User talk:Slakr/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slakr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

I was very hungry, thank you. MJ94 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help. In fact, to show my appreciation, I got you this kitten. Meow.

MJ94 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slakr; I understand that you have deleted the page in good faith. However, I explicity mentioned in the edit summmary while the creating the article that is under construction. If you could give me 10-15 mins to improve it that would be great; if you doubt the notability, you can perform a google search. Drspaz (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded on MJ94's talk page. On a related note, I can't doubt the notability when notability isn't stated—that's the point of criteria for speedy deletion/A7 :\ --slakr^\ talk / 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to revert the blanking at the same time! Thanks for helping me out; it was quite difficult to revert all the vandal edits. How did you revert to many revisions ago in one edit? Metricopolus (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few magic tools that I can access since I do a lot of vandalism patrol. You can accomplish the same thing, however, with a couple extra steps: when you're on the page history, click the timestamp of a revision that was made before the edits in question, click the edit button, and then simply save the page as is with some sort of edit summary saying what you did or why. Basically all that's happening when you do that is that you're re-saving the page how it was before someone made all of the bad edits. :) --slakr^\ talk / 05:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mentioned here by me. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

	Else
	Reedy (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you type a Tilde(squiggle line) in order to put down a signature? Can't find it on the my keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanx51 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

i did a message on sinebots sandbox, he sined it but thn i undid it!!Ethanate1 (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but please express your concerns over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_threats_of_violence, as my talk page isn't the best place. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

PPdd (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

First Mr Coelho has no part of posting his bio, he is a well known artist from Rhode Island that is charitable, =Why would you delete the wiki profile instead of giving guidance, that is pretty malicious.

The tone of the article was irrecoverably promotional, thus it met our criteria for speedy deletion, as I stated in the deletion rationale. You chose to create the article without running it by one our review processes (e.g., articles for creation), which would have given you the guidance you presumably would have wanted. In bypassing AFC, you risked the article being speedily deleted if it failed to meet our policies and guidelines. On a related note, another editor has nominated the re-created article for deletion, as well. --slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Δ and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

	The NARA barnstar
	The NARA barnstar is awarder to slakr for all your help with the incredible Archives.gov grabber. Thanks to you, we'll be able to contribute tens of thousands of high-quality images to Commons from the National Archives! Dominic·t 01:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here are some reasons for what Makkah should be used instead of Mecca;

Officially everywhere in the Saudi Arabia spell Makkah is used for the Holy city. No where Mecca is used.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Mecca refers to house of wine/gambling etc which is not correct use here for Holy city. Whether it is lower case 'm' or capital 'M' it means same, nothing difference just blowing dust in eyes of Muslims. Whether you write your name with small caps or large caps meaning will be same, make sense. I don't know why wikipedia consensus was on Mecca because below comments are also referring and proving for Makkah.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Another thing in Arabic Makkah (مَکہ) has vowel above 'M' not below 'M'. If pronounced correctly 'a' after 'M' mean vowel is above 'M', however 'e' after 'M' means vowel is below 'M' which is not correct.

The reason below that Google uses Mecca more times than Makkah, answer is validity of things can't be simply depends on numbers. There are many things controversial (which I will not discuss in detail here) which doesn't rely on number power. Suppose any resolution is passed by NATO however America can VETO power that. Whats that? Because America is right and all others are wrong? Why not majority decision is accepted? So saying numbers for Mecca are more over internet doesn't make sense for using that.

Some says that Jerusalem isn't put as Yerushalayim but my point is that Jerusalem is not being used for any other meaning, however Mecca is being used for other things controversial. Hope that make sense.

