Jump to content

User talk:Slakr/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Question

Hi, I have a quick question. Why isn't SineBot designed so that it or another bot automatically adds Template:Uw-tilde to the talk page of the person who didn't sign his post? I've noticed that, despite the banners and such, a lot of IP editors and new editors don't sign their posts, but mostly because they didn't know they needed to. So wouldn't SineBot be more helpful if it could also auto-add the notice template? Just wondering. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Never mind, it does do that. Sorry to bother you. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Insignificant detail

Hiya.

(cur | prev) 14:47, 21 August 2010 SineBot (talk | contribs) m (3,248 bytes) (Signing comment by Rubix Cube123 - "") (undo)

I'm guessing the above came about because it tried to put quotation marks around the section edited when the user in fact was editing the entire page instead. It's an exceptionally minor thing, but there's always the chance you feel like working on it.

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. A F K When Needed 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your bot doesn't like my signatures

SineBot is "auto-signing" comments on Talk:SecureCRT that I had already signed. Any idea why it's doing that? -Stian 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User Bband11th

Unfortunately, the edit war at 2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl doesn't seem to be over as an anonymous editor changed it back to Bband11th's preference and cited the same reaons. If the anonymous editors aren't him, they only work on the same things he does and cite the same reasons for changing it back. The pages may need protection and so far attempts to discuss this have failed (not just today but previously too). This is ridiculous --JonRidinger (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I pretty much expected this. Given the history on the various pages, it's pretty clear he's edited while logged out in order to try to avoid the three revert rule. Even ignoring the duck test behavior, the ips are the same isp and geolocate to the same area (AT&T in California), while the media that the user uploads (File:UCLA_vs_Cal_09.jpg and File:2010_BCS_Champ.jpg, for example) corroborate the geolocation of the IPs with a spectator in a similar geolocation.
Thus, I've reblocked the primary account due to block evasion and blocked the sock. If he continues while the block on the main account is still active (i.e., if he edits using another IP before the block on the main account expires), let me or another admin know and we can take further action if necessary.
Additionally (and for future reference), if you suspect someone is editing while signed out in order to evade a block or do something similarly nefarious, feel free to report them to sockpuppet investigations.
--slakr\ talk / 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kurt,

My proposal for a link for Timy-Soft is:

QUOTE Timy-Soft is a Business Software provided as part of an Excel based Time and Attendance System. Timy-Soft makes use of Excel macros and Visual Basic to automatically create employee time sheets when individuals are registered in the application. The application manages security for all employee time sheets, preventing unauthorised access through other methods, such as attempts to open time sheet data files without using the application itself. UNQUOTE

This article is intended to enable a reference to Timy-Soft in the table 'Comparison of time tracking software'.

On the same tabulation (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software) ITimeSheet and Tenrox have been tagged as ads, but remain listed. All other products have links to articles that most readers would consider as advertising.

Thorley (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know...

I tell you, the last three or four weeks here onthe various wikis have been just nuts. I was being stalked by a user who'd been banned by Jimbo for good reason; another banned vandal decided to join in the fun. So, anything having to do with these knuckleheads were being blocked just for good measure. The one really nasty vandal had to resort to proxies, so that's probably one I'd blocked for good measure. I'll unblock it ASAP. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

SineBot false positive

I signed my paragraph, and the bot re-signed it, though it wasn't needed. Please look into the issue and try to fix it. Thank you. Gryllida 00:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryllida (talk • contribs)

Email

I set you an email a week ago but never received a response. FinalRapture - † ☪ 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

your bot

I dont know if it was a joke but sine bot told me to contact you so i want to say thanks for telling me to put my signature on stuff so yeah lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullsbud (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i just sent a message saying thx for telling me to put my name on something so --Skullsbud (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

sinebot signs my posts when i sign them

just lettin' u know dude --weev talk 2 me G N A A™ 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weev (talk • contribs)

Probably because it doesnt provide an inter-wiki link to his talk page, just an "external" link. Try to change it to Talk 2 me instead of talk 2 me. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It's the external link (talk 2 me) versus using an internal link like this. Regardless, your signature seems unnecessarily long and obviously trolls for GNAA. That said, you could just be a fan of Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry. :P I would still suggest, however, that you at least save our bandwidth and trim it down. --slakr\ talk / 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User subpages

Please make your bot avoid user subpages, such as mine. Softarch Jon (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It signs all talk page posts, because a majority of subpages aren't like yours, most have an actual discussion. Just add {{bots}} to your page (without tlp|) Pilif12p :  Yo  21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Or move it to a non-talk page like: User:Softarch Jon/Verkstad. Krinkle (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

dear awesome bot person

i swear on the wiki gods that i am using the 4 ~'s when signing my name. however, it doesnt sign it the way i think you want it to. please advise? also, see below, as this is what happens when i leave the 4 ~'s:

-E 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

help.

~ericka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, and uncheck the "Treat the above as wiki markup." box. Save, and try again. --slakr\ talk / 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Move request

May you move WWE Tag Team Championship (2002-2010) to WWE Tag Team Championship (its okay to get rid of the disambiguation its not needed anymore), and move WWE Tag Team Championship (2010-present) to Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. These changes need to be reflected in which the company decided to continue the lineage of its original 2002 title. Thank you--Truco 503 04:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My edits

Okay. But i did provide references in the new articles created by me under the external links sections. And also, the other edits made by me are all minor edits and also very commonly known world wide, then why does anyone would want reference to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddarrishabh (talk • contribs) 05:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Great User Page!

And... I'm planning on borrowing a few of your userboxes. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

SineBot Suggestions

Add a way to opt-out of getting messages from SineBot (I know I keep forgetting to add the tildes, which means I edit them in right after)

Add a way to opt-out of sinebot signing your posts, but have it message you that you forgot, with a link to the edit.

Add a way to opt-in to have sinebot sign your posts with the generic signature three/four tildes creates (or even a custom signature/your custom signature?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob (talk • contribs) 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this person is notable

I would like to try re-writing an article that was deleted. The entry was about a pioneer of solar energy research and education in the United States. May I try gain? The page that was deleted was here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trypnotik (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bucket City Agency

Hi Slakr, I'm a friend of Bucket City Agency, and was interested in creating a wiki entry for the company. I read where you had deleted it. Please let me assert my reasons for wanting to create this page. It is important concerning many of the artists represented by the company. People like Charlie Louvin, T-Model Ford, and JoeBuck are just of the few artists on the roster for BCA. In order to properly interface with the current social networking facilities, it is necessary to include a wikipedia entry for the agency. It will be an integral part of networking the artists and their fans. Please let me know if this is suitable, or if some other venue should be pursued.

