's inspired me to start writing my own assistive application for combating vandalism. As best as I try tonight, you keep beating me to the punches with HG, and I don't have rollback permissions :) (As best I try to refresh Gorkanora's contributions, you still beat me to reverting those blanks) Nick Wilson (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good luck with that :). Twinkle is good, but doesn't really match the speed of Huggle. However, if you keep up with the manual RCP you should be able to get rollback within a week or so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to concede this battle tonight, have at it and good job with WA; it feels like it's well constructed on the backend. Have you entertained the idea of releasing the code at all? Nick Wilson (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). Not really, why, did you want it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Just a technical curiosity, I'd dug into AWB earlier today and I'm really starting to get the wiki itch. I've been occasionally editing over the last 5 years, but I'd like to start making regular and more meaningful contributions. Nick Wilson (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well it's a bit tricky since the source is too big to email. If you want it let me know and I can probably zip it up for you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 05:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If this has to be done by a bot, I've heard it can take months to get approval. Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permissions archiving

Hi, is your bot still archiving requests at WP:RFPERM? It hasn't touched those pages in about two weeks. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's just that I occasionally need a bit of a prod to run it.

Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Treasurytag

He blanked your edits. Also doesn't appear to be complying with WP:CIVILITY.--Graythos1 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is free to remove messages from his talk page, and saying "bye-bye" isn't uncivil. I don't see the problem. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Off the record"

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Admin Recall

I am opening up a recall for Looie496, and have selected you to clerk the request. Please see User:Looie496/Recall. Thank you, Dusti^*poke* 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Notices have been posted to the forums considered appropriate for this recall request. Any further notices should not be done without consensus and discussion beforehand, or it may be taken to be canvassing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking on the thankless task of ~~herding cats~~ clerking that recall page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trypto! Much appreciated :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WA

Could I be a beta tester for WA? Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, please. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you've both been added to the approved list of users. Trythisonyourpiano, please limit your use of {{db-g1}}, although "nonsense" sounds very broad as a criteria, it is actually very narrow in scope, and only applies to pages with content which appears random (i.e. keyboard bashing (e.g. "fgfdghgfgh fhg gfn"), word salads (e.g. "funny man long blue dog grass") or is impossible to understand, see WP:PN. Let me know if either of you have any trouble and I'll be glad to try and help out. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the add and the advice. Should I be using G3s where I have usually been using G1s? Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, use G3 if you think the page was created in bad faith (i.e. with bad intent) to try and compromise the integrity of Wikipedia (e.g. provide false information, make us look bad etc.) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So for example Neo-surrealism (which you tagged under G3) was actually an appropriate G1 since the content ("BOOBìĕΊΊΊΊΊΊΊΊκκκκκκκκκκκ") was incoherent gibberish. But a page which purposely provided false information (e.g. "World War I started in 1698") would be a suitable G3 candidate. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bug

Great tool you have there. However, I found a bug in WikiAlerter. When a page contains an ampersand, it gets all screwy and shows up as & in the list of pages. Also, when you try to go to the page, you get a Mediawiki error (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=CraftWorks+Restaurants+&+Breweries&redirect=no&rcid=421376622 for example), because the page you're requesting contains the &. Here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/WoSig.png Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suspect this is simply a problem with the various Encodings needed for this task. I have a couple of other Wikipedia programs which need fixing and that may take priority over this, but I'll try and get to it and let you know once I've got a fix figured out. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

I won't bother rerequesting. Too much of a temptation, too much of a timewaster.

Feel free to remind me of this if I ever appear to change my mind and request it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you may not approve of him using AWB to create articles but he does an awful lot of good work using AWB with stub sorting and talk page tagging, edits which are really needed, there are far too few stub sorters as it is. I strongly suggest you have the decency to restore the privelage for Ser Amantio providing he doesn't use it to create articles. He's a decent and intelligent enough chap and I doubt he would do this again now he is aware that is in an "offence" and that you are "governing him". Personally I think your efforts to curb growth and control everything are extreme. You are attempting to turn what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia in which anybody can contribute what they want without pressure into some bureacratic, authoritive and restrictive system. You really should not have the right to restrict what other people want to contribute to wikipedia and its very sad that this is what wikipedia is coming to. You should never take away an editing privilage over one task you disagreed with. A warning would have been enough, especially for Ser Amantio who tends to avoid conflict like the plague. Restore his AWB please within the next 24 hours on condition that he will not use it for article creation again. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the community does approve of him mass creating pages that way. I've already said (twice) that I'm happy to restore his access should it become apparent that he will no longer use AWB that way, he's the one asking me not to do so. I'm not trying to restrict everything in sight and turn Wikipedia into a bureaucratic, authoritarian system. However, I am trying to encourage higher quality pages, that means not just blindly bashing the space bar without looking at what you're creating, realising you made a mistake, using AWB to fix the mistake by again blindly bashing the space bar, and making another mistake (while attempting to fix the previous one). USers need to put thought and time into contributions, AWB isn't versatile enough for users who don't know what they're doing to use it in that manner. I'm not going to "restore his AWB within the next 24 hours on condition that he will not use it for article creation again", I will however, restore his AWB if he seems to agree to stop using it in violation of rules #1, #2, #3 and #5 - at the moment he's asked me not to do that because the "temptation" is too much. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable debate though over #2 "don't edit too quickly". As long as the edits are responsible I really do not see why a few edits a minute is problematic if they are routine stub sorting/tagging tasks which do not affect content. The more efficient the better really. The guideline of "too quickly" though is hazy. Should he resume with AWB and stub sort 5 articles a minute is this "too fast" and what exactly would anybody have to gain by reducing it to just one article a minute for example? Many tasks on wikipedia require much less thought than article creation, so it would be unreasonable for him to have to check every single article if using AWB to stub sort a category for example. As far as I can see his usual AWBing can caused no problems whatsoever, all he's had a some project members asking him to state class=stub. Perhaps Ser Amantio is afraid that if his AWB is restored he'll have people moaning at him about quickly tagging talk pages or something...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how your message concerns what AWB was removed for. It wasn't removed because there was a problem with him stub sorting at a rate of five edits every minute. It was removed because he was creating pages at a rate of 27 edits a minute (about two seconds per edit), and because the edits were not being done responsibly. There's not been considerably debate over if 27 edits a minute is too fast - it is too fast, even bots are expected to edit slower than that (about 6 edits a minute). I agree with much of what you've said:

As long as the edits are responsible I really do not see why a few edits a minute is problematic if they are routine stub sorting/tagging tasks which do not affect content - I agree, but he was not editing responsibly, he was not editing at just a few a minute, and he was not doing routine stub sorting.
The more efficient the better really. Well yes, but going so fast you make mistakes, then going so fast you make mistakes while trying to fix the mistakes, so that someone else has to come along and fix those mistakes for you is not efficient.
The guideline of "too quickly" though is hazy. Maybe, but it's up to BAG (of which I am a member) to decide if edits should be considered a bot or not, in this case (one to three seconds between edits, while creating articles, which clearly need more than that amount of time to be reviewed properly), it's not really debatable.
[...] and what exactly would anybody have to gain by reducing it to just one article a minute for example? Many tasks on wikipedia require much less thought than article creation, so it would be unreasonable for him to have to check every single article if using AWB to stub sort a category for example. However, he was doing article creation, so it's irrelevant if other tasks require less though. If he slowed down a bit he would make less mistakes.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but I think we can safely say he won't be creating articles again real soon in a hurry, that's all...He's hardly likely going to continue to do so and if he did then it would be appropriate to remove his tools. All I'm saying is that if examine his AWB history he is 99.% responsible for using AWB and mostly uses it well within guidelines and are much needed edits.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that might be your opinion, but his own seems to be that the temptation is too much.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see though there is nothing written into the AWB guideline which says "thou shalt not create articles enmasse using AWB" so any articles he did start were in good faith and wishing to improve the coverage of wikipedia in the long term.. I agree that we should be aiming for the highest quality but equally our goals are to provide the sum of human knowledge. In order to achieve this we need greater freedom to increase coverage. Wikipedia is going to be around for as long as we want it to be. Maybe creating one liners isn't the perfect solution to building content, but wikipedia is better off having articles like Tojg in the long term... The problem is the amount of time and lack of editors who are around to develop them all. You would rather they were started and written with time and though like Tojg now is. I understand but we all have a common goal eventually, an encyclopedia of the highest depth and quality. Its just you stress more on the quality than the scope. I think both are important, that's why my editing has generally been a balance between stubbing and development/quality work.. Stubs are the future of wikipedia and open up endless possibilities, the problem as I say is that articles go stale and are often not improved.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's made fairly clear at this page. I still don't really think you're getting to point, his access was not removed by me in some attempt to stifle new page creations, I personally think that in many ways stubs are great, especially at encouraging newbies to contribute something because they see something which can use improvement, rather than a "completed" page. However, that's still not the point, the point is AWB is a piece of software which is used to complement editing, and it's very easy to misuse it. It's not for effectively running bots by blindly hitting space on every edit (as is made clear in the rules of use), nor is it for creating new pages (as is made clear at the bot policy), when both of these are happening at the same time and then we add in an error and lack of checking for errors into the equation, we end up with potentially a lot of damage. This user caused a bit of damage by doing that, and then immediately did it again in an attempt to tidy up the damage, causing a further error. So it gets removed until it's proven he will use it in line with the rules. It's that simple to me. It's not some debate about quality vs. quantity - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well the fact you said that it was not to stifle new page creations and that you do see the potential of stubs in terms of the long term goal of increasing the coverage of wikipedia is something.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the charts at WT:RFA

"Semi-active" sounds like an easier standard to meet (to me) than "Active", but your charts are showing more active admins than semi-active. What do the terms mean btw? - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained at WP:LA, semi-active is easier to meet, but I suppose it must be a narrower gap (hence less users in it). Inactive is no edits in three months, semi-active is at least one edit in three months, and active is 30 edits with-in the last two months. Each admin only appears in one category each (so you can't be active and semi-active). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: J.delanoy

