If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Just a short note about user:GrinBot: yes, he's running, but based on huwiki's content, not enwiki, so ranges aren't a problem; a full run finishes in less than a week for example, even with pretty high delays. --grin ✎ 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbase&diff=94872587&oldid=86454437 The articles the bot linked to are not about the same subject, they just have the same name. I hope your bot is not making automated interwikilinks to articles with the same subject on other language wikipedia's, this is not a good idea, it would cause many errors. S Sepp 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. The entry removed was zh:英格蘭銀行 (traditional character), but actually it has been moved to zh:英格兰银行 (simplified character). Both are still valid on the zh space. There are something funny about the conversion between two scripts in the zh space. I think it's a little more complicated than redirect... but I'm not sure. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot has recently done this edit, which removed 4 perfectly legitimate interwikilinks. Why?! --Zvika 12:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Orton, Japanese]
I don't speak Japanese, so I am not even sure that this is an article on the subject matter, but it could be a problem. Ade1982 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Vandalproof because I receved a message that I was approved and when I open Vandalproof it says that I am aproved.
Here is a copy of the message left on my talk page regarding Approvan of VandalProof:
Ihope you are able to resolve this issue.--Natl1 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am Bentong Isles, the bureaucrat at ceb-wp. I've noticed that STBotD has the capability of removing interwiki links to nonexistent articles. I would like to invite you to run the bot at ceb-wp. But perhaps, before deleting the interwiki link, we could also be informed in our village pump or we could also create a page which will contain the reports from the bot. It will be great help to our wp. Thanks! --Bentong Isles 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and then tell me if you still believe that the term is "non-neutral, irrelevant to the article and its subject." Military brat is an accepted term and a highly studied subject. The term is used by researchers and the community it describes. It is relevant to the subject because it does have a bearing on the individual as is supported by the research. Balloonman 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you go back and undo this edit of yours? I'd hit "rollback" if you for all the subsequent edits. Just as with Wikipedia's most famous of all topics lists, the links to talk pages were made invisible in order that when you click on "related changes" they'd be included, but would not add clutter to the list. If the links to talk pages are to be made visible, then it should be clear what they are, so it should say "talk:this topic" instead of just "this topic".
If you don't do this promptly I'll revert and then try to incorporate the later changes. Michael Hardy 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another explanation is that I noticed that the subsequent edits were not unmanageably extensive. Michael Hardy 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job tagging all these pages! --Fang Aili talk 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to go around adding more dead weight to talk pages (which unfortunately seems to be the standard practice), can you at least configure your bot not to add the template above {{skiptotoctalk}} (the template that lets you skip directly to the actual content of the talk page). Also, why are you adding three blank lines along with the template? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely my fault. The other guy INSISTS on editing the page with false information. Tell HIM to stop editing out other people's posts. Don't blame this entirely on me.CBFan 14:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)CBFan[reply]
This bot edit seems odd. Why did it try to add Augusto Pinochet to WikiProject France? A bug somewhere? Gwernol 17:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC) He's in Category:French Chileans, a subcat of Category:People of French descent, a subcat of Category:French people, a subcat of Category:France. ST47Talk 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand this edit, adding Canadian poet Émile Nelligan to Wikiproject France. He wasn't born in France, nor were his parents. He never so much as visited the country. Victoriagirl 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Franco-bot recently tagged Crimson Fox, a comic character, as being under the provenance of the WP:France. Please see the talk there to give an explanation for why a fictional french character, in american media and american-created, should be in the French WP. Thank you. I suspect your bot got enthusiastic, or the article hit enough parameters in it's search protocol. ThuranX 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a request from WikiProject France members, it's highly irresponsible. Just one of the most ridiculous results is to include ALL articles that are included in the subcategories of Category:Burkina Faso, Category:Djibouti, Category:Dominica, Category:Gabon, Category:Haiti, Category:Luxembourg, Category:Mauritania, Category:Saint Lucia, Category:Senegal, Category:Switzerland, and Category:Togo, since they are all in either Category:La Francophonie or Category:Former French colonies. Please end this indiscriminate tagging. Bastin 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Further to the bot's rather strange tagging tendancies, it recently tagged a numerous amount of Spanish players why play for Athletic Bilbao. Not sure why it did so... Either way, it obviously needs to stop doing so...--Tiresais 23:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've further limited the wikiproject's request to go only 2 levels deep, instead of the 4 I previously limited to. I've restarted the bot, 8000 pages, some already done, and all in a category related to france. ST47Talk 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason your bot is tagging a lot of bullfighting articles as part of the French WikiProject? They don't seem to be related at all. Articles like Bloodless bullfighting and Fighting Cattle were tagged but I can't see a clear correlation. Metros232 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop tagging Airbus, EADS, Air France-KLM, and CFM International. These are multinational corporations or consortia of which the French interests are 50% or less. