User talk:MadenssContinued

July 2013

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Athlon 64 X2 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Denniss (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Froggy Fresh

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted my revision on the Froggy Fresh article. All I did was add an external link to help give more information about the topic. If the issue is that I added a link to a different wiki, I think you may be mistaken because the Doctor Who and Star Wars articles both have links to other wikis in the external links section. Please let me know so I can fix my mistakes in the future. Evan Norton 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xt0rt3r (talk • contribs)

You need to review the Biographies of living persons article. MadenssContinued (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Murray Rothbard

Hello Madenss: I think it is best to restore the bot on the Murray Rothbard talkpage. We do have 9 pages of archives, which shows a lot of activity over the years. Without archiving a tooooo lonnnnnggg page. Still, the many discussions we have seen in the last 6 months will lessen now. 4 of the top 5 contributors to the talk page are now topic banned from the page or indefinitely blocked all together. In restoring the bot, we can increase the time to 90 days. (Keep in mind that the bot archives a thread if there is no activity in the thread for xx number of days.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that long talk pages are very annoying. However, I find that MiszaBot is rather flawed and on the page in question has demonstrated bot-like editing. I don't have time to file the paperwork to fight the bot and the bot's owner I suspect never responds to peon editors such as myself, as I my post to the bot's complaint page was never acknowledged, then eventually archived by the bot. The bot works well at helping out in certain edit wars because it hides arguments which may work to support one side, but are made hard to find with the bot's going through and archiving the arguments - seems too easily exploited, to me. The bot needs to be changed to look for certain flags in an article and not archive associated talk items. I suppose a properly maintained talk page would make sure that such activity does not occur, but since the bot is running essentially unmonitored on the Murray Rothbard article's talk page, I do not support its use there.MadenssContinued (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Rothbard case, I am monitoring the page. Getting the old and often contentious discussions archived was helpful. And the TBAN for the contenders will allow for more article improvement. (Also, checkout Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 9 for the fairly recent rounds of old discussion (oxymoron intended).) – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]