--Javaidiqbal6022 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The user has posted this to numerous places, including user talk pages, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

i got a polite message from sinebot to sign my name on comments. i did not know about that one. my common username online is catlady87 so if you want to track the about half dozen little things i added on a few topic entries, please feel free to do so. thank you. sinebot's page is adorable :) she or he waved at me...text me sometime:)

ps: my great grandparents were russian/romanian on one side and french cajun on the other, so i know about the vampire thing. i'm light sensitive and can only eat very rare meat. i'm from and in california, better known as moonbeamland right now ;)

i type one handed, hunt and peck, and i'm from the pre computer era, when typing involved paper. you can delete this note after you read it if you like. it would not let me email you.

pss: i agree about dallas! ~^..^~ (that's my signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.52.121 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Harold Covington. I have had my account permanently banned by Wikipedia for removing false and defamatory material from my article, and for generally back-sassing them. You will find more back-sass at

I'm sorry, my actual account is banned, so I have to post from my IP address until that is presumably perma-blocked as well, so I can't sign with the four tildes. However, since I am not a Wikipedia editor, I sign everything with my own name.

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.172.237 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Commons:User talk:Slakr. -- 签名 _sig at 06:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I cannot quite pinpoint the reason why, but I prefer to type out the entire signature code myself at the end of my edits, as opposed to typing the four tildes or using the sign button. However, SineBot doesn't seem to recognize this and it always signs my edits even though they're already signed. Is there anything that can be done about this? I will show you an example of how I like to sign my edits as I sign this one...

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 8:51 AM EST, 26 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

haha. see what I mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonaut25 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're using a non-standard datestamp. Consider using the standard-format datestamp. --slakr^\ talk / 17:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Does that simply mean adding (UTC) at the end, or does it also involve switching to military time and removing the time-zone specification? Thanks (I am also testing it here).

By the way, I'm sure you're already aware of this, but your talk page is rampant with little immature kiddies editing things to use words like dick and balls and whatnot...lol just to let you know. I've seen five or six edits of that nature, if not more, simply in the few hours I've been on this page (including edits to my own message). That includes the very beginning/top of your talk page, involving the word penis ad-libbed where I think the name of a drink goes. I hope that information benefits you somehow in preventing/reverting such things.

Edit 5:56 PM EST - Nevermind, that seems to have worked (adding the UTC part). Thank you!

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 1:50 PM EST, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How can the timestamp be both EST and UTC? Can't you just use UTC timestamps, so they can be easily compared to other comments signed in UTC? Your nonstandard timestamp may cause archiving bots to function improperly. Note there is a user gadget that can change your local display of timestamps without affecting other users. –xeno^talk 23:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What xeno said. You should really be using the standard datestamp that everyone else uses. It's fine to customize your signature all you want, but you should be concerned my when my bot doesn't recognize a datestamp, as it has exceptions for a handful of different forms of datestamp that I've randomly seen being used on enwiki. As a result, if my bot has trouble recognizing your datestamp, you can be almost certain that the various other bots will have trouble as well. That said, you can have my bot ignore you if you'd like; however, the main bot you need to be compatible with is User:MiszaBot—that is, if you don't want people getting annoyed with you. :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

i signed my name on a page but sinebot said i didnt sign it 212.121.212.207 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Use ~~~~ instead. --slakr^\ talk / 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that no one has noticed this, considering how long SineBot has been in operation, but its edits have a terminological mistake. It always signs "Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 1000 (UTC)". There is a confusion of verbs here: precede means "to come before", and SineBot's autosigning does not come before the users' statements. The correct verb is proceed, which means to follow. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 23:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is the user comment that precedes SineBot's note. –xeno^talk 23:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Those strings aren't hard-coded in the bot. Whatever the correct wording is for whatever the template is, you should mention it at the given template's talk page or implement the change yourself (if you have the appropriate user level). Please see {{tilde}}, {{unsigned}}, and {{undated}} for the relevant templates. --slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression was that preceding referred to SineBot's comment. My interpretation of his statement was, "Sinebot's edit precedes (sic) the edit by the user." I don't know how common this impression is among other users, but the wording can certainly be improved. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 20:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Proxyblock.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello slakr! I hope you enjoy this scrumptious treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My signature does not include a link to my userpage, and as a result, my messages are tagged as "not signed" even though I use four tildes behind each and everyone of my edits. Mr. Daniël 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielAbyss (talk • contribs)