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at J.delanoy's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Spike Toronto 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Might make sense to move the WT:CHECKPAGE clerking over to User:AWBCPBot. Would at least keep it busy while there's no admins to be removed... (Though I see KingpinBot clerks the other RFPERM pages...) –xeno^talk 20:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's all in one assembly (so the bot will archive all the requests with one edit, e.g. it only made one edit here, whereas if the AWB archiving was made separate it would have been two). So while it would make sense to have "AWBCPBot" archiving the AWB requests, it doesn't work so well if it's archiving rollback/reviewer etc. Interestingly though, AWB is the only request page which uses that format for requests, all the others use the {{rfp}} template. Anyway, I was thinking a little bit more about your suggestion for checking for renames. I guess the only problem is if User X is renamed to User Y, then another person re-creates User X, and then gets AWB access, the bot may think they've been renamed. Does this situation ever occur? One way to get around it would be to check that the User X account is no longer registered, but then there's a problem if editors regularly re-create their past account after renaming... If you could offer and advice on this that would be helpful :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen rarely. If I understand your concern, the bot should check for renames but only change if the rename was recent. –xeno^talk 20:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's an interesting way to do it, problem then is the bot doesn't tidy up any which are currently there. But it did give me an idea of a similar method: to check the edit count instead. If the old user name has less than 50 or so edits, then the bot can quite safely assume AWB was meant to be given to the new account (especially since AWB is normally given based on edit count in the article space). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just run the check first to tidy up those that are there (and review), then add the extra rules for ongoing maintenance. –xeno^talk 14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, also true, that sounds like a good method for the ongoing maintenance, I'll think on it a little. At the moment I'm re-writing my original User:SDPatrolBot (also fixed a few issues with KingpinBot recently), and I also have a few pending requests for WikiAlerter. So I don't exactly know when I'll get around to programming this. Also, could you clarify if your approval for AWBCPBot covered dealing with renamed users, or would you prefer another BRfA for that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a new approval is needed. –xeno^talk 14:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review my SP coverage?

Hi, were you the "closing" admin for Looie's recall? And is there a list of recall process thus far? Could you please look at what I've written in the draft of F and A for next week, and edit if necessary? Thanks in advance. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. Yes, I was the clerk for that recall, and subsequently the user who closed it (although Looie bit the bullet and resigned early, before the recall actually came to a close). As to a list of past recall requests, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests appears to be the correct place, I fixed your link to that at the SP article, but am not sure why it's in brackets..? Other than that I can't see any problems with the article, it all appears fairly straightforward and accurate. However, it does lack slightly in depth. There was a lot more to the recall than mentioned on the actual page (I don't know if you've read through the talk page of the request?), and it might be worth mentioning the event which caused the recall request to be initiated. If you want me to write about some of that there, since I'm already fairly familiar with the issue, just ask and I'll be happy to. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Kingpin. The admin section in F and A is usually short, but I'm going to ask for an opinion from The Signpost's Managing Editor, User:HaeB, linking him to this thread. Tony (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a talk with HaeB about this, Kingpin. If you have time before, say, mid-Monday UTC, to write a brief summary for F and A, that would be much appreciated. This one was probably more newsworthy and appeared in News and notes, so is longer than would be appropriate for F and A, I think. It is certainly worth mentioning that the recall was to do with mass wheel-warring, if that is how I understand it. Tony (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little extra information, trying to stay rather concise to avoid it getting too long. Feel free to hack away at it if needed, or I'm happy to write a lot more. The recall wasn't actually for wheel-warring, as Looie only reverted one other admin's action, rather than "reinstating a reverted action". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tony (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Microsoft Forefront Unified Access Gateway

Hi. Check this out: Revision History. Do you think this User:Ivonetworks has a conflict of interest, given his username? Fleet Command (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I've blocked since the name clearly violates WP:CORPNAME in that it is the name of this company. In addition, all the edits appear to be spam. In future you can just report usernames like that to WP:UAA. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline DHT

That's okay. I PRODded the article because I had declined an A7 speedy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011 (approx. 12 topics)

I need a favor

Hi, Kingpin, good to see you again. I was wondering if you could help me out with this photo. I asked for help at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop but I didn't like the way the photo was edited. I was wondering if you could fix it? This is how it looked before. It has lines all over it and it looks kind of brownish or perhaps is too bright. Could you fix it for me? Thanks a lot. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done 1 2 3 for comparison. I can also upload it without the improved toning if you like, if it doesn't look "authentic" enough - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's great! Much better than the other one. Thank you very much, you were great as usual! I also asked for a .png version of a signature, but I didn't the final result. Is ther anyway you could make an improved version of it? Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :). Sorry, could you explain exactly what the problem with this one is? I may be able to help, but unfortunately it's a very poor source image on the signature. The signature is hard to make out on that background and at that quality, so it's hard to enhance and isolate it from the background. If you scanned this in, you could have a look at your printer settings, as you might have it set on speed over quality. Or it might just have been poor quality even before scanning. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's from an old book. Nevermind, then. You helped me a lot, already! Thanks! --Lecen (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingpin, could remove the background of these three (first: [1], second: [2]; third: [3]) signatures and make them translucid? --Lecen (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all

Done, located at the png equivalents as normal. Let me know if they're okay or not. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are wonderful! Thanks! I know I'm pushing the line a little too far, but could you help me out with some other pics? They are:

[4] Remove background and make it translucid.

[5] Remove background and make it translucid.

[6] Remove background and make it translucid.

[7] The photo is a little twisted, could it be straightened? Also, remove background and make it translucid.

[8] Clean the photo (there are some weird lines all over it). Also, remove background and make it translucid.

[9] Clean the photo (there are some weird lines all over it). Also, remove background and make it translucid.

[10] This one is too dark. It should be like in this version: [11]

King, if you accept doing it, know that there is no need to hurry. Take your time. Again, thank you very much, you've helped me a lot. --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they all look possible, getting rid of "weird" lines is going to reduce the image quality, which will especially be an issue on File:Joaquim nabuco in recife.jpg, which is already poor, but not so much File:Joaquim nabuco 1878.jpg I don't think. But I'll see what they look like when I get to them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All

Done. Located at either the current page or the png equivalent, but for the PanAmerican Conference I removed the whitespace at the end of the title in my version. For that one I did rotate it slightly to try and improve the "twist", so it now lines up better with the pillars in the background. However, the side effect of rotating is it's slightly blurry now. I made some other fixes while going through them (just removing scratches, improving colour etc.). Let me know if you'd like anything done differently :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! They all look great! You did a flawless work as always! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc Welcome message

Thank very much for the fix, but now I totaly confused I think you fixed the already placed template on [[User talk:Peteypaws|Petyeypaws} page. I have no idea how transfer the fixes you made to the templat itself here: [[User:Mlpearc/Accwelcome]]. I thought you might have add the fixes to the template also but it failed a test here: [12]

nvrmnd I failed to use the correct code :P anain thanx. Mlpearc powwow 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at SDPatrolBot's talk page.
Message added 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks

Thanks -- stupid template took the whole page....Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli Eyalet speedy deletion template

Thanks. User:Boolyme really made an error with this template. There should be a committee to oversee the usage of this template. GRprefectures-have-been-dissolved (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and now thanks for the note on my talk page. Best regards. GRprefectures-have-been-dissolved (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more requests

King, I'd like to ask you to remove the background of more photos and make them translucid, please. They are:

Construction site in Recife: File:Construction site in Recife 1862.jpg. It has a .png version already File:Construction_site_in_Recife_1862.png (that you created, BTW), but I uploaded an improved .jpg version of it.
Brazilian Army officers: File:Oficiais_brasileiros_canhao_1886.jpg.
Shipyard in Rio de Janeiro: File:Shipyard_rio_de_janeiro_.jpg
Family with house slaves: File:Family_and_slave_house_servants_by_Klumb_1860.jpg
Empress Teresa Cristina: File:Teresa_cristina_circa_1887.jpg (you had removed the background of this one, but I uploaded an improved version of it)

Take your time, in case you accept doing it. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get to these, I've been very busy recently and haven't really had as much time for Wikipedia as I would like (hence me doing these at midnight! ;D). Anyway, should all be

Done, just waiting for derivativeFX to upload at the moment. All located at their png equivalents as normal. All the best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King, a Wikipedian named PawełMM was unnable to remove the background of some pictures (as you do for me) in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. I was wondering if you could do it for me? These are the pictures:

1) File:Princess Isabel and Leopoldina 1855 frame removed.jpg (.png version: File:Princess Isabel and Leopoldina 1855 frame removed.png)

2) File:Dompedroiibebe.jpg (.png version: File:Dompedroiibebe.png)

3) File:Teresa cristina 1846.jpg (.png version: File:Teresa cristina 1846.png

4) File:Afonso 01 1846.JPG (.png version: File:Afonso 01 1846.png

5) File:Afonso 02 1846.jpg (.png version: File:Afonso 02 1846.png

6) File:Afonso 01 1846.JPG (.png version: File:Afonso 01 1846.png

7) File:Venancio flores.jpg (.png version: File:Venancio flores.png

8) File:Marquis of caxias.jpg (.png version: File:Marquis of caxias.png

9) File:Joaquim manuel de macedo 1866.jpg (.png version: File:Joaquim manuel de macedo 1866.png

10) File:Solano lopez 1864.jpg (note: this one is a little twisted to the lfest, could it be straightened?)

11) File:Eliza lynch 1864.jpg (note: this one is a little bluish too, could you fix it?)