Regards, Doug Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougs510 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see info on writing your first article, the notability guidelines for inclusion, the conflict of interest guidelines, and the advertising guidelines. --slakr\ talk / 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sinebot pestering me

I just got this message "Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Peter Ward 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)"

As I'm signing my messages in this way (clicking on the signature button) I have no idea why I got this. There is an automatically entered signature at the end of my new messages when I save the page, and shortly afterwards a comment appears as if it wasn't signed. The page currently in question is Talk:10cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Peter Ward 17:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncheck the raw signature box in your preferences. --slakr\ talk / 08:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ProcseeBot

Hi, Slakr. I'm a bureaucrat from Chinese Wikipedia. I am intrested to build a robot which does similar works like User:ProcseeBot. Therefore, can you provide me the source code of that robot so I can run it directly after I get a permission from my community? Thanks. --PhiLiP (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source is not available, because I'm paranoid someone will abuse it; however, its block log, with ports in comments, is available via the api. If enough people are interested, though, I could also rsync the rbldnsd zones to the toolserver. --slakr\ talk / 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocks for only two months?

Hello Slakr. See the block log for 88.187.16.37. ProcseeBot correctly identified him as an open proxy and blocked for two months. See WT:PHY#Large number of problematic edits. A blocked editor, Lysdexia, seems to be cruising around the web picking up open proxies, then returning to mess with physics articles. What are the chances that ProcseeBot could block open proxies for a worthwhile length of time, like one year? Is there a concern that the proxy-detection is not foolproof? I assume that when a human editor verifies a proxy he would be justified in blocking for five years. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It used to block for longer to begin with, but then a lot of dynamic ips started turning up positive all at once, presumably due to one of the various trojans that open up proxies on compromised hosts, so I reduced the length to 2 months across the board as a quick fix. Since it's long overdue, I put the pedal to the metal and finished off the recheck routines, so now the bot will regularly check the things it's already blocked right around the block's expiry. If it finds it open again, it'll block it for a year. After all, it's a safe assumption that if a proxy's been open for two months on the same IP it'll be around a lot longer (it's de facto static due to its stability). --slakr\ talk / 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎

Looks to me like the above page is not on SineBot's list. If true, shouldn't it be? See here, for example.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 

Hidden categories: Non-talk pages that are automatically signed

Already is^ However, SineBot won't sign for a user with over 800 edits unless they opt-in. –xenotalk 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor SineBot bug

A user recently posted on my talk page and incorrectly signed his username, putting a .com at the end of his username [2] (a n00b mistake, really). You'd hope SineBot might be wiser to it, but it wasn't, giving an edit summary repeating the link to the false userpage: [3] (edit summary: Dating comment by Chrisbrunner.com - ""). Your bot done goofed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to already timestamped signature

Sinebot added a timestamp to a signature that was already time stamped:


--KMLP (talk) 2:27 pm, Today (UTC−7) —Preceding undated comment added 2:30 pm, Today (UTC−7).


Sinebot also got the time wrong. Whether it's an ongoing problem or not, the bot is not helping by adding the note that the comment posted and dated at 2:27 pm today was posted at 2:30 pm today.[4]

--KMLP (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

SineBot got the date correct; the reason it re-dated your comment was because you weren't using a standard timestamp - you copied and pasted it from an earlier comment in a different AFD (that you had made three minutes earlier). –xenotalk 22:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I should have copied and pasted from the edit box, which is what I would usually do. --KMLP (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bug: bot doesn't state what page incurred it's wrath.

Thanks for making the bot fill in for some major flaws in the wiki software. If you have time, can you have it include a mention of which page the user forgot to sign?

Thanks for filling in. Good luck!

Veriss (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on an improved talk page discussion implementation. More information is available at mw:Extension:LiquidThreads and mw:Extension:LiquidThreads/Redesign. This will make archive and sign bots largely (if not completely) obsolete and unnecessary.
I don't think anyone is particularly pleased with the current bot dependencies, but they are what they are. MediaWiki has a lot of shortcomings, largely as the result of trying to do many things (jack of all trades, master of none). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

pedindo para desbloquear

lamento pelo transtorno que fiz vc passa, eu estou arrependido por não ter respeitado a wikipedia que sempre me ajudou nais pesquisas que eu fiz. mais eu peço para que vc reconsidere, pois eu não vou cometer esse erro de novo. porque eu sei que a wikipedia e seria, e sei que o que eu fiz tambem e muito serio, porisso pesso desculpas. agora eu sei que isso e vandalismo pos na hora não passou pela minha cabeça.lamento! e me coloco a disposição para ajudar a com bater isso, pode cotar comigo.

I'm either drunk again, or I have absolutely no clue what this says. Anyone else? :P --slakr\ talk / 08:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Error with Signbot?

Hello Slakr, Sinebot keeps signing posts I make with User:Alpha Quadrant (alt) even though I sign them. Example [5]. Is this a error? Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant talk 16:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

that is happening to me to. ex. "have created a archive page but i may need some help moving the information to it. --Gerty 13:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaly93 (talk • contribs)

ok i don't know how to move or how much i should move, but i did create a new archive page. but i messed up on that to and had to redirect it. you will see if you look, but if you can fix that too that would be great--Gerty 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaly93 (talk • contribs)" just to let you know i use the sig button at the top to sign if that makes any difference. --Gerty 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdaly93 (talk • contribs)

@Gdaly93 - it is because your signature does not have an internal link as required by the guideline. Please see WP:How to fix your signature (probably just need to uncheck the 'treat the above as wiki markup' in special:Preferences). @Alpha Quadrant - same goes for you, you are linking to a different user than the one you are signing with. You should probably link to the alt's userpage in the userlink and your own talk page in the talk link, the way I do it with my alts (e.g.). –xenotalk 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and the bot doesn't know that the other account is a alt. OK, I fix that. --Alpha Quadrant talk 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep. What xeno said. :P --slakr\ talk / 08:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

IRC

I have registered my nickname, Eagles247. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SineBot too fast