A link to one of your user page, user talk page, or contributions is required by the signaturen guideline. So, fix your signature and SineBot will stop signing for you. –xeno^talk 18:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out WP:FIXSIG to fix your signature. Ditto what xeno said. --slakr^\ talk / 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I needed. Thanks! Garamond Lethe(talk) 09:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we need to ban/block SineBot for doing a job it wasn't approved to do. See here and here. (In a nutshell, it thwarted an IPs attempts to make it look like Jimbo Wales was leaving Wikipedia. In other words, SineBot basically revealed a impersonator.) LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

lol... and actually it's still well within its operating parameters. The user, impersonator or not, left a comment that didn't contain a link to his user and/or user talk page—it was a link to another user's user and/or user talk page. As a result, it's still an unsigned comment in violation of WP:SIG. ;) :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its like you know you are failing at vandalism when you are gettin your ass whupped by SineBot. Though I do wish to say that the IP user that posted those messages did seem to put effort into making it look like it actually came from Jimbo Wales himself, wouldn't you agree? And so I won't have problems with SineBot, like the IP user did: LikeLakers2 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to keep SineBot from using {{uw-tilde}} because of tests in User:SineBot/Sandbox? ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 19:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? –xeno^talk 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Defeat the purpose of what? ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Of testing SineBot's functionality... –xeno^talk 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't User:SineBot/Sandbox for testing its functionality with {{unsigned}} etc., not {{tilde}}? ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess slakr will tell us =) –xeno^talk 21:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Eventually... ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What xeno said. --slakr^\ talk / 00:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The contributions links (☺) in my signatures above do not work due to a rename. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺

Hello there, just to say, I like your page - Sinebot - and found it quite amusing. Your professional assistance and expert advice would be much appreciated with regards to the "Varban Stamatov" page on Wikipedia where it is constantly being bombarded with warning boxes to improve style and check Wikipedia Manual of Style before editing further. Being a new user, naturally, that is the primary intention, and have done my very best in a short space of time, working on 4 articles concurrently only since 01.08.11. so please give the "newbies" a chance. Where in the article should an improvement be implemented in accordance with Wikipedia guidance and advice? Please respond to my talk page, thank you --Dobrevasnejana 10:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrevasnejana (talk • contribs)

Kurt -- I need your help with Getting Results the Agile Way.

I wrote a factual overview of the system, consistent with the following existing Wiki pages:

• Getting Things Done
• Pomodoro Technique

The page is a description of the system, the same as the pages above, all of which are time management systems, identified on the Time Management page.

If there is any unambiguously promotional statements, then I would need your help identifying these examples, and changing them. It might just be a case where the bot, was just in automatic mode, and now the page needs the attention of a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoArtist (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

i don' really know what to do and stuff but thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiermanuel5886 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

you are the most recent admin to block someone in the logs, see

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#copy_of_Template:ARSHa would like Template:ARSHa temporarily undeleted. so i can get the info from it. thank you. Okip 22:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

When I noticed that a bot was being used to sign unsigned comments, it struck me as odd; if it's WP policy to sign posts on talk pages, why not fix the mediawiki software to support auto-sign? I realize that this probably isn't the best place to post a diff, but you probably also wondered about this and could explain why a bot is used instead?