Could you do it? There is no hurry. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but I gotta sleep now. Should get to these sometime early this week, if not tomorrow. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. You may do it in the weekend or even later. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with the exception of the last two, all uploaded over the old png. Feel free to revert any where you prefer the previous version :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, King! As usual, you were great and helped a lot. I'm in debt with you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your quick and helpful reply at VPT. I am delighted to know that User:Davidgothberg/newmessageshistory.js exists and have installed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for use of wikialerter

Hi I'm just requesting use of wikialerter if possible. I wish to use it so I can tag new pages for deletion.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've added you to the list of approved users. Just make sure that you only use CSD G1 for patent nonsense (this means either "word salads" (e.g. "king hello gold sparkling triangle and blue clue") or gibberish (e.g. "fdg gfdgfdg fdgfdgfdg fd")). Please let me know if you have any problems or questions. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Twinkle

Hi there. Concerning your posting in the village pump here, could you please inform me what alternatives there are to Twinkle or other anti-vandalism tools which can be used to effectively edit in Wikipedia? Plus, you've placed this link in your posting. Does this mean that when I create a subpage with this script, Twinkle will function correctly again? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's the script page where twinkle is already breaking :). One alternative to Twinkle which I believe is currently working is Huggle, which is actually better for recent changes patrol, bit is a bit of a one trick pony. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Do you have any information if Twinkle is currently being fixed by the devs? Amsaim (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, it appears as if Twinkle is functioning again. Thanks for your effort. Amsaim (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The developers aren't likely to be the ones to fix it (although it was mentioned before that it shouldn't have broken the scripts, so who knows), it's more likely to be some script writers. I know at least one user (who fixed the ARV script) is working on it at the moment. </ec> That's great, I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a few niggles to work out, but hopefully should all be sorted out now before too long. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob

I'm getting tired of this. He hasn't redacted his comment, he's continuing on legal issues, and now he comes very close to accusing me of endorsing defamation. His clear purpose is to shutdown the debate, and in fact I no longer want anything to do with it. That seems disruptive to me. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I wasn't called here. But I met Off2riorob before and trust me: I wouldn't want to be in your place now. He'll do everything he can to make the discussion go round and round until everyone gives up. And he did that in an article which he never had any participation before. He simply appeared out of nowhere. Good luck, you'll need it. --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best not to judge users based of a single discussion with them. Actually it might just be better not to judge them at all, since everybody can change. @UncleDouggie Please try to assume good faith, Off2riorob's objective is not to shut down the debate, it's simply to achieve what he feels is best for the encyclopedia, which is the same goal the rest of us have. Unfortunately, despite this it's still possible to have disagreements. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't for a minute doubt that he is doing what he feels is best for the encyclopedia. However, we don't allow people to make legal threats if they feel that's what's best. According to WP:NLT, a legal threat is concluded when it is "genuinely and credibly withdrawn." I'm not sure that "asked to retract" counts. It seems he only "retracted" it under the threat of a block issued 7 minutes earlier. Lecen's comment isn't a lone incident; Off2riorob has an extensive block log and a long history of monopolizing previous PC debates that is far too lengthy to link. Whether he is trying to shutdown the debate or just win it is beside the point. His actions are right out of the reasons we don't permit this activity. His last claim of leaving the discussion permanently lasted all of ~~45 minutes~~ 25 hours and he has made clear that this will be no different. Why should I post anything else in the discussion knowing that he will just jump all over me again? PC is a tough topic already and we don't need more gasoline on the fire. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for all the links and well thought-out comment, however, I am well aware of the history regarding Off2riorob, especially in terms of the PC debate. But, the legal threat is now withdrawn, and Off2riorod has retracted the comment, apologised, and admitted he may have stepped over the line in this case. I have no reason to believe he is not genuine. He is not required to stay out of the discussion, so that he does not do so (even after saying he will) is not really an issue. As to you posting to the discussion, frankly I'm not really going to show any "favouritism" here, especially since my opinion on PC differs from Off2riorob's, both of you are just as welcome to comment on PC as each other. Obviously any legal threats, personal attacks or whatnot will not be tolerated, but as mentioned this has been resolved for now, certainly to my satisfaction. If it continues then it would be worth looking at again. If there are certain editors in the debate you don't feel you can hold a civil conversation with, then I suggest you simply ignore them. The idea is really just to let others know your opinions, rather than argue with the "opposition". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your WikiHero award

Dear Kingpin13,

Congratulations! As for being a great and helpful contributor to this project, you have been identified as a Hero or Heroine of Wikipedia. Thanks alot for all your good and helpful work to this project.

Your username has appeared on this list

Good luck and happy editing.

-Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a userbox, you can use {{User:Porchcrop/Identified WikiHero}}. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Porchcrop :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

My apologies.. Please delete the latest page - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Travanti_%22Triza%22_Jackson. I will need to gather more research and will rebuild it from wiki's template to better structure it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingwired (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has already been dealt with. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 (approx. 19 topics)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76 Strat 08:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at SDPatrolBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at User talk:SDPatrolBot/ErrorReports.
Message added 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

speedy deletion of n raj prakash paul

this article is important, because it indicates a very important singer from Andhra pradesh, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmylove (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N. Raj Prakash Paul. This person is very influential in Gospel music in South India. And has been ignored in the articles of wikipedia, hence it is my request to you to remove the tag from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmylove (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted because it does not appear to pass WP:CSD. All articles must be on encyclopaedic subjects, and must be considered notable. Please refer to WP:MUSIC to judge if a musician passes our notability guidelines. Also, you must provide reliable references, which you did not appear to do. All information should be from third-party sources. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kingpinbot / filemover?

Hihi! Would it be possible to add the new File mover permissions request page to be included in Kingpinbot's auto-archiving? Thanks in advance, best, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, great to see that we have this user right now actually, about time we had that. All

Done :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, that was fast! Cheers! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

I'm new to Wikipedia and I was wondering why my Banana Song page is about to be deleted.

Kind Regards,

            KingdomHeartsFan3196 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your contributions

I was looking at your contributions in the last six months to article space and if I remove a couple of days huggle recent changes contributions there is close to nothing left, do you think under the circumstances that you should assert such a vocal position against updates to project wide article protection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as is usual on wikipedia, users with no involvement comment as if they are involved and contributing but the long term clarity from involved contributors is aware of the weight in regard to their comments, do you accept that apart from a couple of days huggle edits you have not contributed any content to the project over the last six months or am I seeing your contributions wrong? Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Listen, this is continuing on a little bit from the RfC talkpage. You seemed to be saying there that you didn't care about the opinions of those users who have differing views from your own (one of those users being myself). This was immediately after I said I was upset with the battleground mentality and lack of consensus. Your comments clearly showed you did not care about consensus (i.e. you were not willing to consider other user's views on the matter), and you've implied plenty of times that you think polls are a good idea and that we should use a us v. them structure in our debates (as I mentioned there, this is encouraging battleground mentality). This is not the way I want Wikipedia to be run, and it is not the way Wikipedia is run. We do operate through consensus, this is one of our fundamental principles. I'm not trying to push you out of this debate, I would appreciate if you didn't do that to me. In addition, your idea of who should be able to take part in the debate seems rather flawed: You're discounting huggle edits, even though a large part of huggling is dealing with the exact kinds of edits PC is meant to help prevent? Also, it may interest you to know that my percentage of article edits and number of article edits are both higher than yours. I'm not pointing this out to try and say that either of us is more or less qualified to take part in the debate, as mentioned I welcome you taking part. </ec> Umm, I've certainly written some content during that period, in addition I've spent a lot of time doing behind the scenes work. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get in the way of your behind the scenes work do I? I use this tool to help keep attack content out of articles about living people but still allow a degree more open editing environment, the tool does that very well and is doing it right now, protecting one thousand articles. None of this is affecting you and your work at all, I would appreciate it if didn't get in my way either by just going round wanting to turn of a working tool that helps me do my work. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of my work here (including the "behind the scenes" work) is aimed at directly, or indirectly, improving content. A lot of what I've done in my time at Wikipedia is dealing with vandalism and BLP violations etc (which you, for some inexplicable reason, decided to not look at, by skipping over huggle edits). So yes, PC (which is meant to help deal with vandalism and BLP violations etc) would directly affect my work. I feel that PC does not have a net benefit to our content, and so I am opposed to it. It is your opinion that it is good, and so therefore we should keep it. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia works in a way that means you should obtain consensus that it is good, rather than insisting that it is only your opinion that matters. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its not only my opinion that matters, just don't take tools away from me that are beneficial to what I do, you might not like the tool but it isn't getting in your way at all. I have not skipped over huggle edits - you have made 500 edits to article space in the last six months, most of them reverts, many of then with huggle and a few with GLOO. As for your content additions in the last six months you have made three, to remind you here they are. 23 October, created stub Kathleen Edwards (Huntington's sufferer). 15 November, Matt Cutts, small addition and reference diff 2 February one expansion 2000 bytes diff Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

400 huggle reverts in six months, you will be unaffected by Pending protection, at its current level of usage and your current level of contribution you would almost never even trip over it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no more articles had pending changes added to them, and we just maintained the current usage level forever, I would be very happy. However, that's not what you're proposing is it? Or is it? If it's not then saying what would happen with it at its "current level of usage" is irrelevant. I have much more experience than you dealing with the kinds of thing PC is meant to prevent, so stop telling me I am less qualified to express my opinion on it, m'kay? I'm not telling you that, because I actually want to achieve a consensus by discussing it with other users. You seem to be more keen on pushing every user who disagrees out of the debate, which is not consensus decision making, and is not acceptable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VP/T glitch (API XML code)

re Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_template.2Fdoc_to_me. Since it does not reappear, can I go home now? And, out of curiousity, next time I'll do screenshots & Ctrl-U HTMLcode from the start? If yo say so, I'll be there. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure don't worry about it, I'm guessing it was some kind of problem with the fullurl magic word (or something, somewhere) returning the w/api.php path rather than the w/index.php path, which means you get something like this. What I'm not so sure about is why you got a "badurl" error, whereas that page I linked to gets a notoken error (which is to be expected). I'd be very interested in knowing the url you were at, maybe you have it in your history? But otherwise, doesn't really matter, feel free to go home ;). Next time, screenshots would be nice, html source isn't always important (neither are screenshots for that matter), but they can't hurt. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. +You have mail. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, next time, I give you the (outgoing) URL line? Can do. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the url displayed by your browser at the page you wind up at when you see the error, but what you sent me seems pretty good in this case. I've sent you mail back, and left a comment at the VPT. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with sockpuppets

Hi there, I hope you remember me, you helped me with creating my first page, List of bus routes in Winchester. I was wondering if you are an administrator, because my friend Wilbysuffolk has been blocked for an apparent sockpuppet of Crouch, Swale, which he is not. I am being considered (under my IP not user) for being a sockpuppet of the friend I mentioned. Neither of us have any idea who Crouch, Swale is and I was hoping you would be able to help us or at least tell us who to contact. Thanks '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. We have also been having problems with Charlesdrakew, who has been repeatedly trying to delete some of the pages we created and is also the one who is attempting to block my IP. I looked at his through his talk page and found evidence of his bullying.[reply]

Hi Adam, nice to see you're still around :). In regard to the block, please contact MuZemike (the blocking administrator, and a checkuser) directly. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDPatrolBot

Please take a look at the bot's talkpage: it kept reverting me because I removed an SD notice from an indef-blocked user's talkpage that I created. I'm not convinced that the bot needs to take notice of user talkpages. I blocked it briefly to allow me to take action on the talkpage in question. User talk:ComputerSolutions. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out those of us who are less familiar with technical details and just want our tools (e.g. popups) to work! ElKevbo (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ElKevbo :), I must say things are getting a bit hectic over at VPT ;), I'm glad I could help out - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo beat me to it!! Thanks again for your help with the .css and .js pages! Cheers! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Nice work on the fix. If only you were writing the media-wiki code! Ocaasi^c 05:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you as well, glad to see others already have. I greatly appreciate the popup fix.—Chowbok ☠ 07:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filter number 9

I've only recently starting digging into the edit filters and I have a question on the ever so lovely filter number 9. One part of the filter contains "^\x22^\r^\n". While this works fine, it seems to me that it should really be "^\x22\r\n". I've tested this change on a few edits and it seems to work. While this is a very minor issue, I'm really more interested in whether the syntax in the current version does something magical that I don't understand. I previously asked User:Soap with no luck and most other contributors to this filter aren't active currently. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, you appear to be right, and they are both exactly the same. However, I fail to see the point of matching anything except from new lines (what the ^r^n bit does) at all, since I don't see how it adds anything to the regex which matching anything except " (what the ^x22 bit does) doesn't already. You should ask User:King of Hearts about it though, he seems to be the one who originally came up with the code. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly complicated, but I can think of some patterns that it's useful for. I'll ask King of Hearts to comment here. Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not write this (I only made minor edits), but it means: Look for a newline. Then look for a string containing the personal attacks, as long as none of the characters before the string are quotes, return carriages, or newlines. I think a difference would occur if a return carriage popped up in the middle of a line but before the offending string. Indeed, in practice there is probably no difference since Wikipedia has its own standard set of line endings so you would never see a \r in the middle of a line (though I'm not sure whether it follows the Windows or Mac convention). However, "^\x22^\r^\n" just sounds more natural when translated literally into English IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for being diligent with this monitoring! Sadads (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). By the way, the reason the css didn't work in the first place was the little dash (-) here. But since you've used Lupin's loader in your js, everything should be fine - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for fixing my common.css - it's great to have popups back! -- Ferkelparade π 10:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for taking time out to fix the popups issue and patiently explain the editors! Your diligence is appreciated!! ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Enjoy your star. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a few requests

Hey, King, how are you? Could you help me out with some pictures? Is the same as ever: remove the background and make it translucid. Here are they:

I would be very grateful if you could do it for me. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecen, I am well thank you, and I hope the same goes for you. All these are now

Done (at the equivalent png file names as always). All the best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study

Hello Kingpin13! First of all, I would like to thank you for the welcoming and very detailed answer that you made to my post on the administrators' noticeboard! I wanted to know whether you would be willing to give me your opinion on the questions that I ask in my answer to your message. Many thanks and have a good day! SalimJah (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing of an edit of yours.

I'm sorry, but your edit comment rubbed me a bit the wrong way. I do not agree with you in any way, shape or form that if people are confused and put their vote in the wrong section, that they deserve what they get. We want things to be as clear as possible, that people know what they are !voting for when they submit their edits. I've undone your edit, and restored the section headers the way they were. SirFozzie (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is unclear about saying this is a proposal, read the proposal, then state if you support it or oppose it? Nothing. The only reason there is confusion is because people turn up, skim through it, and then cast their "vote" with no consideration for what other users are saying on the page, saying "I support PC" or "I oppose PC", and thinking they should put their "vote" in the support/oppose section according. Not the kind of votes we need right? Saying "Support proposal" and "Oppose proposal" makes it even more clear what is being supported/opposed, whereas your section headings do not because they are very unclear, does "Support removing pending changes from existing articles for the short-term only" mean that we have to replace PC in the future? Because that's what it sounds like, but that's not what the proposal is. Does "Oppose removing pending changes from articles" mean that we can never remove PC from any article in the future, or that we can never turn PC off? Because that's what it sounds like, but what it really means is that you oppose the proposal, which is neither or those things, nor is it the exact opposite of either of those things. All the specifics for this phase were discussed on the talk page beforehand, and nobody there had a problem grasping the simple concept of having a proposal, and then having a !vote on if we should implement the proposal, where "support" means you think we should, and "oppose" means you think we shouldn't. Please revert back to the previous section titles, and if you want to get them changed so drastically, discuss it on the talk page where the current proposal wording (before your change) already got a consensus. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to use Wikialerter

Level 2 heading says it all. 43?9enter (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning autopatrolled rights

Thanks for the heads up. We had a power outage here for several hours, and after putting the generator on I forgot to go back to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 (approx. 19 topics)

Re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

You welcome thoughts on this. Mine are that you are jumping up to this much too quickly, and I don't think you really understand the issue yet. We have already discussed mediation/closure of this phase, and have Newyorkbrad and WJBScribe lined up to do this (and actually discussed among ourselves about who would do this). We really do not need further mediation here. I would explain further, but as I said, this is going way too fast, and needs to be considered much more carefully. So for now I would appreciate if you put this on hold, rather than offering (although appreciated) to mediate this yourself. I really need some time to collect my thoughts. You may also be interested in this discussion which Beeblebrox neglected to mention, where we discussed who would close the request (this was also previously discussed at the RfC), and where I, and other opposition, are compared to terrorists, something Beeblebrox apparently has considered in the past, and appears to be what prompted him to open the request. Sorry for the rushed comment, as I say I really need time to collect my thoughts, you guys are moving way too fast. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Kingpin13. Please don't worry. I will investigate the dynamics of the RfC fully as this progresses and if it does indeed transpire that no further mediation is necessary (and the requesting parties have specified this), it will be either held or closed as such. However, I should say that the requesting individuals for the Mediation Cabal case are permitted to request the Mediation Cabal to look into mediating it; but please, don't be concerned this means I am instantly assuming a general agreement from RfC participants to have the Mediation Cabal mediate. If there is no consensus for mediation it will, as I said, be closed as such, or else the mediation will be confined to being between the parties that wish to mediate. Nobody is forced to participate in the Mediation Cabal process. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that your views are heard properly, I have posted your thoughts in the Discussion segment of the Mediation Cabal case page. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cross post, however, I have removed it for now, as I wish to have absolutely nothing to do with this pathetic attempt to circulate the consensus we already established on the RfC talk page about how we would close this RfC. This request is a display of certain users acting on a whim and completely ignoring what we already discussed and decided on, instead imposing their own personal views on what the object of the RfC is. Obviously I am still rather flustered about this, I suppose I'm not at my best composure after being accused of holding hostages and being likened to a terrorist. I am upset that you plan to plough on with this, as I said I do not think that is the best way forward. Instead it should be put on hold until you have a clearer understanding of the dynamics of this case, which I do not feel you currently grasp, as evidenced by your approach to this. I appreciate that you feel you should be able to "learn on the job" as it were, but I am of the strong opinion that this will result in conflict with the already agreed upon course. Please please please place this on hold until you have properly reviewed if it actually needs further mediation (which I assure you it does not, and will simply lead to more harm being done) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place with this. The trouble is, the Mediation Cabal doesn't have a rule (unlike the MedCom) that says that all participants must sign agreement to mediation; therefore, I can't just put it on hold based on your objection to the request. The parties who have communicated on the page do have a right to have their case considered by a mediator and discussed. Arguably, also, it is not in fact up to me as a mediator to understand the dynamics of the case; it is up to the parties to discuss it amongst themselves, albeit in a structured (or semi-structured) fashion that produces more driving force than heat. I really do appreciate your concern and for all I know you may be right, but it would be remiss of me to suddenly put what appears to be an urgent request for assistance on hold simply because of your misgivings. If it is apparent that there is no mediation work to be done, or it would be harmful, I will terminate the mediation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about a compromise. I will post on the MedCab page to say that a view has been put forward that consensus has already been reached as per the talk page for the subsequent actions to take on the RfC, and state that until this has been investigated fully the mediation will be kept open, but no direct involvement with the RfC talk page should occur nor any presentation of proposals for action to take on the RfC. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one user who has accepted mediation and that's the requester. Why are you pursuing this? I understand that Beeblebrox is unhappy with the consensus path the RfC is taking, but furthering his attempt at forum shopping is just causing mass confusion. We might eventually need mediation to settle some of the substantive issues involved with PC, but mediation of the process to even have the discussion is nuts. I know you mean well, but this really isn't helping. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eggsplatter-Somesuch

I was hesitant to make the comment I made earlier (I think we both know which one) and wanted to apologize for any offense I may have caused for it. I was not trying to compare users to terrorists (terrorist was in fact the wrong word to use, wasn't the word I was looking for), but I was merely trying to show how the entire RfC has been stalled multiple times for various reasons. Some of the blame can even go to PC supporters in fact (though being on the support side it's harder for me to see perhaps), but per your comment a moment ago about everyone becoming restless, I do agree...I've seen a lot of restlessness even since October on the part of some users. Perhaps this restlessness is leading to the impasse, perhaps not - I don't know. However, my intent was not to, in your view, personally attack 200 or more editors and I want to apologize for what might be a badly worded comparison that led to that belief. I almost feel responsible for starting the new case myself even though I did not even know of that channel in any way until an hour or two ago.