Hi. I was undoing a vandalism 08:53, 19 October 2010 219.78.194.103 , but I could not, for an edit conflict, because in the meantime SinBot had signed it. If you look at the time stamp, there is one minute lag between the vandalism and SineBot intervention. I think perhaps it is better to wait, one hour or one day, say. It is not a urgent matter. --GianniG46 (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting a day seems a bad idea as in many pages it will already be way too late by that time, and in fact in some cases sinebot may not even know what to sign anymore Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The longer the bot waits, the probability increases geometrically that there will be another edit to the page in the meantime, so it has a 1 minute delay. On a related note, it's still possible to revert the vandalism even if there's an edit made in the meantime. :P --slakr\ talk / 08:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Manually, by copying and pasting, I think (and with risk of errors), if I do not have particular rights. Instead, for the bot I suppose it is not more difficult to modify past edits: it can look, for example, at the last hour (or few hours) edits. Or, it can look continuously, and, if it finds an unsigned item, it can annotate it on a file, and then check for it a few hours later. Otherwise, the accident I was signaling occurs almost always, because in talks vandalisms are rarely signed. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't program but I don't think it's as easy as you believe, one of the problems is working out after all the things have been modified what to sign, for example if someone makes several edits which are part of the same comment but modified, the bot may sign in the middle of the comment several times which is a bad thing but if it doesn't sign more then once for a user for example this may mean if there are several comments with different indentations and locations or even different threads it doesn't sign them it then reduces the utility of sinebot. I can also imagine it may get confused by other peoples comments and sign in the wrong place. More to the point though, as I said it's easily way to late if you want to wait that long. Signing isn't just for fun. It's for the benefit of other users. It helps to make conversations easier and in some cases also helps to track down problems or understand what a user is talking about and stuff like that. For highly monitored pages, a day later may be long after most people have already seen the comment and either tracked down who made it themselves (defeating the purpose of sinebot) or not bothered to, perhaps leaving a confusing discussion in its wake. Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi. About this rm of yours, this IP vandal last warned on 29 March 2010, while he vandalized again today. I think we've got to be strict with such actions especially after final warning, other ways they won't take us serious and they'll continue vandalizing... A Macedonian (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was over half a year ago. Unless it's apparent via WHOIS on the ip that it's static or by the style of the vandalism that it's definitely the same person, we generally assume that the IP is dynamic or shared and thus needs, at the very least, a new final warning for recent vandalism before being blocked. --slakr\ talk / 05:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

IP address opt out

I was under the impression, from things I've read before, that IP addresses can't opt out out of sinebot signing. Looking at the sinebot page this isn't stated. Am I mistaken? Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, As long as the IP adds {{NoAutosign}} to their talk page, it should still work. That said, it's discouraged for all but static ips. --slakr\ talk / 08:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
!nosign! or !nosine! in edit summary work for an anon too? Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, yes. --slakr\ talk / 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can Balcioglu

J made an autobiography of myself (Article: Can Balcioglu) and you deleted it even though I posted on its talk page that it was not a hoax and it was an autobiography. Please reverse this procedure Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklioncan (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest any of the article's claims to the subject's notability are valid. Furthermore, it has serious problems with the overall tone being promotional of the subject. However, if you are able to cite some reliable, verifiable sources that are independent of the subject that confirm the subject's notability and resolve the issues in tone and neutrality, you are free to re-create it. For more information on creating articles, please see Your First Article as well as the conflict of interest guideline. --slakr\ talk / 07:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

IP user unfairly targetted

99.184.231.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which you just blocked, has in my estimation been unfairly treated as a vandal. I have evaluated the sum of their edits which were systematically reverted by user:Arthur Rubin, and I have found it necessary to reaffirm all edits done by the IP user as reasoned and appropriate, and as a consequence thereof I have reverted all undoings back to the state following IP user's edits. I encourage you to make a renewed venture into this matter. __meco (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it's not just one IP; it's one user that's IP-hopping, across multiple pages, editwarring with the same agenda. That block was only on the most recent IP. You're free to do/undo whatever you'd like, as I have neither history nor interest in the content of the pages other than preventing disruption/abuse. --slakr\ talk / 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I realize that these issues are separate. You and I have our focuses on different aspects of this. __meco (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Brunswick Records edit war brewing

Please monitor the Brunswick Records article and nip a brewing edit war in the bud. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SexyKick Diff of warning

I think this page might be better for the Diff of Warning. [6] Random IP's had been taking out the "High Definition Graphics" picture that DCEovCE had placed into the article. They actually had to protect the page so it would stop. So I was actually trying to help keep DCE's contribution in the article at that time.--SexyKick 07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case, please stop edit warring and figure it out on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that even if there's consensus for something (and I couldn't see clear consensus), that doesn't mean that edit warring over it is in any way a good idea. --slakr\ talk / 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense, and I agree with your decision for the most part. But I do have nothing to do with the new user, and am understandably annoyed by the surprise. I don't need to use meat or sock puppets, and I just wanted to state I had nothing to do with it, but hopefully this will be fine now. It would have been extremely stupid of me, considering the thread had already started as well.--SexyKick 08:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that you were referring to the 3RR rule, Slakr, but I was reporting the guy for reverting edits since June (that's when I first noticed it). Interesting that he has been warned three times now without any consequences. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems that User:Uberdrivefan123 was a sockpuppet of SexyKick indeed, see the user's talk page. This would mean that he indeed did violate WP:3RR. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I can't believe I'm in trouble for sock puppetry. The users edit would not have put me over the three revert rule anyway. I have never needed to use a sock puppet, and every controversial edit I ever made was under this name. I have confidence in my ability to get things done on my own, and I claim I am innocent. I'm dropping this sock puppet talk right here and now, and hope I never have to hear about it again. Is it possible to check IP logs or something? Is there a way for me to prove my innocence, or is it something I just leave alone and hope doesn't bother with me in the future?--SexyKick 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say just leave it. --slakr\ talk / 10:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong addition of signature

Hi. Signbot has added a signature here that it should not have added. The history is that somebody removed an editor's contribution to a talk page and I restored it. It carries that editor's signature. Adding mine makes it appear that the comment is mine. I was only undoing censorship. --Stfg (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong addition of signature (2)

It is also adding a signature when the user's signature points to its home wiki (not here at en.wp): Helder (Talk) 14:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helder.wiki (talk • contribs)

Could SineBot do section edits?

A talk page on my watchlist was just edited by SineBot, which is great. However I noticed that the edit was to a single section, but SineBot didn't mark it as such. Would it be possible for SineBot to make section edits wherever possible (so that there's a section link on my watchlist)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Slakr. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. —  - EdoDodo talk 08:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

please let me know how you would like to see the page improved. I am happy to do so...