The Sinebot user page is nice, BTW. :)

Thanks, 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are more like workspaces, and they're highly variable. Changes and additions made to them aren't necessarily single comments to single threads; they could be improvements, collaborative revision, refactoring, atypical comment formats, responses to several threads, and numerous other things that occur so frequently that auto-signing server-side would be inappropriate, while client-side prompts would be annoying. That's partly the reason why even the bot also ignores things it thinks are unsigned if someone has made a large number of edits (i.e., enough to assume, based on Wikipedia standards, that the user likely knows what he's doing and that if he didn't add a signature to something, it's likely intentional). --slakr^\ talk / 04:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When I noticed Sinebot, it was indeed because it added a signature where I had voluntarily omitted one, but I'm only a humble IP address user. Farewell, 66.11.179.30 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Slakr, I see that your bot, ProcseeBot, is good at blocking TOR and proxy websites. Is there a way to get it working on cy.wiki? Thanks. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 20:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. You can, however, scrape its blocklist from the api for the time being. --slakr^\ talk / 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Cheers for that, but how do we use that? -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the prahblem, officer? You think I would file a request in August (i.e. 1 request per month), but I did not. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 04:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Like all user rights, you've been requesting an extended permission that grants both greater power and fewer restrictions to users with the implicit goal of allowing that user to work toward common community goals more efficiently. Those community goals are determined by consensus and are then reflected in our policies and guidelines. If a person cannot demonstrate that they both understand and are intent on working toward those goals—our polices and guidelines—then it makes little sense to grant that person both greater power and fewer restrictions, because it is more likely to result in that person actually violating community goals more efficiently, which is exactly the opposite of the desired effect. As an analogy:

Let's say a village wanted to outlaw the hunting of Dodo birds: the community gets together, agrees that they want to outlaw the hunting of dodo birds, then reflects that in their laws. A person applies to become a volunteer game warden, because he says that he wants to help enforce the law. He's made a volunteer game warden. Then, while he's on duty, he hunts another species out-of-season, thereby violating a different law than the dodo bird law, but nonetheless still violating the laws that he, above the average person, is expected to be at least following if not enforcing. It would then be no surprise to see that game warden suspended or outright dismissed if the rationale given for hunting out of season was insufficient to justify the act of violating the law forbidding it... but even then, it's still possible for that person to become a game warden again; it'll just take longer to re-establish trust through his track record before he's allowed to be one again. Furthermore, if he keeps breaking laws, it'll be even longer—if ever.

Now... compare yourself and your actions to those of the former game warden. Although you didn't vandalize (shoot a dodo bird), you did edit war (hunted another species out-of-season). As a result, you had your rollbacker status (game warden status) removed. You've asked for it back several times, but directly preceding some of those requests, you also, once again, edit warred (once again, hunted another species out-of-season). Then, when confronted by people who were concerned about your edit warring, you violated further polices and guidelines (laws that the society has agreed upon and implemented) by making threats and accusing of malice those who've legitimately raised concerns when you've requested reinstatement of your rollbacker status (reinstatement of your game warden status). It's no wonder that the community has, as a result, been extremely reluctant to make you a rollbacker again, because it's not convinced that you're able to follow the policies and guidelines that they've agreed upon.

I understand that you probably disagree or might claim that it's not true, but that in no way changes the fact that the above analogy is how I, at the very least, view your actions and the situation as a whole. Other editors may view it differently, but from my perspective, that's the image that your actions have created in my mind. Now your task is to establish a track record to convince us to make you a game warden—ermm... rollbacker—once more.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I spent hours putting together four pages that you just deleted because you thought they were "blatant advertising". In fact these pages did not advertise anything; they had legit information that I found on the Harbor Freight Tools website. Did you even read these pages before you wiped out all my work? I'm new to wikipedia and trying to build something here.

-Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyr99 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be sure to read our conflict of interest guidelines as well as your first article. These will help assist you in avoiding deletion in the future. --slakr^\ talk / 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank's SineBot! Now I dont need to sign! Please pass this on to SineBot him/herself!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok Thanks! How would I add these as a citation? Is it possible? http://archive.rollingstone.com/Desktop#/20000203/38 http://archive.rollingstone.com/Desktop#/20020523/80 --Iamawesome100 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out our help with using citation templates. You can also find some examples at Wikipedia:Verification methods. If you'd like a general tutorial of Wikipedia, check out WP:TUTORIAL. --slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that editors should "edit/delete" entries created by others from a "different cultural sphere" by assuming that they are applying "universal/objective" (Wikipedia) rules; simply because it is almost impossible to judge the importance of the contribution from an unrelated POV; the upshot is a "disservice" to the other "culturel sphere"

