User talk:VectorPotential/temporary archive2

I'm going to create this user name, and since it's obviously supposed to look like my IP, I thought I'd announce it ahead of time, so no one thinks I'm trying to spoof my own IP (: --71.247.243.173 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

In short, what I'm saying is... I'm not impersonating myself, so don't slap a username block on it -- 71.247.243.173 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly--71.247.243.173 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still me--71.247.243.173 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

02:17, Monday, December 30, 2024 (UTC)

Ok, you're unblocked. I'd suggest going ahead with the name change since its possible another admin will feel the same way Malo does and block you again. The policy does say that usernames designed to look like an IP are a bad idea. Sorry about the inconvenience. Shell ^babelfish 13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new account for now, and when the WP:CU people get around to it, they can merge my contribution histories, or whatever it is they do--VectorPotential 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going to use my IP in my signature though--71.247.243.173 13:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this, but someone is likely to complain about the signature :( I like the new username though! Shell ^babelfish 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think this signature is less likely to annoy people?--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 14:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good compromise - I don't think anyone could say you're trying to impersonate an IP address like that. Shell ^babelfish 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say I like your username. That's it really! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you--VectorPotential^{71.247.243.173} 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD transclusions

Thanks for your efforts in dividing the workload at the RD but I have had to rescind my commitments to remove old and create new transclusions at this at time. I think that in lieu of a bot, which we used to have, dividing the workload is the way to go and I'll force the time to add date headers each day. When things get back to normal at here home I'll revisit. I feel very sorry to have let you down. :-( --hydnjo talk 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Worker's Barnstar
		Thanks doing the job that could easily be given to a bot. hydnjo 02:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

the following was posted by hydnjo at HC's talk:

==The good ol' RD==

I left a trail of crumbs last night but I don't think that anybody's gonna bite. We may end up with something that makes no sense. Oh well, I'm off to add the new (October 2) date headers. Did you catch my little "page reduction" demo last night? It doesn't seem to have helped, just a lot of "hey, my links are broken". Oh well... --hydnjo talk 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I take that back - VectorPotential is helping out with the archiving part. I think that if the "non-archived" window were reduced to three or four days (which is what my demo did and is what VectorPotential seems to be doing) then the "dozen" desk proposal will wither away. I'd say let's give VectorPotential a big hand of support for his efforts. --hydnjo talk 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: I think that the RD and VectorPotential would both benefit with some acknowledgment from you at this time (you daddy of the RD you). ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RD sections

As of this time stamp you seem to have reduced all of the RD sections to five or so sections. Thanks for that, I'm sure that it took a bite out of your weekend. Some of the chatter at RD talk seems to involve some wishful thinking about bot requests. When that happened before was that it took about three months (from the request date) before we had a date & archive bot and now we are including a transclusion task as well. Since we don't have a "Department of Bots", it's anybody's guess as to when we'll get some help in that way (I surely wish that I knew how to write a "bot" program). Meantime, as my personal time becomes more available, I'll learn from what you're doing (by watching) to transclude and archive on a daily basis (right now, headers are about all I can commit to). Thanks for helping, that means a lot to an RD oldtimer --hydnjo talk 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: I don't think that the RD would benefit from adding more sections. Lord, we have enough problems just isolating the stuff that belongs at the RD instead of being at the HD or the VP or at some talk page. hydnjo talk 02:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the point is that you won't have to bother with them. I have no intention of proposing more sections unless we can get a bot to do it automatically, and the talk pages will function the same as they do now: all redirecting towards the same talk page. More info below. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

I hope we're not being overly wishful with the bot request, as Hydnjo says. I'm sure you understand that we really have no choice but to be wishful, though I appreciate and can understand efforts to streamline RD as-it-is, especially as the period of botlessness increases while traffic increases further still.

Anyways, the bot request. I have a little bit of a personal problem with modifying the bot request as it is now, because I know that there are a handful of users like hydnjyo (I have refrained, and will refrain from taking a poll of any sort on the future of the reference desk. If it is obvious that there is no concensus and there is considerable resistance towards splitting the desk any further, with due reason, it will come out in the following weeks and us splittitionists will have to start thinking of a compromize, or another solution), and it wouldn't be right to recruit a bot creator unknowingly into what could possibly turn into a battle of two sides. I will rewrite the bot request in my user space, and link to it from the bot request page. I will explain the situation and why there are two options, and at the same time I'm going to pursue the remnants of cryptic bot and see if we can't find someone to help us get that up and running again. Essjay and a few others seem willing, and Cryptic is apparently back to editing. I see you left a message on his talk page; did you recieve any contact? Do you have any other leads that might help us get a hold of the old cryptic bot? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the template you've created at User:71-247-243-173/RDmonthly differ in any significant way from the code at Template:Reference desk navigation? I ask because I used the code from the original one when creating this, which is functionally the same but follows the visual style of the rest of what I will be proposing. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it does, at least from the version I took. From what I can see your code is much more concise, and obviously made for easy manual modifications, so I'm going to update mine to reflect some of the changes in your code, at least temporarily, when I get the time. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 11:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]