Is it not similar to this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gluskin_Sheff

Best regards, Jack (A341672 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

Cant do that

I received this. Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 84.217.70.124 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cant to that, I dont have that key on my foreign keyboard!

  • In your edit window, there should be a button just above with a pen on it. Click that and it should put your signature on the end of your message. Like this <click!>--Alison ❤ 02:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Undelete please

Hi there, you deleted Talk:Blake Knight under G8, but the article is still there, at AfD. Could you please restore the talk page. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure... I've restored the page history; although the current edit still stands. --slakr\ talk / 11:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

3rr.php and consecutive edits

See WP:AN3#User:Bluebadger1 reported by User:Soxwon (Result: 24h) for a case where knowing which edits are consecutive matters. (So they don't get counted as separate reverts). In my opinion, this is the most valuable thing which 3rr.php doesn't have yet. I wonder how hard it would be for the output to flag the consecutiveness of the edits. For example with an asterisk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're busy and you're willing to let me take a peek at the source code, I think I could do this. It's occurred to me as a useful feature as well. Anyhow, the tool is very useful either way, so thanks for developing it. :) MastCell Talk 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
It's mainly there to spew out all edits, even if they're consecutive, since partial reverts can be slipped into consecutive edits; but, I do definitely see what you mean... it'd still be counted as one revert. I'll add it to the todo list. =) --slakr\ talk / 12:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Pumroy article

Please help me keep Chris Pumroy article on Wikipedia. I am the mother of a child with leukemia, and this man is raising money to help children like mine. He is notable with verifyable sources and this articles proposed deletion must be stopped. Please help. (Calimonster (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

Although I understand where you're coming from, the notability guidelines for inclusion still apply, and issues of conflicts of interest and spammy/advertising language are still relevant when it comes to the content of Wikipedia. If the subject's article meets these guidelines, then there shouldn't be a problem. Keep in mind that while Wikipedia is highly-trafficked, it's still an encyclopedia, so while a particular person might be part of a noble or worthwhile cause, they still might not be encyclopedic (yet). --slakr\ talk / 12:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

have a look a the ips history

please look at people's edit history before issuing warnings.all that ip has done is remove contentLinguisticGeek 13:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

you issue me warnings for fighting borderline ip vandals.and i don't even get a reply.that is sorry to say plainly rude.LinguisticGeek 13:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm retarded. That said, I'm not entirely convinced the user's actions are vandalism. Your addition was reverted with rationale. It appears to be a content dispute—even though the editor is editing from an ip address. Please consider dispute resolution. --slakr\ talk / 13:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

and that rationale is valid is it ?.if you have looked at the number of ips this chap uses and all he does is remove content with citations not only from this article but many related articles.how do you go to dispute resoltuion when the chap does not even respond on the talk page.seriously i shouldn't have got into this and should have left that article to be stub that it is.LinguisticGeek 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if his rationale is valid or not; but, that's usually the case with edit wars. At face value, plenty of IPs do, indeed, blank content as a method of vandalizing; however, if the blanking is an attempt to revert another user's addition, by default I must treat it as a good-faith attempt to edit the encyclopedia as part of building consensus. If he doesn't take the warning seriously, he still risks violating the three revert rule and/or being blocked for edit warring. --slakr\ talk / 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

great.thanks.my efforts are futile.cheers.LinguisticGeek 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying your efforts are futile or otherwise not appreciated. If you'd like, I can even make you an award for them. But, as it stands, we try to treat every IP contribution as if it were a long-standing user attempting to make an edit. If it helps to see where I'm coming from, imagine the user you were reverting (and was reverting you) wasn't identified by ip address but rather by a user name, just like you do. Would it be right for me to take his/her side over yours? What if you were the IP user trying to make your original edit (adding stuff) and some person with a user name unilaterally removed your edits? I try to avoid biting the newbies when doing things like this.
Again, I have no idea which version of the page is the "right" version, since I have neither interest nor expertise in the page and its content. My sole concern is whether or not a user's edits are clear an obvious vandalism, and if not, whether those edits are propagating an edit war (among other things). If you feel your version of the page is ideal, simply try some steps in dispute resolution. Request an uninvolved 3rd opinion, for example. If you follow the steps in dispute resolution, there will be greater consensus and you'll be demonstrating above and beyond assumptions of good faith, so that the next time someone attempts to edit war over content that's backed by consensus, you'll clearly be in the "right" and it'll be obvious that the attempts to change content clearly backed by consensus would be disruptive editing.
Your edits are obviously valued, but you were once a newbie too.
--slakr\ talk / 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

he is not a newbie.he uses various ips.i have been observing him for the past few months.i went after him yesterday because of it.all he does is remove content not only from this Tuluva article but various other article.btwn he is back with a new ip(all ips are from riyadh i think)on the tuluva page.also see his contribution on page Kasaragod Town.indulges in frivolous edit warrings and wastes time of serious editors.LinguisticGeek 07:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

more proof the ip is not a newbie uses mutiple ips and also has an account User:Pdheeru.used it when page got protected.LinguisticGeek 08:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (Redirected from User talk:SineBot) JJB 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ermm... that was my bot—not me. :P --slakr\ talk / 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Hello Slakr, here are my 2 cents [7] Tuscumbia (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

NFC tag for Mega Drive

I removed all logos, two screenshots and two photos from the article and subsequently removed the NFC tag. Please have a look at the current version of the article here and comment on the article's talk page if you agree with the changes (cause I fear they'll be reverted within the next few hours). Thanks. DCEvoCE (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Methark

Hi,

I don't know if I can do it know, but there is an article being reviewed (Methark Technology), and I was trying to make a redirect from Methark. Can i do it with REDIRECT Methark Technology or should i wait for the article to be published? To access the article please Click here

Thanks in advance, Mark Garret 18:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes of bot

Hi Slakr, your bot make mistakes, assigns the unsigned on me for mistake! Why? « CA » Talk 16:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by « CA » (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) It looks like this is because your username is User:« CA » but your signature links to User:Claudio Asaro. I suggest you change it to link directly to your user page, and that should fix the problem. Alternatively, if you do not want to change your signature, adding {{NoAutosign}} to your userpage should prevent the bot from signing your posts. - EdoDodo talk 16:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Prefer the first solution, you should be linking the actual account you are using in your signature, not some doppelganger. –xenotalk 17:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks for information :) « CA » Talk 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

!nosine! broke?