I'm going to take a break and go play a couple of Facebook games for a bit, maybe sort some more music (my mother wants me to catalogue her music; thank goodness for Wikipedia to help with everything but her five Carey Landry albums LMAO), then come back and see what's transpired on a few pages. I think I'm also starting to become anxious for an agreement of some sort between major players on both sides. Kinda like watching a leaders' debate. CycloneGU (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. I understand that you were simply trying to look at this from another "angle," if you like, and I entirely encourage users to view these debate in different ways, and keep open minds. Sadly, in this case, that seems to have lead to a misunderstanding. I understand, at this point, that you are not trying to say some users are acting like terrorists. Clearly the whole "hostage" scenario is more of a concept, but hopefully one which will be trodden around more carefully in future - by all. Agreement between the debating users (or consensus) is wonderful when it happens, occasionally we seem to be rubbing along okay and actually getting somewhere, sadly more often we seem to be charging at each other head first. But then I guess that's the way these things go. Anyhow, I hope you have a good end to your day (or start, whatever timezone you're in), I myself have some serious sleep to be catching up on :). All the best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still just after 8:30 p.m. here in Ontario, so trying to while away the evening playing some games I have yet to check in on. Just won $30K of fake money in a single round of Wheel of Fortune. I swear, they need me on that show. CycloneGU (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you see here in England we're five hours ahead :P. Congratulations on your winnings ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know that. =) GMT still places after midnite - I'm baffled by that one. CycloneGU (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RTV

Isn't it the case that a user invoking RTV has essentially "banned himself" and is not supposed to be back editing wikipedia? If so, either he's not following the rules, or someone is trying to "frame" him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The user in question hasn't edited since the RTV request. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here,[13] "another" user is writing in the voice of the original user. Is that appropriate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. That template/retirement notice was originally on the user page, which was deleted. Gfoley then moved it on to the talk page, which I did not think was appropriate either. I asked him if he would remove it, hence the following edit. Hope that clears things up. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Gfoley is NOT Dusti, right? Gfoley came online over a year ago. Presumably he thought he was doing a good deed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, they are not the same person. Gfoley was simply trying to be helpful by moving a previous statement the user had made from the deleted user page to the talk page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approval needed

I do lots of NPP and I would want to gain access to the tool. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ebe123, thanks for your interest in helping out with this tool. However, you seem to have a few problems with your current CSD tagging, so I am not quite comfortable giving you access to the tool yet. I appreciate that you are keen to learn, however, the WikiAlerter tool is not all that user friendly when it comes to understanding the different deletion policies etc. and instead relies on users knowing the policies off by heart. Because of this, it is essential that you display a good understanding and experience of new page patrol before using the tool. So please do feel free to ask again in the future, once you've overcome these issues. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for permissions

Since it's your bot, perhaps you have an opinion on whether permissions requests by users who already have the permission, or its equivalent, should be marked by {{done}} or {{notdone}}? (See also: User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 14#Requests for permissions.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well the bot considers auto-confirmed and confirmed to be the same thing, when checking if the user is approved. But it will only archive if the template matches the user's permissions (i.e. it won't archive if the request is marked as {{done}} and the user doesn't have the right, or vice versa). So if it were left up to the bot, it would mark auto-confirmed users as {{already done}} (at least this is what my memory tells me, I'll give you an example of this in a second). The bot, at the moment, considers the already done template to be the same as the done template. So really I think they should always be marked as already done, and then it can be controlled where the bot archives "already done" requests by modifying the User:KingpinBot/done and User:KingpinBot/notdone patterns. So the answer your question in simple terms: The template to use when a user already has a permission is {{already done}}; the bot will use this template itself (see the bottom of this example); if you use a notdone template, the bot will get upset because the user has the permission, but is marked as notdone; this means when marking an "already done" request as notdone you have to use an override template in conjecture with the notdone template, but these override templates allow you to mark the request as whatever you please, as long as you use the override template. Hope that all makes sense, feel free to ask for a clarification if anything leaves you puzzled - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized, I forgot to thank you for that very informative response! It was very helpful, and I've added a summary to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header to help clarify it for the future. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). By the way, you seemed to have forgotten to grant confirmed to Mr.myrtle24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite marking their request as done, so I've gone ahead and granted for you :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, so I did. Thanks, again :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update, Opinion

.js is still shot despite your very thorough attempts. Which is a shame, especially since now UncleDouggie is working on a new smart-watchlist script.

Speaking of which, he's hung up on the development of Twinkle/Friendly since he doesn't have admin tools and doesn't want to go through RfA, but he's overhauling them, and I suspect doing much of the work himself. I was wondering if you had any thoughts to add here about how he could do the admin-function testing without going through RFA, or in a less complicated way.

Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 03:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't he just test it on the test wiki, where it's easy to get admin permission? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I suggested as much, but he seemed to think it would be insufficient ("The test wiki doesn't allow such use and wouldn't be sufficient if it did."). I'm not sure why he thinks so. Ocaasi ^c 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose in that case he'll just have to go through RfA, or get some admins to test for him ;). Can't think of anything other way if he needs to test it on this wiki. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the test wiki is unusable for Twinkle because it doesn't have any of the noticeboards, the templates are three years old, it's running MediaWiki 1.16, and the it has an old version of jQuery. However, it might partially work for basic testing of the admin modules. I really don't know, so I just put it in a request for permission. Ultimately, Twinkle needs to be tested on en.wikipedia. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a title that redirects: NIPERNet to NIPERNET

I talked to you yesterday in Berkeley's PoP DeCal about changing the automatic redirect of a Wikipedia article if the title is slightly misspelled. Here is the article of which I would like to correct the title (NIPERNet to NIPERNET): [14]. I don't have the knowledge or the authorization to make this change. But maybe you could help me out with just a couple clicks. This is the source for the correct acronym: [15] Thanks. Kolibrical (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kolibrical, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're requesting. I don't recall having talked to you before :|. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with one if my pages

Hi Kingpin, Sorry to bother you again. I seem to be having a disagreement with User: Charlesdrakew. We have a disagreement about List of bus routes in Colchester. It's about the 'Timetable' section in the detailed route descriptions. He seems to be thinking it shouldn't be there. I have reattach the 'What not to put in a bus route article' guide and I made sure everything is fine and not against the guide. I was wondering I there was anything I could do. Also, the aforementioned user seems to be interfering with anything I do (e.g. Supporting deletion of any of my articles/templates or supporting the banning of my IP address, as you may remember from a couple of weeks ago), which I found quite curious. I also read his user page and he doesn't seem to have any experience with public transport. Have you possibly got any suggestions or know of another admin who could help? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, this doesn't really sound like an area where administrative action would help, you could try a requests for mediation instead, or see our dispute resolution procedure - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to report him for bullying? If yes, how to do that? '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the correct place for that would be WP:WQA - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bot

I am gonna run the task the way you suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate accounts have the benefit to block only one task. The second account will run only one task. AWB doesn't provide the benefit to block only one task like other tools do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(replied here)

Thanks re:RFPERM Archiving

Sorry for the late reply, I've been off-wiki for a for a couple weeks. I just wanted to thank you for archiving all those requests for permission from the autopatrol lists. I really appreciate the help. Thanks very much. I also must thank you kindly for all your bot work as it has been extremely valuable.

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

And one more thank you for being an awesome software engineer and figuring out how a user was able to bypass a Twinkle block. I don't know how Wikipedia works but I know enough about software to understand that there's probably only a handful of people that would be able to figure out how he did that. So I thank you very much for all your help in keeping Wikipedia safe. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hydroxonium, I hope you had a good break ;). I'm glad I could help :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permission

I want to use wikialerter, want the permission for the same. Thank you.--[[++@adikka (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akkida. Unfortunately you don't seem to have very much experience in deleting pages yet. WikiAlerter is really not a good tool for learning your way around, and is designed more for those who are already very familiar with our various deletion policies, and basically requires that you know these off by heart. So I would suggest you get some more hands-on experience with new page patrol before using this tool. But thanks for your interest :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SporkBot 3

Thank you for the reminder. I have just completed the 10 edit trial. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

I believe I understand the difference, however Delta is not reasonable in his application of copyright rules. I will attempt to apply this rule more judiciously in the future. I encounter a great deal of vandalism and find the tool invaluable in my activities and would appreciate the restoration of its use. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not the only one that you are reverting, The original edit was made by User:J Milburn. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit. Does this edit also have to be undone? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the intention of that edit wasn't to restore your access, so yes, the one to morebits.js does still need to be undone to restore access, however, I'm still waiting for your response to this - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hey, King, how are you? Could you help me out with some pictures? Most of them you've done some work before, but I managed to upload better version of each. They are:

File:Pedro II 1826 frame removed.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid...)
File:Pedro II 1891 00.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid...)
File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853 edit.png)
File:Princess Isabel and Leopoldina 1855 frame removed.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Princess Isabel and Leopoldina 1855 frame removed.png)

You'll notice that in the last photo (the one with the two princesses) the text of the backpage can be seen in the background. I don't know if you're capable of doing it, but it would be wonderful if you could remove it. If you don't have the time or the interest on doing this, don't bother. But I would be very grateful. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, should be able to do all of those, won't be able to get to it this evening, but sometime over the next week. About the text in the last one: I can remove text (in general), however, I can not see where the text is in this image. If you can point me to exactly where the text is I can try doing some work on it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! About the text: take a look at the light brown background where the Princesses are. You'll notice two columns of fainting text lines of another page from the book where I scanned the picture. --Lecen (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! Okay I see what you mean - very faint and kind of gives the impression of a striped background? I can have a go at tackling that, it may be fairly difficult to address and isn't a massive issue, so I won't spend too much energy on it, but I'll see what I can do :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! --Lecen (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All

Done. Let me know if there are any problems :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they look great and you removed the text in the background of the princesses' photo too!! Wonderful! I do have one last request: could you make all four pictures' borders closer to the border of the picture itself? Instead of a distant border like in File:Pedro II 1891 00.png I'd like to see it like in File:Paço imperial 1850.png. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I've trimmed the borders out completely on all the pictures :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I wanted! Thanks, King, I really appreciate all your effort. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King, could you remake File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853.jpg into File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853 edit.png again? The version I uploaded was too dark. --Lecen (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfect! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Permission

Hi, I want to use wikialerter, pls grant me permission to use this cool gadget for the betterment of wikipedia. Thanks — LuckyAim — - — Talk to Lucky — 00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private info

Hi, what is the policy on people putting their phone numbers and e-mail addresses on Wikipedia? I feel like I have seen these rescinded before on some pages due to crawlers etc. This user for instance left his phone number on a talk page that will likely have very heavy traffic today. 72.152.138.201 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011 (approx. 14 topics)

FYI

This ANI thread might be of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been keeping my eye on it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Reply

Rollback

Could you support me here. Thanks so much. Wilbysuffolk talk 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bot

What's up with my deletion, bot? Seriously, it's amazing how your filter is configured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiapowellhshs (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks? I'm not a bot though, and the page was originally tagged by a human - User:Karl 334 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter

I would like to use WikiAlerter, I have previously used NPWatcher under my old account, but it is currently not working, so I would like to try this tool out. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 23:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing,

Done. Let me know if you have any problems or questions. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at User talk:Kingpin13/WikiAlerter.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