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STBot is putting WikiProject France templates on articles in Category:Cajun. Is that intended? Most Cajun articles have little to do with France proper. Sure, the culture is derived from France, but it's rather unique. Articles that discuss Cajun culture and it's roots in France I can see being tagged by this project (ex. Cajun French), but not Cajun English, St. Martinville, Louisiana, or Steve Riley and the Mamou Playboys to name a few. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have also tagged Navarre national football team which is a Spanish football team. I think you need to stop adding this template and rethink the categories it is picking. It seems to be making lots of mistakes. Since many of these are new talk pages, they cannot simply be reverted which takes extra effort to clean-up. -- JLaTondre 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the development work on 'Class President' ShakespeareFan00 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Basque region covers two countries, Spain and France. Please remove the Basque sport category from your Bot. I dread to think of how many other Basque categories you have also tagged incorrectly. Iggi 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been tagging Talk:Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria twice with {{wikiproject|France}}, but this is a Spanish bank. I have changed it to {{wikiproject|Spain}} for the first bot edit and another editor removed your second addition of this template. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have tagged a number of talk page archive redirects with {{db-r1}} which is not accurate: the pages exist. Please stop, and in the future be more careful. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since your initial comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Otogi Zoshi characters articles have been placed in the category. Do you still think it should be deleted? (Please can you reply at the category discussion if you want to change your vote.) Timrollpickering 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do bots but am curious why one would delete the interwiki link (de:Alpenvorland) from Alpine foothills. — AjaxSmack 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD
I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm torn between my wish not to overrun the new sections you've created by keeping any comments I make to only the most relevant as as concise as possible, but I must say that Olivierd and Benio76 are using their quoting in a way which is to me misleading, whether they are doing it intentionally or not. I would like to correct the slant, but as I said, I'm afraid this would again spark up such wordy reactions that they would overrun the sections very quickly (if that isn't done already). As mediator, I need your advice on the best course of action in such a case. Your counsel is appreciated.--Ramdrake 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olivierd has now added [3] something that looks very much like a pure personal attack. Just wanted to know if you felt this was indeed a personal attack which should be removed. As I am involved in this, I dare not remove it myself. Again, thank you for all your efforts.--Ramdrake 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of your checkuser request, and that request itself following one-sided discussion with one of the parties ([4], [5]), appear to be in violation of the What mediators are not guideline:
In my opinion, you have handled the foie gras mediation poorly, through the above violations and on the counts that I have stated on the checkuser case page. That mediation case was a difficult one, and I am not implying that you cannot be a good mediator. I do feel it important to note those shortcomings.
David Olivier 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your bot there because the edit seemed faulty, it added a nowiki-category to a stub template that appeared in the articles with that template, just didn't seem to be formatted correctly.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only edit was vandalism by an indef blocked user. — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, first of all I wanted to thank you for you help on vandal patrol :). I don't know if you are aware of it, but starting today, there are new unified user warnings in place. The idea behind this rewamp was, among other things, to add some consistency to their look and wording. Check them out at WP:UTM! You can of course continue to use the old test templates, but please give a shot of our shiny new {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-delete1}}. The numbering is still 1 to 4. I hope you'll appreciate them! Happy vandal fighting! -- lucasbfr talk 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST,
Thanks for closing the debate. I think you're right about no consensus. I started a long reply to one editor (Agent 86) and by the time I was done you had already closed the debate. (This happened just a couple of minutes ago) My addition remains on the page, but perhaps not on the version that was archived. Could you please include my final comment in what gets archived? I'd appreciate it. Best, Noroton 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for helping out at AFD. Just a small request, if you relist an article, could you please also remove it from the log for the original date.
Also, when closing debates you might want to stick to ones that are "unambiguous keep decisions" per the non-admin guidelines. I'm sure that most of the ones that you have closed fall into this category, but closing ones that are non-consensus, might raise some questions. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers TigerShark 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly puzzled by your message that my edits to the Synergistics Boston article had removed content. Can you clarify which part of the edit you were referring to? I tried to remove only hyperbole, and restate only verifiable facts about the gym. Was it something in the owners' CVs? Thanks in advance for your help.
132.198.107.146 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Audrey[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. 132.198.107.146 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Audrey[reply]
I thought i would just come over and say hello and that i am know you from guild wiki, and that i am rather bored, which is mostly likly the real motivation for saying hello :).--JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.
However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.
Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).