Your botling's userpage sent me here, as it wasn't interested in hearing my tale of woe. I showed up because I'm actually curious as to how this happened, as I've not had bad results in the past...

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=399601571&oldid=399597976

As you can see by backtracking from that, SineBot dutifully added my 'signature' (or, rather, my IP), to a comment that I had, also quite dutifully, marked with the appropriate sign against evil--that is to say, my edit summary included one of the two optional remedies you have provided to keep this evil beast from spattering our unmentionables across the Intartube in plain text.

This hasn't actually happened to me before that I can recall (which may not mean anything, given that I don't tend to revisit my comments at a later time; even I don't listen to myself too intently), but it definitely happened this time.

Also, I had a question: in instances like this, we aren't given an 'edit summary' to fill out. What, then, should be done to keep the evil at bay? Could SineBot not be convinced to simply not pester those of us who, for the sake of our own health and sanity, don't have accounts at Wikipedia?

My bot wasn't involved; you were reverted. --slakr\ talk / 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
My dear God! You mean there are people on this earth who have nothing better to--
...Wait, I'm not actually surprised by that. I am a little surprised that your script has better sense than some humans...
...Actually, upon further consideration, I'm not surprised by that, either. My apologies. And congratulations on making such a smart (if completely needless and EVIL) little demon.
"Evil." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --slakr\ talk / 12:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

sign

is this how you sign okay, see? Okay, see? (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya, you've got it! Netalarmtalk 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrongly sized autosigs

Hi, the signatures that SineBot is adding use

span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"

and this is creating very strange effects if you alter the text size in your browser (which I do, to help my eyes). From sandbox experiments, I believe the double-quote after "smaller;" may be the cause. --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It uses {{unsigned}} and {{undated}}. If there's something amiss with those templates, it'd be best to bring it up on their talk page and/or make an {{editprotected}} request. --slakr\ talk / 12:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it appears to be from {{undated}} and I've left a message there. But I can't be expected to know which templates you use and how you combine them. That's implementation detail of your bot. I've done as much as I can. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see the details that are available on its user page. --slakr\ talk / 10:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Nogaempire

This username is against username policy and is being used for inappropriate editing. Can you please investigate? Thanks!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 06:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Slakr. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Report helper

The 3RR report helper tool does not have the field "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". Is it possible to add it? The helper tool is very helpful. TFD (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I might; the field is a new addition to the manual submission template. I worry, about it getting a little too red-tapey, though, so it'd definitely be an optional field, since 3RR vios don't need to have any attempt at dispute resolution—a 3RR vio is a 3RR vio. --slakr\ talk / 19:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My usage of rollback

Yes, I will admit that my usage of the tool was inappropriate, partly due to my great impatience and weariness at the time; I really shouldn't be doing any editing from 01:00 to 03:00. All last night and this morning, I was even preparing for the possibility of a 24-hour (what's with the popularity of 31?) block, so... Well do I get a chance to re-apply for rollback around the Northern summer solstice? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You can re-apply whenever; it's open-ended for any other admin to re-add the flag, but for best results, I'd suggest voluntarily adhering to a one-revert rule in content disputes for a while so that whenever you go to request that the flag be readded, if anyone has any doubts you can clear them away—it'll be obvious that you can be trusted with the tool. Of course, I'd highly suggest adhering to a personal one-revert rule as a whole—that's what I do—so that you never have to worry about stuff like that anyway. :P --slakr\ talk / 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess I will have to withdraw from patrolling certain PCs then... as I plan to keep mostly a low profile, editing Sino-related articles, it shouldn't be highly likely that I run into an explosive edit war such as the one I just participated in. By the way, what do you think of applying pending changes to the Taiwan article? there has not been enough recent vandalising for it to receive semi-protection, but I believe that PC would prevent nonsense edits (by non-confirmed users), such as the ones I had to contend with, from being immediately visible to the public. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
It's been semi-protected by another admin. --slakr\ talk / 13:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion evaluation request

Dear user Slakr, Recently you speedily deleted an article I was just starting to write: The New Message from God. I am writing this to ask you to reconsider your decision, and perhaps use the proposed deletion template instead, to give the article a chance. I believe the article has the potential to become encyclopedic. This article's subject matter has been covered in several radio stations nation wide and has several published books. I believe notability can be established for this non-commercial, non-profit organization.

A little about me: I am not advocate for anything within wikipedia, but I am interested in the major religions of the world as well as religious articles relating to New Age organizations. I plan to become and active participant in the WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. I objectively engage in the study of anything related to human spirituality.

Please reconsider your decision.

Respectfully, --JDIAZ001 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely userfy it for you if you would like, but please be sure to clean up the tone of the article and try to keep it neutral by removing the spammy/advertising language before re-inserting it into the mainspace in order to prevent it from being deleted again. Also, be sure to clearly state and cite with reliable secondary sources the notability of the organization. I should also note that apart from the issues with the article, you appear to possibly have a conflict of interest with the subject/organization itself (see also your user page). While this isn't forbidden, it is highly discouraged due to the frequently negative outcomes associated with bias (and therefore a lack of neutrality) and the inherent challenge of maintaining a balance between The Truth and the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.
It's your choice, though. :P
--slakr\ talk / 20:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I restored it to User:JDIAZ001/The New Message from God. If this wasn't what you wanted and instead want it deleted, simply use {{db-g7}}. On the other hand, if you're certain you want it back in the main space, feel free to move it back (I won't re-delete it). --slakr\ talk / 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I will not move it to the main space just yet. I will follow your advise to clean up the article before moving it. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. Although I've been a registered user for a while, I am new to editing articles and have much to learn about all the rules. I appreciate your work within wikipedia and I know that you've acted in good faith. Would you mind if I consult with you before moving the article back into the main space when I'm ready? Sincerely --JDIAZ001 (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Signing Issues

I'm placing four tildes yet I just got a message saying that I didn't. What's wrong? --Taylor Reints 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. --slakr\ talk / 23:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

IP user removing SignBot-generated signatures

I just noticed an IP user removing signatures added by SineBot (example). From WP:SIGN I see that all talk posts must be signed. Would it be possible for the bot to notice when SineBot-generated signatures are removed and restore them? --Mepolypse (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/EW#User:Lsorin reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: declined)

I am disappointed that this has been declined, as the editor now sees it as vindication that he was technically correct all along. Two hours after it was declined, they reverted the edit in question with the summary, "Edit Warning was rejected." Since then they've been on a roll, re-applying these same claims to a range of articles. They left it with jet engine claiming that the Coandă-1910 was the first jet engined aircraft, with fuel burning in a duct, to fly in 1910: three claims that have absolutely no place there.