it seems that "cultural sphere mismatch" is worth discussing at the upper strategic level to find a solution (a possible alternative might be "not acting directly and transferring the administrative responsibility/supervision to yet another administrator from a related cultural sphere")Denischetwynd (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is free for everyone, and because some people don't agree with our policies and guidelines, you're welcome to start your own site and make rules to reduce—if not completely eliminate—deletion of content. --slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool my names Kurt Also! Spectra999 (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey slakr! I know your life is apparently "frolicking chaos" as of late, but I was wondering if you had some time to chat a bit about the most precocious of your robot brood, SineBot. I have some burning questions and some potentially exciting ideas to run by you :)

I gather from your user page that email isn't your favorite communication method. Is there a good time to catch you on IRC? I'm online... well, pretty much always, so just let me know. Thanks, and looking forward to talking with you! --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see a discussion at User talk:Zzuuzz#Strange proxy block (unfixable), and let me know if you have any comment on what should be done. This originates from an unblock request submitted to unblock-en-l. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Howdy! I was just starting to work on a page "House of Baloney", when, it would appear, you deleted it. I realize that it didn't look like much, but I was just starting it. I mean, like 1/2 hour ago. :/

I guess I can type a bunch of stuff up, including enough detail to justify its existence, and then blow it all into the page at once. Will that pass muster?

/rob
Rob Cranfill (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can undelete it and move it to your user space if you genuinely believe that the group itself currently meets our notability guidelines for inclusion, specifically those pertaining to the notability of groups, organizations, and companies. Lemme know. --slakr^\ talk / 20:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

im ishmael-mahmood and i want to know why did you delete my page as a hoax , thats the stupidest deletion ever to be done on Wikipedia, you want proof ill give it to you , but why did you delete my page , i put quite a bit of effort into that. I CAN PROVE ANYTHING I EVEN SAID DON'T DELETE UNTIL YOU E-MAIL ME A REASON WHY AND AN ENTIRE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY I FEEL AS IF MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED ON THIS SITE. this is totaly unacceptable i DEMAND a reason as to why NOW! within the next 30 mins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.50.162 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted as a hoax, because it doesn't exist. Furthermore, even if it did exist, it would likely be considered non-notable original research and deleted anyway. Please see your first article and more information on why your article was deleted. Also, as a general tip to getting what you want on the internet, I highly suggest that you reduce your caps lock usage and tone down phrases like, "I demand...now!" Things like that are universally received poorly, and using them will typically result in you either not getting what you wanted or getting the exact opposite of what you wanted. This goes doubly so for organizations like Wikipedia, which are run entirely by volunteers who are under no obligation whatsoever to respond to your demands. Hopefully this advice helps you in your future endeavors. --slakr^\ talk / 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I added at Wikipedia:Signatures a new section called Wikipedia:Signatures#Automatic adding of signature, explaining how to reenable the automatic signing of SineBot, if a user have more than 800 edits. Please do a recheck if I did not miss anything important or posted false information. Thanks. Regards, mabdul 10:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright definitively will do. Check out my page and talk to me anytime. Sincerely, SUPER SONIC BABY 2 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this was a while ago, but thanks heaps for this! :) Spellcast (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. I've noticed a bit of a wheel war going on with ProcseeBot, at 194.126.21.9 (talk · contribs · block log), which today has overridden my latest block with a hardblock of shorter duration. We always get lots of collateral on that IP, so it's softblocked - the only proxy that I've ever deliberately softblocked. I wonder if there's some way ProcseeBot could not override other blocks, or seeing as I'd like to softblock it again I thought I'd mention it before it looks like a wheel war. Thanks for the Prox-imity Award btw! -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I also have a question, while we're both here. I notice the bot is sometimes blocking for one year. It's mostly, but not always, based on whether it has blocked it before, which I remember you mentioning before. I was wondering what else it's going on. Examples: 218.28.242.150 (talk · contribs · block log) and 222.166.181.123 (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: 194.126.21.9 (talk · contribs · block log) — Eww. Something might have changed in mediawiki's api, because it should throw an error if an IP is already blocked—it shouldn't just accept it transparently and convert it to a re-block. I'll have to investigate this and make the bot check accordingly. RE: 218.28.242.150 (talk · contribs · block log), it looks like it's a weird case where 218.199.20.3, which was the entry IP for 218.28.242.150, had recently expired. When the bot went to check it again, it found that it was still usable as a proxy, but that it had presumably switched outbound IPs; thus, it treated it as a consecutive positive. --slakr^\ talk / 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