I see you are using Vandal Proof. I have heard that it does not provide edit summaries on WP:AIV. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That percentage is less than .1%. About 5% do provide a summary, but those vandals provide something like "lol" for the summary. Dead giveaway. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed you cut a lot from the World War Z article. Do you really think that much pruning is necessary? Grahamdubya 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot is adding the State of Georgia template to many New Orleans related articles. New Orleans is in Louisiana, not Georgia. -- Infrogmation 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you got many articles in Category:Hurricane Katrina and marked them as part of the Georgia project. Please un-do these edits and choose the bot categories more carefully. --Kunzite 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the categorizers should be more careful - that is a third-level category to Category:Georgia (U.S. state). The articles are being added at the request of Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), which requested on WP:BOTREQ that articles in there and all subcats be added thusly. I set it to go to the requested category, the subcats there, the subcats of those, and any articles up to 2 levels deep, which should be fine. Feel free to remove any articles from any wikiproject you are a member of. ST47Talk 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you block User:Arpabr? He's been warned many times. — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STBot is adding {{WikiProject GeorgiaUS}} to numerous articles. [7] [8] Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't these tags go on the talk page, rather than the article itself? auburnpilot talk 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) </nowiki>[reply]
STBot is adding {{WikiProject GeorgiaUS}} to the talk page of some television stations outside of Georgia, such as WMTV. Why? --Libertyernie2 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. What was the specific reason you removed the link to the flickr photos from this article? I know they weren't particularly outstanding photos, on the other hand, they didn't seem to do any harm. I'm just curious, sometimes I come across pages that have an excessive number of links but often find it hard to judge which should be culled. Any guidance would be appreciated. Look at Orangutan for example. One day I will get around to going through all those. Merbabu 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have reverted your deletion of a flickr link from John Hemming (politician), on the grounds that the link was to the article subject's own personal flickr album. Hence, the external link was directly and symmetrically relevant to the article. I note you've worked hard in removing inappropriate flickr links, however it might be worth checking before deleting willy-nilly to avoid removing the few appropriate flickr external links. Cheers, DWaterson 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is our preferences yes, but I don't see how that gives you a mandate to remove all links to flickr. In many articles and contexts Flicker does not fail any part of WP:EL as far as I can tell, and many of the images over there are releases under licenses that would make them completely inappropriate for upload to wikipedia. (Ie, a CC-Noncommercial is incompatible with wikipedia's GFDL and can't be uploaded) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J.smith (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You just did a mass delete of a bunch of Flickr links on several Unitrans related articles that I put up. I've got three issues that you should consider and I think that you should revert your edits:
1. These were not "external links" but in were actually cited sources. I sourced lot of technical information on the Unitrans bus fleet from the photos and captions on Flickr. In your quest to remove all links to Flickr, you've actually erased a lot of my cited sources (which is why with only a few exceptions they were in the "references" section rather than under "external links").
2. There were some formatting errors made in your edits. For example, there's a gap (a blank line) where the cited reference used to be, and in the case of pages where certain photos where listed under "external links", you removed the links but left the section header (i.e. an "external links" section without any actual external links).
3. I understand your wish to have the photos on Wikipedia so that you can control them more easily, however the specific Flickr photos that I included a link to are pictures that I did not take myself and which therefore I cannot post on Wikipedia with any sort of a free license. I've already contacted the person who did take the photos and they have not indicated a desire to post their pictures on Wikipedia. To me it seems better to have a link to the photos in question rather than to not have access to them at all (and Flickr isn't a small site whose servers will be overrun by Wikipedia users).
Thanks, Spicoli 06:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Cited sources or anything that links to another site is an external link, they're just there with different purposes. Most of the time, I thought the links were removed properly, I must have missed a few, and I apologize. Regarding the images themselves - I'm not too familiar with flickr - but do we really want to be linking to images which we wouldn't be allowed to upload? True, we don't have legal accountability, I think, but free-use is favorable in this case, hasn't anyone taken images of this? ST47Talk 12:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you feel that the link to the Flickr blog announcement of 'Machine tags' does not comply with the guidelines you cited. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re. this removal of the external link in Stuckism in America, you also removed the name of the group, which was part of a list of US Stuckist groups and left a gap in the middle of the list. When you do the judicial excision, please be more careful. Tyrenius 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article you reference and would like to discuss if all links to MySpace are banned. Reading thru the main article I see that MySpace is listed as Item 10 "Links normally to be avoided" as opposed to being totally blacklisted. And in that context it mentions MySpace in it's use as a "Social Networking Site". Further reading thru the MySpace discussions on the article's Talk page, they mostly pertain to entries in MySpace "Blogs".