(also at WP:AN/EW) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The reason it was declined the first time around is because he only made one revert, but now he's shown he's still willing to edit war over multiple articles. --slakr\ talk / 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recurring problem

Waaaay back in August there was a discussion at Talk:2009 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl#Point spreads on college football games regarding the seemingly endless edit warring between two styles of expressing point spreads. The same anonymous editor (Special:Contributions/64.183.42.63) has returned to this article for the same reason, and has done it with other related articles with the same unhelpful edit summaries and "revert until the other person gives up" mentality. He/She reverts the articles every few days or weeks. Perhaps some or all of them need some protection from new and unregistered users. The user's original account (likely Bband11th (talk · contribs)) was blocked in August for ignoring edit warring warnings. Thanks for your time. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Report helper

Sorry not to reply earlier. The template for reporting 3RR says, "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too." Administrators may also protect a page if there is no discussion. TFD (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SLOVIO - allowing SLOVIO CREATION

Hi, I was told to turn to you. I do not really know who you are, but here is the topic I want to discuss:

Slovio is the first viable and usable inter-slavic langauge created since the demise of Old Church Slavonic, it was created in 1999 Websites: www.slovio.com www.interslavic.org, www.youtube.com/interslavic etc, etc. The creation of Slovio has "inspired" more than a dozen plagiarized copy-cat language "projects". One or several of the plagiators have been behind the removal of the article from wikipedia, and one of them especially, Jan van Steenbergen (Ijseren) to this day keeps removing all links to Slovio and keeps re-writing history and facts. In fact he has made from wikipedia his own PRIVATE and CENSORED encyclopedia for self-promotion. I want to caution you that Mr Steenbergen has several wikipedia logins (check the IPs) so it would not be so obvious what he is doing and altering. He is promoting his own "language" Slovianski, which he had "created" in 2006, after he has been a long-time member of various Slovio-forums, including forums on Yahoo and www.blognik.com. His "sudden creative inspiration" was a to make a plagiarized copy of Slovio and subsequently erase all mention of Slovio from wikipedia, as well the constant re-writing of history of Slavic conlangs in order to promote his own plagiarized copy-cat language. Please restore Slovio to its proper place and ban, permanently Mr Jan van Steenbergen (and all his logins)from Wikipedia. his censorship, self-promotion and removal and alteration of facts are only hurting wikipedia reputation. By the way the most important and most influential, the first and the original interslavic language of the modern era SLOVIO has been removed from wikipedia because it wasnt important enough, but about a dozen half-witted "linguistic creations" of Mr Jan van Steenbergen, and others found a place in wikipedia. ?!? Please check carefully the entire history of Mr Steenbergens "contributions and alterations" (under all his variou logins) in order to get and idea about the size of fraud and censorship that is going on here.

This is a real irony that the original interslavic language SLOVIO craeted in 1999 has been deleted and the name banned from re-creation, while such half-witted copy-cat projects as Slovianski, etc, have been allowed. By the way Slovianski and other copy-cat projects based on Slovio violate my copy rights. Yes it appears that IJzeren (Jan van Steenbergen) had at the time of deletion supported Slovio, but under his other logins he had opposed it and inspired deletion. He had bragged about his different logins on forums, I have no proof, only suspicion. Perhaps you can check it through your archives.

Please let me know why are you opposed to Slovio, the webpage that has not been created by me but by independent (to me unknown) users. The reason why I had finally registered was to get the record straight. In the meantime Mr Jan van Steenbergen is doing a real terror against me in forums and on the internet calling me various insulting names. I have never met the man, I just believe that his hate stems from the fact that he wants to destroy Slovio and me in order to rewrite the history (as was being done in wikipedia) and make himself the originator of the interslavic language idea. Just check google, I am sure you will find websites where he is insulting me and calling me all the dirtiest names one can think of. Why are you blocking the website? Is he a friend of yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blognik (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted as a result of an Articles for deletion (AFD) discussion, and due to it being re-created repeatedly, was protected against re-creation. If you believe that the issues discussed in the AFD that resulted in deletion are no longer applicable, you are free to request deletion review to overturn it. --slakr\ talk / 07:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Page

Minutes ago a page i had recently added and was currently in the middle of editing was deleted. I wrote the "hang on" bit on the page as suggested by the speedy deletion memo, however it is possible i had written this in an incorrect format. I do realize that at the time the page did not demonstrate the significance of the subjectas was stated by the deleter, but it is only because i had not gotten there yet and was still working on constructing the page and figuring out the script commands, (being a relatively new wikipedia contributor and a first time page creator). anyways the subject of my page was a rising star, actor and incredibly accomplished martial artist who i believe deserves to be recognized. He has played in several large movies before including Jackie Chan's Honor as well as Break starring David Carradine. He is the creator of the "Urban Ninja" video on youtube which at one time was the 3rd most viewed video on the site of all time. He appeared in the 2009 season of american gladiators playing the gladiator "Zen", has played in numerous commercials for companys such as K-Swiss, Mattel, Darian Lakes and was also features in the music video for Weezer's song Pork and Beans. He is also the founder of the EMC Monkeys, a highly successful martial arts and stunts group based out of West Minster, California. He has a huge cult following and has been publicly recognized by Jackie Chan, who showcased him on his reality show The Diciple, and even Tina Turner who hired him to be the half time show for her final world tour last year. He is becoming more and more famous and in my oppinion is deserving of a wikipedia page. I hope i have argued my case sufficiently and i would be very thankful if you would restore my page and give me an opportunity to bring it up to standards before reavaluating it. Thank you very much for your time, Archangelt. ps. the pages name was "Xin Wuku: The Urban Ninja" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archanelt (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines, and cite some verifiable and reliable secondary sources to substantiate your claims, as an initial google check on the name turned up very little to demonstrate any significant notability. --slakr\ talk / 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Voice for Disability..?

Hi there, you deleted a page that my friend and me wrote for the charity "Voice for Disability" for "blatant advertising", and we were wondering what needed changing in it in order for it to not be deleted...
As far as I can see there are tons of similar pages on Wikipedia (such as schools sites) that do exactly the same thing, so we were a bit confused!