... Fixed. --slakr^\ talk / 05:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed on my watchlist (I have AIV on it) that the bot today blocked 86.150.18.113. Now this is part of a huge BT dynamic pool, one of the biggest in the UK - I know because I use it as well. Does this mean someone is using a BT connection to run a proxy, and if so would it be static? Or is the next poor sod that picks up the IP going to find a long block on it? Sorry if any of these questions are dim, but as you can guess I'm no expert :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It looked weird didn't it? However the IP was not blocked. And it said it was an AO block, which ProcseeBot doesn't do. My guess it was something about the way the vandal template was used. In answer to your question an IP has to be not too dynamic in order for it to be used as an open proxy, so in general not too many dynamic users will come across a block like that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I didn't look at the actual block log. Yeah, that's weird. Anyway, thanks for the explanation! Black Kite (t) (c) 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello slakr, I suspect it has been suggested before, in which case please disregard my message. I have noticed an editor who had preferred the bots assistance as an economy of effort. has an opt-in function been considered so that the bot would copy the user's standard signature if the user requested it as an opt-in ? if that is the case, please +1 the idea. Penyulap _talk 06:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a frequently-requested feature, however it's a  Won't fix mainly in order to discourage reliance on the bot, but also due to the unnecessary complexity in implementing something that'd basically just be a fluff feature. --slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you possibly have it check block logs to see if there is an existing block available? For example here was blocked as anon only with account creation allowed, but the bot reblocked it hard, causing this: User talk:Warmington. Could you possibly look into this? Thanks. Alexandria (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a recent known issue, because the mediawiki API suddenly/magically/accidentally stopped erroring out if a block already exists. The old behavior is it would reject a block if it's not a reblock—a behavior which I relied on when coding it—so this problem never occurred before. If it's unintended behavior from the api side, this new "feature" also needs a mediawiki bugzilla bug filed to fix it. I've been slammed with work, but I'll try to get to this in the immediate future (ideally later tonight) so that regardless of the api, it'll always directly check the block log or the active block list for any possible outstanding blocks. --slakr^\ talk / 22:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

... Fixed. --slakr^\ talk / 05:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Slakr. Any chance you could tweak SineBot to ignore the "questions" area of RfAs? The questions aren't supposed to be signed, so SineBot gets reverted a lot in that section. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, actually, there are some checks for that. Unfortunately, because people who post questions on RFAs tend to do all sorts of weird things when it comes to just how, exactly, they post their questions (including the formatting), it makes it somewhat difficult to account for some of the various possibilities until they actually happen (and I definitely don't have time to rummage through old RfAs and follow all of the new ones). On top of that, sometimes the template changes ever so subtly and people simply follow the template. As a result, if you find some that you think seem to happen frequently, feel free to drop the diffs over here and I'll try to generate new exceptions for them. --slakr^\ talk / 22:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

...also: more is better. That is, the greater the pool of similar diffs, the easier it is for me to generalize across them to make a good parsing routine or regex. --slakr^\ talk / 22:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here are some recent diffs that it marked as unsigned: [13], [14], [15], [16]. I could dig up more, but I believe they all follow the same pattern. 28bytes (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be ok now. --slakr^\ talk / 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick work! Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to be still doing it. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He didn't use the right format for posting additional questions. (prefix with ';'). I could make an exception for that, but since it's a relatively rare occurrence in comparison to correctly-formatted questions.... --slakr^\ talk / 01:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for checking. 28bytes (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if I sign posts to Talk pages typing four tildes in a row (K.Ramadurai 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)), I get entries like " Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambolik (talk • contribs)'

It is confusing. I would have gone wrong somewhere !! I do not know ! Like to be guided please.