I wonder if MySpace pages that pertain to strictly "professional" arenas such as Music, Film, etc. might be allowed. I've also started a discussion topic MySpace Ban revisited about this. CyntWorkStuff 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, on the bot request page, you said it was possible to get all the permuations I needed from Excel (I have OpenOffice Calc) and use AWB to make all the redirects. I was wondering how? I have already recieved permission to use AWB and I am awaiting your instructions! (Thanks) --Seans Potato Business 07:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You removed the official MySpace page links to Plow United and Crossover (band). You cited Wikipedia:External links. But if you look at the subhead "Links normally to be avoided," you'll find that links that constitute "an official page of the article subject" are exempt. Many MySpace pages are run by the actual subjects of the articles or their delegates and provide a rich source of first-hand information about them. They often function as a subject's only official page or as a supporting page with unique content. No, I don't work for MySpace -- I just think it's a mistake to overlook this resource. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Jessesamuel 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ColoringBook's MySpace page is clearly maintained by Clayton Counts, who links to the page directly from his blog as "My MySpace Page." If you want precedent for the inclusion of official MySpace pages, take a look at Bjork, Girl Talk, Madonna, and Octopus Project. It is pertinent to the article, as Counts is the songwriter and producer of the project, and the band is mentioned (as it should be) in the body of the article. If you keep deleting it, it will be reported as an act of vandalism. TrevorPearce 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... has been reverted, by me ([9]). There is no mention in WP:EL for or against linking to an external image gallery on Flickr, nor is there any justification for removing such a link. Could you explain why you did so? Proto::► 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still actively mediating this case? --Ideogram 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images on Flickr are not free of copyright. I do not own the image, nor do I have the right to upload another's work. I am baffled by this line of thought... what makes you think this would be acceptable? Proto::► 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be greatfull if you were to make the javascript that gives me a tab that can automatically blank my sandbox... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't take the time to decide, one by one, which articles belong in your project, then PLEASE don't use a bot to plaster templates all over talk pages. This has ended badly in the past. Frex, the India bot decided to claim a few Sassanian rulers for India, to which the Iranians took extreme offense. The presence of the word Afghanistan in the article is not a reason to claim it for that country. Zora 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time to terminate it :). It has made many article that had nothing to do with Afghanistan as related to Afghanistan. For example a Pakistan University [[10]] Holiest sites in Islam (has to do with Islam), Ghulam Ishaq Khan (Pakistans president, nothing to do with Afghanistan). Time to undo all what he has done otherwise I will post it on ANI and will try to block it. :) --- ALM 12:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot is tagging articles with only the most peripheral connection to Spain and Spanish history with the tag for Wikiproject Spain. For example it has tagged topics having to do with precolumbian mexico such as Aztec Triple Alliance and Florentine Codex. Please stop it.·Maunus· tlahtōlli 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 24.0.52.44 lifted or expired.
Request handled by: — Lost(talk) 13:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you like to proceed on that WikiProject Spain? It appears that our little project is getting caught up in the larger issue created by other users! Should we just take a breather for a few days, and let the dust settle? EspanaViva 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acting as the contactor! I'm going to keep a close eye on those two reports, as something needs to be done about all of the group vandalism. Thank you! Wikipedian27 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you closed the case with Wikipedia:Abuse reports/209.122.160.124. I went ahead and added the IP to the recently actioned list so no further work is done with it. You can find this page here: Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/Actioned -Andrew4010 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your robot is tagging many Iranian articles as being part of the Afghanistan project. This is not correct. Have a look at Shabdiz, Arash, Rudaba and the others. These articles are not easily justified as being part of the Afghanistan project. Could you please explain! Thanks. Shabdiz 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is adding Wikiproject Afghanistan banners to articles that have absolutely nothing to do with AFghanistan, including those involving Category:Adiabene, Category:Battles involving the Khazars, Revolt against Heraclius, and many others. Please correct and reverse this phenomenon. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ST47,
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have "greatly" improved since you last RFA, your name is springing up everywhere and from what I see you have been civil. I think that you would pass an RFA now, I would nominate you if you would like. Email me okay if you accept my offer. I will take a larger scope of your "editing" tomorrow. Just continue to be active in XFD's citing "policy", and keep up the vandal/spam fight. Cheers! ~ Arjun 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ST47, I'll be happy to share my thought with you regarding your upcoming RFA. So here it is, Approval, Criticism and things that made me go "hhhhhm?"