Any help would be much appreciated,
Thanks,
Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwest612 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's primarily stuff that makes you sound good, prose-wise, so that the reader assumes as fact that which they'd otherwise evaluate and decide on their own. You'll see similar examples in any given company's mission statement or "about me" sections of press releases, for example. On a related note, be sure to read up on your first article, our notability guidelines for inclusion, and our conflicts of interest guidelines. --slakr\ talk / 06:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryan James Stafford.

He is not a blatant hoax. Please stop removing his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanden15 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "best known for his powers in the art of wizadry and incredible powers to levitate and jump." Dude...it's "wizardry," and clearly you're not at all skilled in it, else you'd be able to spell it correctly—all great wizards do. Clearly, if you can't master that, then levitating and jumping is clearly outside of your reach. --slakr\ talk / 06:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

re

why u delete my thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexychick1991 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. --slakr\ talk / 22:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking on Coanda-1910

Regarding the blocking related to Coanda-1910, I will present the public Mea Culpa, when you'll explain me the rule I did break. Thanks in advance, with my WP:AAGF on your side.--Lsorin (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks. Comment on content, not on other people. This has been explained to you. And you are not blocked now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You were edit warring. Click the link. Read the page. I genuinely do not care whether you admit "mea culpa" or not, but you should seriously consider at least the possibility that you edit warred—regardless of what you edit warred over—otherwise at some point in the future you'll probably do it again and once again find yourself overcome with shock when you're blocked yet again. It's kind of like someone who repeatedly exceeds a speed limit but simply cannot understand why they were given traffic tickets for doing so. --slakr\ talk / 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I raised the issue to the WP:ANI board.--Lsorin (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Protesting interference

Sir: You are wasting my time. I am editing something I've written on the talk page of attachment theory and I have already had to redo it twice. I'm at the community college and need to get home before midnight, so bug off. (that's American. do you read?) If you want to discuss it do it on the talk page. Margaret9mary (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Margaret9mary (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're angry, but I'm not quite sure about what. The only thing I can see is that my bot signed some of your posts. Note that SineBot is an automated program—not a person. It helps out when it comes to our signatures guideline. --slakr\ talk / 09:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

please help me with my article

Article titled Nuqudy has been deleted by you on grounds of a lack of notability. How would you change the article? Khalil al-Rahman (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see "why was my page deleted". It needs to demonstrate notability and cite some verifiable, reliable, secondary sources demonstrating its notability. --slakr\ talk / 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Grizzly Tobacco

Good evening, Slakr. Earlier today I created an entry into the Wikipedia.Grizzly_tobacco And for some reason, You have deleted it, I read what you had posted on the entry, And if I may, or if it is even possible, See the previous entry on the "Grizzly Tobacco" subject. Secondly, by what I read("(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly tobacco)") Are you pointing towards, Because another person had created the page badly, It cannot be remade? My page was almost an exact copy of Copenhagen_(tobacco) Yes theirs is still open? What I am getting at is, What was wrong with it, And what would I need to fix.

--OutlaW1211 (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Typically if the community decides via a deletion discussion that an article should be deleted for a particular reason via consensus, in order for the article to be re-created it should fix the issues that led to it being deleted in the first place. In this instance, consensus believed that it was clearly promotional in nature, and in the most recent incarnation, the exact same deletion rationale would have applied, especially with phrases like the following, "The legendary Grizzly flavor with a crisp, smooth finnish," "A satisfying and crisp wintergreen tobacco," etc. Furthermore, it could have just as easily been deleted due to it being blatantly promotional.
Please see our policies and guidelines, our conflicts of interest guideline, and our spam guideline.
As far as other articles go, you're free to nominate other pages for deletion, however, you should be sure that the pages in question do, indeed, violate our policies and guidelines otherwise your request will likely be declined.
--slakr\ talk / 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

laptop for all

hello there,


I wonder how not to accept Laptop for all initiative as an important subject and definition since it is very important to the Palestinian community. Such initiative is a nationwide one and could be replicated worldwide for the poor.

I kindly ask to re-upload the page, if you want , please advise of the changes you want me to make to make it live.

thank you in advance; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmanager (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your cause. Please see our notability guidelines for inclusion, your first article, and the conflicts of interest guideline. --slakr\ talk / 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

why did u delete my page

What the hell did my page do it was for information reason u asshole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichgo245 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2010

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Your article, We Over Laugh, did not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion, and although it might be "for information," as an encyclopedia, we're not an indiscriminate source of information. Also please note that personal attacks are also highly frowned upon in the community, as we value civility, so while I don't really care if you believe I'm an asshole, I'd highly suggest that you avoid calling others one, as well. --slakr\ talk / 03:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete bthebusinessnetwork for the sake of modern business and improving social commerce!

Please re-consider the deletion of bthebusinessnetwork www.bthebusinessnetwork.com. The website lowers production costs and fossil fuel consumption of the business that use it, because it is a free online office where people can send each other work files, work on them, and discuss them individually, or in groups at the same time, anywhere in the world. The website also provides people with links to all the government websites (state and federal) that allow them to create their own business and pay their taxes online. This website IS significant in the world of business and it should be recognized by Wikipedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch39everts (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's blatantly promotional, lacks any credible assertion of notability, and is an obvious conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Also, when discussing an article, please avoid wikispamming it. Please see our policies and guidelines for more information. --slakr\ talk / 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

10:41, 29 December 2010 Slakr (talk | contribs) deleted "IClothing" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.)

Hi Slakr,

I recently put up the iClothing page which was deleted. I have since rewritten the page to more closely follow the wikipeda guidelines and would like to post my new content up. How do I go about doing this?