412 . Feel free to merge/disable/whatever. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not really sure (hence the testing) but I think mine may work slightly better, for a couple of reasons. One small thing to change would be to note that some of the editors are autoconfirmed, User:DLAwaster for example (which is why I have such a high edit count check, as oppose to checking for autoconfirmed). There's a couple of other things in yours I'm not too sure about - but the same goes for mine :D. We can see how it goes - let's just see how they both work out for now :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Personally, I'd prefer 1000px privates not be added to anyone's user or talk page if possible, nothing against Jimbo. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edited my comment above a bit) Perhaps, but then I can think of a few cases where a user would add a image to a user space which wouldn't be abusive. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you done any batch testing? I find that's very useful. It might be an idea to turn off the disallow for now, I personally would, but I'll leave it up to you - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will leave 412's fate in your hands; disable or modify as you see fit. I'm going to be out of town for a few days and not in a position to check for false positives. So far there has only been one, and I left them a note (they were editing their own userpage while logged out, it appears.) 28bytes (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, okay, I'll leave it running, but log only then - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Oh, and yes, I did batch testing... there was an extremely tight window between the last vandalism I reverted and it getting revdel'ed, but it didn't pick up any FPs in the test, and picked up all the (non-yet-revdel'ed) vandalism. Don't know if it shows different results to admin and non-admin EFMs. 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Long time, no see! The range in question has been blocked numerous times because it's been used by a chronic vandal we'll call "Desmond." I believe he's User:ColourWolf. This guy singles out admins for abuse on their talk pages, including mine and User:Bsadowski1. He's out of Singapore and he's been vandalizing this site for years. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIkiAlerter Permssion

could you please place WikiAlerter permission on my account. I do allot of NPPatrolling. maucho eagle _(c) 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess so.

Done. Let me know if you run into any issues or have an questions/suggestions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does:

Extended content

See the end of this message for details on invoking 
just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box.

************** Exception Text **************
System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'DotNetWikiBot, Version=2.9.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified.
File name: 'DotNetWikiBot, Version=2.9.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'
   at testing.Startup.start_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)

WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF.
To enable assembly bind failure logging, set the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1.
Note: There is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure logging.
To turn this feature off, remove the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].



************** Loaded Assemblies **************
mscorlib
    Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.3603 (GDR.050727-3600)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
----------------------------------------
Alerter
    Assembly Version: 0.2.1.0
    Win32 Version: 0.2.1.0
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Alerter%20Beta%202.1/Alerter%20Beta%202.1/Alerter.exe
----------------------------------------
System.Windows.Forms
    Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.3053 (netfxsp.050727-3000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll
----------------------------------------
System
    Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.3053 (netfxsp.050727-3000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll
----------------------------------------
System.Drawing
    Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.3053 (netfxsp.050727-3000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll
----------------------------------------
Accessibility
    Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0
    Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.3053 (netfxsp.050727-3000)
    CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Accessibility/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Accessibility.dll
----------------------------------------

************** JIT Debugging **************
To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this
application or computer (machine.config) must have the
jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section.
The application must also be compiled with debugging
enabled.

For example:

<configuration>
    <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" />
</configuration>

When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception
will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer
rather than be handled by this dialog box.

You need to download DotNetWikiBot and stick it in the same directory as Alerter.exe, see the WikiAlerter manual for more. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Game

A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it, or do you know someone who might? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your responses at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game to consolidate discussion. Dcoetzee 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bothering you

King, I'm back o bother you! Hope you don't mind! Could you do something about these pictures:

File:Building in asuncion where caxias lived 1870.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid...)
File:Joaquim da Rocha Fragoso - Duque de Caxias, 1875.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid...)
File:Recife 1851 03.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Recife 1851 03.png)
File:Paço imperial 1850.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Paço imperial 1850.png)
File:Marques de parana por emilio bauch.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Marques de parana por emilio bauch.png)
File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853.jpg (I uploaded an improved version of this one; I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid and the picture copied over File:Pedro II of Brazil 1853 edit.png)
File:Conde d Eu visconde do rio branco 1870.jpg (I'd like to see the frame removed, background translucid...)

Take your time, in case you accept doing it. I'm really, really grateful. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all :). I'll get to these over the next few days or so. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took a while getting around to this. All

Done, see list here. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you that there was no hurry! You shouldn't worry about it. They are all great! Thank you very, very much! Ow, before I forget: could you creat .png versions of these signatures (this one and this one)? Could you make the second one darker or something similar? Or else, it will almost impossible to see it with the translucid background. --Lecen (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad you're happy with them :). Regarding the signatures, I can take a look at them (although it's very late here, so I won't be doing anything more tonight). However, I should warn you that these kinds of images are very very difficult to work with, so the results may not be exactly as desired. I've done something fairly quickly at File:Caxias_signature.png (see right) to give you something of an idea, if you like this one, that's great, and I could do some more work on that (e.g. removing blotches around the edge), or we can leave it as it is. If you're looking for something completely different let me know now ;). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly that what I need. Although it would be great if you could remove the blotches. --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will work more on these soon :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, both of the signatures also done. I uploaded the cleaned version of Caxias signature over my previous version at File:Caxias_signature.png. The other one is at File:Marquis of parana signature.png. You'll note that for Marquis of parana signature I have kept the original colours, if you prefer the black and white style (like the Caxias signature), then I have a version like that which I can upload instead. Let me know if there are any problems. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may upload the black and white version, then. Thank you very much, King. You've helped me a lot. --Lecen (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made it black and white, feel free to revert back if you prefer how it looked before. You're welcome :D - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off

>Okay. Well, I'm off now. Will see you around.

I didn't get a chance to say - thanks very much for listening. Catch you soon, thanks. Chzz ► 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SDPatrolBot block

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at User_talk:SDPatrolBot/ErrorReports#Blocked_bot_because_of_repeat_warnings_getting_out_of_control.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since it's a rather active and large bot I also started a conversation on ANI about my block to have it reviewed and state the reasoning. Discussion here

Bot

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MauchoBot.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

maucho eagle _(c) 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly look at the AirAsia Philippines article.

June 2011 (approx. 12 topics)

WikiAlerter

Hi Kingpin13, I requested this option previously some months ago. I fulfilled the things you asked me to back then and I hope its ok to get permission to use this program now.--Silent Bob (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I don't see why not, so I've added you to the approved list. Please ask if you have any questions or problems. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at SDPatrolBot's talk page.
Message added 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

mechamind 9 0 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDPatrolBot logged out

Hi, I believe SDPatrolBot has been editing while logged out. I've blocked the IP for a short while, but the block shouldn't impede the bot once it is logged back in. Please accept my apologies if I've gotten your bot confused with another. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking it. I'm doing some work on it anyway, so I'll add in a proper check for this at the same time. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Will probably start the bot up again tomorrow morning - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi & The Wikimedia Summer of Research

Hello! It's been a while since the NICE UI study. I hope the wikiwork is treating you well these days. I wanted to drop you a message to invite your input on a Wikimedia initiative that I am involved in, the Wikimedia Summer of Research (WSOR). The WMF recruited a group of graduate students to answer some questions about the status of Wikipedia, editor workload, newcomer retention, etc. Since I've worked with you in the past, I know your insights could be valuable to our work. We are just getting started, so there isn't much output yet, but ideas that you share now could help shape the questions we tackle this summer. Anyway, take care! --EpochFail^(talk|work) 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for the Welsh Wicipedia

Hi. I've left an answer for you here. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page's been archived to here. Please respond; many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very suprised that you didn't respond to my post. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter 2

Hi Kingpin. Just letting you know that I am already approved to use WikiAlerter as "Porchcrop". But I am now renamed to "Porchcorpter". So would you mind changing my name to "Porchcorpter" in the WikiAlerter list? Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Porchcorpter, wow, it's almost been a whole year! I'd rather wait until your ban ends if you don't mind. Or you could speak to your mentor(s) about it, and if they're fine with it then I'll be happy to re-add you - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, there are a lot of problems with my ban, along with the ban being problematic itself. Yep, I'm fine with your suggestion Kingpin. I would not mind not having access to the tool until my topic bans expire. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppeteering

Anybody can slop a speedy delete tag over any article. There is something very wrong if established editors here can't be trusted to remove a speedy tag which is unwarranted given the new info. In fact its time this went under review and established editors here be given the entitlement to decide what is speedy or not . It should be listed under privilages uch like new page patrol and rollbacking is. The experienced editors on here should reserve a right to remove any speedy tag even on their own articles which they believe is unwarranted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can. Just not on pages they wrote themselves, otherwise we might as well just say nobody is allowed to speedy delete a page created by an "established" user. Next time, have the patience to wait a little bit longer for another uninvolved editor to review it. And if you disagree with policy, do not start sock puppeting to get around it, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is fucked. Any editor could slop a speedy tag on any article, however ridiculous it may be. SOmebody could slop a tag on Deforestation in Brazil right now and you not even be able to revert them. Epxerienced editors should be entrusted to know when something is speedy or not, even their own articles. Its time this was changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect: I could revert them, because I didn't create the article... As I said, if we allow experienced users to remove speedy deletion tags from pages they've created, we may as well simply say that nobody is allowed to nominate them in the first place. Most other users (including "experienced" users) have had the self-control to wait, or ask, for someone else to handle it, rather than taking action where they are clearly biased. There is absolutely no harm in them waiting like this, and you should have simply done the same, instead of socking to get around policy. Stop trying to justify that. If you want the policy changed to treat experienced users differently, please feel free to propose that, however, my talk page is not the correct venue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SDPatrolBot

This bot appears not to follow the three-revert rule.

Removal of speedy deletion tags is not in the list of exemptions from the three revert-rule. Removals of obvious vandalism are exempt; removal of a speedy deletion tag is not obvious vandalism if the page does not in fact meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which is not a judgement a bot can make.