All in all, you have grown nicely in the last few months, and unless some editor presents some compelling reasons that you should not be admin, I have not problems with giving you my support. CharonX/talk 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there ST47. I'm on a bit of a wikibreak right now (but I still check my messages regularly, how sad is that?). Once the weekend rolls around and I have a bit of time, I'll go through your contributions from the past 3 months and pass on whatever advice I can. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You look like your doing an OK job but your mainspace contributions are a bit spartan, a lot of people doubt it but contributing to articles/copy editing is very important. Mostly because to be a good sysop you need to still be an editor as well, as for example if you help mediate a dispute between two users its always going to be best to approach it from an editors perspective to understand bot of their problems, etc. Anyway, if you did some small edits here and there you'll receive my support :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry About the Template. Didn't know. Just thought it would be a time saver. I'll do that. RED skunkTALK 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting your response,Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon (GMT time); thanks for your comments in my RfA. I'm currently compiling a list of objectives for the future, and I am curious about one of your posts: "...unfamiliarity with policy...". I'd like to do my reading and I'm wondering if you could graciously provide a few examples?
Your co-operation in this is greatly appreciated; some of those fancy "RfA-thank-boxes-with-big-sad-face" will follow later :).
:)
Don't hesitate to call on me if you need anything!
Yours,Anthonycfc [T • C] 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a request on my talk page for me to comment on what you could improve on further since your last RfA. Well firstly, the above (albeit sarcastic humour) notices about balls of fire & signing posts would probably be of some concern to some people at any future RfA. Although I don't particularly have anything against it, some people have been known to oppose for that sort of thing & even for things as mundane as those joke "You have new message" bars at the top of pages. So I'd advise you either to tone it down a little bit or move some portions of it to a subpage based on your Wikipolicies & such where it would be out of the spotlight. It may also be seen as some sort of problem to newbies & such - Don't worry, if there's a problem with anything you do, someone will argue it.
Further, although your edit count it way up, from your edit stats, you seem to make smaller edits to many articles, rather than small & large ones to just one or two. This may seem to some people that you partake in "gnommish" (See WP:Gnome) activities rather than large substantial edits. A testament to this would be the fact that you don't have any GA's or FA's under your belt. Some people could, & quite rightly, argue that you have made no substantial edits to Wikipedia & only make smaller edits that only count as edit count stacking. This may or may not be correct, but I'd suggest that you pick one or two articles & try & make as many edits to them as possible. This way it will show that you can stick to a single project & that you can make meaningful large edits to better a page. Getting an article to GA or FA would do wonders for your future RfA as well.
Other than that, don't forget that quantity is no substitute for quality, so again make sure you don't only stick to gnommish work. So, as you'd probably know, keep your cool in tough situations & keep out of trouble, be civil & helpful & knowledgable about different laws on here & you'll be an admin in no time. It wouldn't hurt socialising around the place too, as the more people you know, the more you're likely to be elected (which is unfortunate, as RfA's are turning into popularity contests nowadays...). I'd have no problem supporting you in a couple of months if you continue on your current track & maybe take into consideration the points I've made above. Have a great day man, :) Spawn Man 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop reverting this back to Algerian Muslim Scouts. A debate about this has been raging for weeks. I am trying to mediate it. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations mediation. There is one user who argues strongly that this translation is not verifiable as being used by the organisation. I am hoping we can side step the disagreement by a different solution. I would prefer it if it was left as the French title, which the organisation does actually use, for now. The application of WP guidelines for the naming of scout organisations is not straight forward. Thanks. --Bduke 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regards,Anthonycfc [T • C]
I'm just about to speedy User:Sir Walterhouse, as there's no original content on the page (it's all copies of articles or other user pages, concatenated) save for a homophobic rant. I've nixed the MfD, since it's unnecessary process for a useless page.
I'll also invite Sir Walterhouse to contribute to the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I am unblocking per discussion at WP:AN. Please undo the edits done so far and refine the categories before resuming
Request handled by: — Lost(talk) 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear u made lost of edits on Balouch related topics Please slow down. Khalidkhoso 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've been working on the article Guigemar, an article that I wrote from scratch. I noticed that your bot had removed the poetry and France stubs from it, and I was a little curious how your bot works. I imagine that it must check the file size, and if it exceeds a certain threshold, the bot removes any stub markers. Anyway, just curious. Thanks. --Kyoko 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you delete that page, and may delete it myself. My entry was based on a spelling error. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Listed in April 3 births but has April 30 at the beginning of the article. I would have made corrections but unable to determine (after some web page searching) if it should be the 3rd or the 30th. Can you help? Thanks, Daytrivia 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information comes from the show broadcast on NBC. BabuBhatt 06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who signed? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may not know the exact reasoning used, but I can certainly spot one reason. Besides, you can wait for ST47 to drop by and see it, or I can work with you on it now. You might as well get something. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