Afpdb10 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article no longer meets other speedy deletion criteria, you can simply re-create it. If it does, however, it might be deleted again. --slakr\ talk / 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

bthebusinessnetwork

Hey, I was checkin out the bthebusinessnetwork.com site and i think you shouldn't delete the page that was made for it. it looks like a pretty good site and i think it could end up being a really big and impportant thing for businesses. you should actually make an account and check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neolava2191 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that single-purpose accounts, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry are all strongly discouraged practices on Wikipedia and will frequently lead to blocks for disruption for abusers. --slakr\ talk / 07:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want

I have read this site for hours and tried to comply with everything yet you deleted both my article and my talk page within minutes without even giving me a reply. I really feel I am wasting my time. How can I talk about a particular piece of software without you saying it is blatant advertising? There are tons of articles just the same as the one I submitted. Look here Game Engines. Am I not allowed to start with a "stub" at least? I can't finish one big article in just one day, just to have it deleted. I am really trying here but I think you're a little trigger happy with the Delete button. Some meaningful help would be appreciated. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLGX (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that you're clearly attempting to promote your software, and it's reflected in the article's tone and text—it's obviously promotional. Furthermore, it clearly fails our notability guidelines for inclusion. --slakr\ talk / 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me that all the applications listed at Game Engines that are on Wikipedia have more notability? There are like a hundred of them. But none can say they support the Web3D open standards. I am trying to understand you but I still can't say that I do. I know you're busy and have little time for reply but so am I and I spent hours yesterday working on your site. Thanks, GLGX (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate other articles for deletion. --slakr\ talk / 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ray Tenorio

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, and would enjoy some help with the page of the Lieutenant Governor-elect of Guam. The USER: Scanlan, continues to input biased information, which is verifiable, but I believe to be defamatory, considering Ray Tenorio goes into office in a few days. My edit is Neutral, and does not put Ray Tenorio in such a horrible light. Please help with this.

-Jeff

User: Mrgates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates (talk • contribs) 06:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Dave (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pong! Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK rules change

Hi Slakr. I noticed you changed the DYK rules change template. I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion at WT:DYK over the past couple of months, but reviewing another nomination is now one of the requirements along with the existing requirements regarding article length, creation date, etc., so the change you made was not quite accurate. Perhaps we can work out a phrasing that's less "demanding" while still being clear that the requirement exists? 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody was complaining about the wording being too harsh in #wikipedia-en-help, and I agreed with their complaint. Consider: we avoid using that kind of language on any guideline/policy page, because they're exactly that—guidelines and policies that, technically speaking, can be ignored if the situation permits. Granted, I'm not involved in DYK at all, but again, it's a sort of lax-rules-throughout-the-community sort of thing. On top of that, psychologically it's usually ideal that people think they have a choice when following a rule if you want them to follow it in order to avoid psychological reactance—especially amongst people who would otherwise happily follow the rule (i.e., DYK regulars). That said, if you truly believe that the wording should be harsher, I won't interfere should you/others decide to change it back. --slakr\ talk / 04:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not intended to be harsh (although it may have come across that way), just intended to give folks a heads-up to a new nomination requirement. I'll play around with the wording a bit and see if I can get the heads-up across in a more friendly way. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, it's really just a suggestion. Now that I'm thinking about it, though, we don't have anything else similar to a participation requirement anywhere else in the community (that I know of), so DYK would be the first place such a requirement would be enacted. --slakr\ talk / 05:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote it to (I hope) be more friendly. Let me know what you think. The requirement itself is one of the few DYK proposals (out of something like 20) in the past year on WT:DYK that actually got near-unanimous consensus to implement. With WikiCup kicking off January 1, it will be interesting to see if this helps us keep ahead of the nominations and be able to get them reviewed quickly. Nothing's more irritating to a nominator than having their nomination languish unreviewed for weeks, and then someone finds a serious problem with it. Hopefully we'll be able to cut down on that with the new requirement. 28bytes (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, for competitions and stuff, make whatever rules you want; people don't have to participate in the competition to create content anyway. :P I'm just saying that when it comes to the wording of any "rule," people who want to follow the rules will more likely follow them when they're given the much-less-favored and much-less-popular option of not following them, as well. This particularly applies to those targeted by the rule—that is, DYK veterans. When presented the choice of either helping to review or not posting DYKs (i.e., an absolute rule), there is a significant danger that they'll actually choose the latter and not post a DYK if they simply don't like to review or don't feel like reviewing DYKs on a given day. Furthermore, for those who are more "content creators" than "content reviewers," a creator will be more likely to give a sub-standard review just to meet the minimum requirements of the rule. If, on the other hand, you encourage them to choose to help by reviewing (i.e., not force them to) by using strongly suggestive language that it's a community norm, then they'll be more likely to take it upon themselves as content creators to help in the review process, but they won't ever have to truly make the choice between creating and reviewing. Furthermore, in instances where they have a small about of time, either to review or create, they're still able to create without worrying that their creation will be discarded on the technicality of having not submitted a review.
You can apply the same logic to other areas of Wikipedia. We don't force article creators to review afds before creating new articles, nor do we force people to participate in featured/good article reviews before creating/nominating featured/good articles. We encourage people to be bold in creating things, and then engage in the review process if there's disagreement. In particular, this is our way of trying to avoid the 1% rule and keep content flowing. The trend also extends to real life: we don't force people to be film critics before creating films, for example. As a general rule of thumb, you can always find plenty of critics, while finding good creators tends to be much more in demand, so bright-line rules (and wording suggesting them) that aim to increase review at the cost of decreasing creation should be very carefully considered and reviewed in order to ensure that neither creation nor review suffers too significantly as a consequence.
That said, this is just my $0.02. :P
--slakr\ talk / 10:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Very well put, and I can't say I disagree with any of that. Interestingly, "decreasing creation", or more accurately finding some way of decreasing the inflow of nominations, was one of the things proposed to deal with the review backlogs, although (fortunately, IMO) that one didn't gain consensus. Though as you say, fewer nominations may be a side effect of the quid-pro-quo requirement; I hope it won't be a big one. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was the complaining editor on IRC :) and I think the wording as it is now is much better, less "you must must must", more friendly to the "volunteer" idea. I don't know exactly how this will be enforced (if I wrote 5 DYKs in 2007 and left for three years, do I need to review one? How would anyone know how many DYKs I have? Is a single hook with five articles one credit or five? etc.) but I think a little leniency if someone is unable to review another nom and assuming good faith that most users will help review hooks is good. Thanks both, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I think you and slakr are both right that the original text was a little... dictatorial. As for the nuts and bolts of implementation... there have been some lengthy discussions that touched on those questions, and the consensus was to allow hook-for-hook reviewing, i.e. even if you self-nominate six articles wrapped up in one hook, you'd still qualify by reviewing a single-article hook. I think there were about four tied straw polls before that finally got settled. I think most of the DYK'ers are going to be pretty lenient about it anyway, because even if only half of the nominators actually provide a useful review, that will still be a great ease on the reviewing burden, and those of us who review more than we nominate can easily pick up the slack. 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr/Archive_15&oldid=1142489365"