The rule applies to all contributors, that means bots and administrators too. Bots should, if anything, be subject to stricter rules on reverting than other contributors. If any other contributor tried to edit like this, they would be blocked, there is no reason a bot belonging to an administrator should receive special treatment. Gurch (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be controlled as desired at User:SDPatrolBot/configuration, it's just a setting which can be set to whatever the community wants. I've set it to 3, since you asked. Me being an administrator has absolutely nothing to do with anything, so there is no reason for you to bring that up. In fact I've always maintained that my bot should treat all users, including admins, equally, despite a number of complaints from other admins. Take your admin bashing elsewhere. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProdNotify

Would ProdNotify.cs work if I used it, and if so, where would I put it? I dream of horses @ 18:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that source code is outdated and poorly written, so probably not, and it would be fairly difficult to set up. But if you want, I could write a program for you which would keep track of ProDs you've placed? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, but thanks for the offer :-). PRODs aren't something I do often enough to ask that you put time and effort into writing another program. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DENY

There was a (valid) question about the use of RevDel. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as DENY, it's often been agreed before that ANI is not the place to ask about revdel. Anyway, the criteria are made pretty clear at WP:CFRD. Use your own judgement. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE ON 45 THA FEVA IS PROPER HELP IF NEEDED — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHASE6784 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief Understanding You and I Need to Talk About

Hi, I Just wanted to say that you and your bot have tried to destroy what is all good of a band that needs to be updated. Recently, they've been important to me, but what's it to you? You just go about making people feel like they don't belong. This website was good in my eyes, until you came along "KINGPIN". Look, I just wanted to create an article that needs to be updated for other fans to see. The band I'm talking about here is none other then Taking Back Sunday. These guys have kept me up to date on what they've been doing recently. That's all. Simple as that, no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamStick (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CamStick. I can't see that any of my bots or I have ever had any contact with you. If you want help, you're going to be more clear about what has upset you, because otherwise I can't actually tell what my bot has done that you have issue with. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, again!

Hey. King! How are you?! Could you do me a favor and help me out again? Could create a translucid background in this signature? I would be very glad if you could spare some time to work on it. But in case you don't have the time, don't worry! Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lecen, I'm doing well thank you, I hope the same can be said for you. I've had a shot at this, but the resolution on the image is so low it's difficult to get a very nice looking result. In any case, I've uploaded my edit to File:Maximilian signature BW.png. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King, could you create a .png version of this picture, please? --Lecen (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, File:Baron of Caxias.png - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it didn't look good in the article. Could you create a version with the circle around the picture intact? Then, only the area outside the circle would be translucid. --Lecen (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done, I prefer the other version though =p. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011 (approx. 6 topics)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For every single time you helped me when I came here asking for something. Thank you very much! I really mean it. - Lecen (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lecen, I'm glad I can help so much :). Thank you for the barnstar, it is much appreciated - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never vandalized

I never vandalized anything on here. Anything and everything that I've ever put on here has been factual corrections to obvious mistakes. Not being rude, I just don't like being accused of things I didn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.111.193 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you did, a now retired user did. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB access

Regarding this, of six months ago: do you think there's any chance that I would get access restored? And how would I go about doing it - do I need to go through the usual channels? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies. I don't see any reason not to give you another shot at AWB, so I've restored your access, feel free to start using AWB again if you wish to. Just remember to take your time when editing, and carefully read through the edits before making them, as well as making sure your editing stays within policy. Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you kindly. It was easier than I expected. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback 2

May I ask you how temperament is any more relevant to proper usage of rollback (which is silent!) than edit-warring? You didn't leave a single comment on the latter issue. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 23:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, edit warring is also a concern. The reason I didn't mention it is because the reason users edit war is generally because they get het up. Edit warring is the result of having temperament issues. You fix your temperament issues and the edit warring will likely stop as well. Of course, there's the possibility that it won't, in which case we need to find out what is actually causing you to edit war. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But again, chronic edit warring may not necessarily result from having temperament issues. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why again? I just said that, read my comment. Regardless, temperament is an issue. Edit warring is also an issue. They may be separate or linked. The reason I didn't mention edit warring before is because I believe they are linked, whether they are or not is not really relevant to you getting rollback. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SDPatrolBot

As your bot has picked up a spelling error, I've left you a message at its talk page. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 12:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

v/r - T P 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File mover

Hi, and thank you for finishing it. I was tired and upset of the situation. It's just that I was annoyed of other non-admin users judging and commenting like that. (WP:NPA) As you could see from my background, I have tried to improve. ( I'm not a trouble maker at all. ) Please just tell me what standard is for being a file mover. ( As the admins have decided differently in the past. ) By the way I would like you to read this message from another admin in my talk page. Cheers, In fact ( contact ) 12:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please ask your bot to archive my request sooner. Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 10:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011 (approx. 7 topics)

Note of reply

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Redthoreau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at SDPatrolBot's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- $Σ talk contribs$ 23:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSD-warn

A user recently created the template {{Tagged for speedy deletion}}, which appears to be redundant with the intent of {{CSD-warn}}.

I was going to tag {{Tagged for speedy deletion}} with {{db-duplicatetemplate}}, then warn the user ... but, ironically, it appears that {{CSD-warn}} fails on CSD criteria T2 (the #switch default appears invalid, but I'm not certain as to the correct values/target).

As you did the majority of the editing to {{CSD-warn}}, could you take a look and see how to fix the default? Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the idea of Template:CSD-warn is to return the right warning template for a certain CSD criterion. I don't believe that there is any specific template for warning about T2 nominations, which is why it returns the default for that one. The default is Template:Nn-warn-reason, but that template was recently deleted, so the default messes up at the moment. Template:Tagged for speedy deletion is actually not that similar to Template:CSD-warn, in fact, it is almost identical to Template:Db-reason-notice. So to fix things up, I've redirected it to Template:Db-reason-notice, and am now using Template:Db-reason-notice as the default in Template:CSD-warn instead of the deleted Template:Nn-warn-reason. That probably doesn't make any sense, but basically I think everything is fine now ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDPatrolBot

Hi there. I'm sure that this not does lots of good work. It is however quite frustrating when an anon tags a new article without a valid reason and then I can't undo the tagging. I know that lots of newbies create pointless speedy candidates but doing that to someone who has been creating articles for many years is a little annoying. I guess there isn't an easy way around it though unless it were to just accept detagging of ones own article if you are an admin. Perhaps something to consider. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it many times, and I strongly believe that admins should get no special treatment. I see no harm in all users just waiting for an impartial user to review the nomination. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but in a situation as described it can be quite rude to experienced, trustworthy editors. The only measure of that easily available is the admin list. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's policy, if you get the policy changed to make administrators specifically exempt (which I doubt you would be able to), then I will be quite happy to recode the bot. However, I personally think that admins should get no special treatment in these cases, and policy agrees with me there. I do not see how the bot is rude either, it is simply enforcing policy and uses the standard templates (if you want me to write up a separate first-level warning, which is more friendly and considerate of experienced users, I could do that). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really policy for an incorrectly tagged article to have that tag removed even if it's by the article creator - I know people can easily argue the value of their article but if it's obviously notable the tag is akin to vandalism. Perhaps if shouldn't revert people if interwikis exist (as they did with mine), or if it is linked to by sufficient other articles (again, as was mine). The message is certainly a little rude for experienced users - a welcome message? violet/riga _^[talk] 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy that users may not remove speedy deletion tags from pages they created. I could make the bot use a different warning for experienced users, would that be an acceptable compromise? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I'm familiar with the wording of that policy and will have to take a look at it at some point. I doubt that this crops up too often but a different message might be a good move. Thanks for the quick responses. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so" (emphasis original). I'll write up a different template some time soon. It doesn't come up often, but I have got a few other similar complaints :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganeshbot

Hi Kingpin, It's been a year. You may remember denying a bot request to create species and genus stubs for snails and slugs. I have submitted a new bot request, Ganesh 10. It would be great if you could take some time to review this new request and let me know what you think. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and well thought out. I'll keep an eye on it, and may approve it for trial in a couple of days if there are no objections. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM

Doesn't look like KingpinBot is getting Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Just a poke thanx, Mlpearc powwow 21:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :).

Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for AfD discussion

Dear Kingpin,

I am a newbie to wiki and my first article was shot down in a falsely implicated speedy deletion move. The replacement which was created with the help of administrator: Lifebaka is being targeted by a group whom I assume are connected. Please do review and provide your views. The AfD discussion is at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xurmo_Technologies

Thanks in advance

Sandeep999 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011 (approx. 10 topics)

Page Stand Up

How does one stand up a page using a title that already can be found? I have a content that is not associated with the current page. Wbalko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

list of members

Hello, I would like to inform you that I listed you on the participant list of huggle project, if you don't like it, feel free to remove yourself from the list (available on the huggle project page), this list is only for informational purpose and anyone is welcome to add / remove themselves, participants listed there will also appear in about dialog of huggle. Petrb (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM

Back again sorry, WP:PERM is backloged, I was going to work on archiving some old request but was reluctant to start new pages, didn't know if that would mess up your bot. Just a fyi. Cheers. Mlpearc powwow 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away and then haven't run the bot since getting back. All done now though, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, looks great. Mlpearc powwow 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of X

No, I am not requesting CSD-G7 simply because I am upset over failure to get rollback. I am planning to abandon this project completely (a primary reason is because it can be addicting, and again, rollback is not a primary reason) and intend to leave as little trace of my work behind. Those lists comprise the vast majority of my efforts spent here on WP for the last 5 months.

And also, I have not been completely unreasonable... Dr. Blofeld has begun creating entries from one of the lists that I have authored entirely by myself, so I have not touched that one. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 19:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Doesn't change anything, I'm still not deleting the pages. Unless there is a very serious reason (like you've been receiving death threats), I'm not going to delete them. Even if there was there are better ways to go about things then deleting the entire page. Just because you're addicted, does not mean you need to run around deleting all your work. If you want to stop editing, then here's how to do it: Stop editing. Trying to get these pages deleted clearly has nothing to do with you being addicted, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I did not state this clearly—I intend to vanish and leave as little evidence of my work behind as I can. And at least my vanishing request will be satisfied in a few days' time at the most. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's new, I already understood that you want to vanish. Deleting your contributions is not a standard part of vanishing, and these are certainly not exceptional circumstances. So I will not be deleting the pages. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter

Hi Kingpin. My ban has now expired. Is it okay if I have access to the tool now? See my recent CSD activity at User:Porchcorpter/CSD tags. Please remove "Porchcrop" as well. Thanks. -Porch corpter (contribs) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,

Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

@ KingpinBot Poking Kingpinbot Somehow it seems silly now, asking at KingpinBot's talk :P Mlpearc powwow 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter

Hi Kingpin13. Can I be granted permission to use WikiAlerter?--Hallows AG^(talk) 21:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not,

Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

Could you pls run KinpinBot on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed Getting a little backlogged. Thanx.
Mlpearc If you reply here, please leave a {{Talkback}} on my talk. 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done :). The main issue was actually Magog substing the notdone templates instead of transcluding. But I changed the regex so that the bot looks out for that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

much better. Mlpearc Public (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.
Message added 17:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camera Obscura

Hi, I posted this:

Lets stop the lying please: Lets face it... Scientists like Aristotle & Mo-Ti etc. have proven to have discussed the principle of light being projected from a hole onto a surface (possibly even in a dark room)

Ibn al-Hatham (a.k.a Alhazen) was the first person (with proof) to have created the 'camera obscura' and used it for experiments, and explained the inversion of light.

Ok maybe you don't like him. But its the truth, you should provide an accurate story & not hide anything. If you want to do the right thing, and be respected & trusted as editors. Include him OR include the person who created one before him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2875430
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alhazen#cite_note-Wade-44
(Kelley, Milone & Aveni 2005):

   "The first clear description of the device appears in the Book of Optics of Alhazen."

^ a b (Wade & Finger 2001):

   "The principles of the camera obscura first began to be correctly analysed in the eleventh century, when they were outlined by Ibn al-Haytham."

- - - - .

It was quite colloquial & not the most diplomatic way of putting the point across. But I'm certain it's a valid point. If the first line + "Lets face it..." were removed, I would believe it was a constructive comment, because it would encourage people to find out (for themselves) who constructed/assembled the first camera-obscura; then perhaps report back and state the first constructor/user. The article mentions a long list of observers... but no inventor? (Surely history is being erased, it's not fair that middle-eastern scientists are hidden from us in school, I didnt expect to see it here as well.) Please can you cut out the bits of my comment that you dont think is suitable, and allow the rest to stand. For fairness/freedom's sake atleast.

yasser.B Brunel University London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.221.62 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011 (approx. 7 topics)

PERM

WP:PERM is backed logged, just a poke thanx. Mlpearc powwow 23:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, all done now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to run this bot daily, and perhaps archive actioned requests older than 2 days? The length of WP:PERM/C is disorienting. If you're not able to do that, I'm willing to run your code or write my own. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the bot archives any requests where no comment (timestamp) has been left in the past 36 hours, and the request is either done or notdone. Over the weekend, I will move the bot over to the same machine that is running SDPatrolBot (made this a bit difficult to do by programming it stupidly). If that's not sorted out by Monday you have permission to trout me :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, for sure. Thanks for looking into it. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at KingpinBot's talk page.
Message added 00:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 00:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit summary "Typo fixing using AWB (7852)"

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Chris the speller's talk page.
Message added 17:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ganeshbot 10

Hi Kingpin, I had requested BAG assistance for my bot request. It would be great if you can review and approve the trial. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kathleen Edwards (Huntington's sufferer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kathleen Edwards (Huntington's sufferer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request... yet again!

Hi, King, how are you? I was wondering if you could help me out... again. I was wondering if you could take this picture and make a frameless .png version of it and without background just as you did in this picture. The photo's page it's here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lecen, it's been awhile. I'm good thanks, hope you're doing well too. I've uploaded the new version at File:Maximiliano 1852.png, let me know if that's okay or you want anything else done with it. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It look perfect! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Artemus James

please do not delete Artemus James. I do not understand why you would do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.77.213 (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011 (approx. 7 topics)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A favor... again and again...

Hi, Kingpin! I'm deeply sorry for bothering you yet again, but you're the only one whom I trust on these kind of things. There are a few pictures that I'm using in an article called Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias which I plan to nominate to FA.

Could you straighten all of them? They are:

File:Baron of caxias 1845.jpg
File:Caxias circa 1846.jpg
File:Pedro II Caxias and others 1865.jpg
File:Duke of caxias around 1869.jpg
File:Caxias in the Battle of Ytororó.jpg
File:Sabara by Rugendas.jpg
File:Cxias in Paraguay.jpg (I need a .png version of it without background as you've done countless times before to me)
File:Steamship dom Afonso.jpg (also a .png on this one)
File:Angela fuerriol gonzalez 1832.jpg (also a .png on this one)
File:Ana Luisa de Loreto wife of Caxias with siblings.jpg (also a .png on this one)

In case you're in the mood and willing to help me out with them, know that there is no hurry. Take any time you need. Again, as always, thank you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lecen. Regarding the first 6 images, it's not entirely clear what you want done with them? Just a general cleanup? They're pretty far gone to be honest, I'm not really sure there is much I could do to restore them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. They are crooked. That's what I meant. I was wondering if you could straighten them. There is no need to improve their quality or fix anything in the pictures themselves. --Lecen (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-a, I see :). In that case, I should be able to do them without too many worries. I'll try and get to it over the weekend. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, King. I really appreciate that. I uploaded less worse versions of the pictures. --Lecen (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King, please ignore my request. I just saw the pictures as they look in my computer and they look awful. Their color is awful. When I return to my hometown in January I'll try to scan better versions of them and I'll ask your help again. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecen, sorry I haven't got to them yet, I've been slightly more preoccupied with various IRL matters than I anticipated. In any case, I'm happy to work on them in January once you have some copies you're more satisfied with uploaded, give me a poke when that comes around :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look, please?

I notice you just blocked LetsTroll based on a WP:AIV report. Could you look at Imatrollman over at WP:UAA as well? My musical background tells me they might be one and the same user, who likes twisting song titles...the former, "Let's Go" by The Cars, and the latter, the blues classic "Soul Man". Of course, I could just be paranoid. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we were just "discussing" this in IRC, I went with "Let's Dance" by David Bowie =p. Anyway, regarding Imatrollman, I'd rather wait until they edit, they have been silent for an hour, whereas LetsTroll started editing almost immediately after account creation. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the deleted contribs, now blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 1962

Please stop adding speedy deletion tag to this page. It did not even meet the speedy deletion criteria first time round. Deb (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why it does not meet CSD#A10? The only thing I can see is that the title is redirectable. But all that means is that it should be redirected. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a duplicate. Deb (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the deletion tag in any case, in future please don't edit war to remove deletion tags from pages you've created, doing so is very clearly not permitted by policy. What's the benefit of having a whole page about this? And surely there shouldn't both be a page about this and a section on the 1962 page about the same thing with very similar text (at the very least use {{main}}) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the page deleted, please nominate it for deletion in the formal manner. The speedy deletion tag was invalid and should not have been replaced by the bot. Deb (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on your talk page - Kingpin¹³ (talk))

Unblock-en-l

I think your response in relation to corporations was excellent and have decided to use it for the template list. Thanks for your contribution to the list. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAlerter

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Im sorry about that

Im sorry for deleting the speedy deletion thing multiple times without reading the bots comment on my talkpage, i eventually decided to look at the message and it said that i may not ever be able to edit, please dont take my ability to edit away, i would feel sad if you did, im sorry for deleting the speedy deletion thing. Mickman1234 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 (approx. 8 topics)

Help me delete my page The Football Asylum please!

I've created the page, but I need to now delete it. Can you help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonergurl (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for doing such a diligent job putting the test results from SDPatrolBot on-wiki. It makes life so much easier for Maryana and I! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Access to WikiAlerter

Hi.I recently came upon the above software,and I would like to test it out.You may also wish to see my CSD Log.Thanking you in advance,Dipankan001.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 15:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dipankan001, thanks for your interest. I've added you as a tester. However, in some cases it looks like you need to consider options other than speedy deletion, e.g. Markkus Perrson should have been a simple fix instead of CSD. However, overall your work looks good. If you have any issues with or questions about WikiAlerter feel free to ask. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.I'm just not getting the DotNetWikiBot thing.Can you please explain to me step by step.If you're posting on your talk page,please leave a {{talkback}} message on my talkpage.Night ^{Of Darkness} 05:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Night ^{Of Darkness} 11:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a advance Wikipedia birthday!

Night ^{Of Darkness} 11:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:KingpinBot / RFPERM archiving

As a heads up, I hope I didn't break anything, but I made a bunch of minor formatting and usability changes over at WP:RFPERM that pertain to section headers (namely, I split the action links into a separate line, added more reliable anchors, and made it easier for people to actually view and edit requests). I'm assuming that the bot looks past the first section headers on the subpages anyway, but juuuust in case, I thought I'd let you know, plus offer myself up for troutting if need be. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on this subject, is the bot still archiving WP:PERM pages? It hasn't done so for awhile now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily - Yes, the bot is still running, apologies for the irregularity of the runs. As I said a while ago, I moved it across computers and set it up as a scheduled task, but since then I've started using my other computer more often >.< I will set it up as a task on both computers over this weekend. Also, the most up to date place to check about activity levels and tasks for my bots is at User:Kingpin13/bots (and the details of the last runs are on the bot's user page).

Slakr - Thank you for letting me know :). I'll keep an eye on how the bot handles its next run. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speedies

i just received a warning from you to edit my page , so i did , not realising that i had also deleted this warning , and now you are giving me a final warning saying i might not be able to edit anymore because of an accidental mistake which i knew nothing about and just did what this bot asked me to do , mmmm a little leaniance with these bots that are picking on us newbies who are just trying to put some information out there to people who would be interested in what others have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mea1970 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mea1970 i did what this bot said to do , edit my page which i did, not realising i had deleted some warning,i made a mistake i'm only human now you tell i might not be able to edit anymore, mmm i have to wonder about these bots , it doesn't matter what you say someone has to find somthing to pick on you with somthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mea1970 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure creativity slip. List of female rulers and title holders and the content I'm no different. Reunde--Yswj700 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikialerter

Please can I be added to the approved list? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,

Done. Let me know if you have any questions or problems - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will do, thanks very much. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!!

Don`t worry, King. I haven't come here to bother you with some pictures... at least not this time... heh heh heh... I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and tell you that I really appreciate every single time you helped me. If my FAs look good, that's because of you. Have a nice holiday! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lecen :). I hope you also have a great Christmas, all the best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about specific wording of bot message

Following a link from WP:AIV, I just now read the following message:

Hi Antivirotic, this is a notice to let you know that I have reported the issue of you removing speedy deletion templates to administrators. An administrator should assess the report in a short while, and they will take any appropriate actions. Please wait for an administrator before taking any further actions yourself. Thank you, SDPatrolBot

It took me a little while to parse "the issue of you removing"; would you please consider rewording this little bit? If you reply, I'd prefer either a reply at my talk page or a talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sleep well :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]