K.Ramadurai 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambolik (talk • contribs)

Hi! I believe some people put my page up for deletion out of spite. I have had 6 songs on the radio in Italy. There were citations listed on my article, radio stations, charts, etc. So I am hoping you will remove the aron blankenburg deletion.

Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackup51 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe a page was deleted in error, please feel free to list it at deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 01:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for SineBot to read a users signature out of that users preferences and sign unsigned comments with that signature instead of using {{Unsigned}}? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see the thread above --slakr^\ talk / 20:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know if you can help edit or help me contact someone regarding a specific user who refuses to acknowledge any proof that I have provided regarding a recent error by the UFC.

The specific user in question is Glock17gen4. His only evidence is a picture based on a mistake by UFC production, where MMA fighter Cung Le has already responded that he did not know about, yet Glock17gen4 refuses to accept that and continues to revert Cung Le's Nationality as a current Vietnamese national.

I have provided significant proof in both discussions at the UFC 139 and Cung Le's articles. Please take a look. Cung Le has acknowledged both his American nationality and his Vietnamese heritage (especially with the 3 striples flag which represents the fallen Saigon). I hope you can help. Both his website at CungLe.com and UFC.com profile describe him as a Vietnamese-American and he quoted as calling himself an American Wushu champion. Cung Le has already responded about the error regarding the communist flag being used, yet Glock17gen4 seems to not understand the differences between Nationality and Ethnicity. He continues to only use that one picture as his proof. Please help! PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Being assessed right now.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever the "right" flag is, numerous editors ([17], [18], [19], [20]) seem to disagree with Glock's edits, yet he continues to make them; so I've blocked him for disruptive editing. I highly suggest, however, that you avoid edit warring in the future and instead seek other options for dispute resolution. Also, the best place to report stuff like this is the edit warring noticeboard. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I got a message on my talk page as a reminder to add tildes to sign my comments. I usually do that but I suppose I must have forgotten. Unfortunately SineBot did not tell me exactly where and when I forgot to sign my name. Any chance you could update the bot so it gives me a link to my infraction? That would be helpful when it comes to fixing things. Dgray xplane (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're the author of that template. I'm trying to make it work for me, and I've added it to my user talk page, but it seems not to be working. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? (With the template, not in general. :) Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just a followup to the 3RR report on Emerson 07 (talk · contribs), who you blocked the other day. It turns out he has continued his slow revert-warring on the same articles right from the moment he came back from his block, typically one revert per day in a sustained sequence (on Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou: [21][22][23]; on House of Bourbon: [24][25]), each time re-inserting the same contested BLP claim based on unreliable self-published agenda sources. More action needed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to sort this out in the talk page, so I will stop editing that article about that particular matter until I find a source or the dispute is settled. Emerson 07 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sup. Thought I'd let you know that this happened. Cheers, m.o.p 21:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi slakr, thanks for creating SineBot, it's doing a great job :D. A question though: could SineBot be delayed a little? When I forget to sign a post I hardly get the time to correct it myself, because SineBot acts within a minute or so. Thanks for the banana, Quibus (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beer Kelton2 (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disabled. Do you have a better idea for preventing stuff like this? NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure; I'm not up to speed on what all the filter is targeting nowadays. With regard to the diff, you could count the number of nowiki tag uses, for example, and/or limit by page title if a particular attack is being used against specific users. For example, a person isn't typically going to be using 4 complete nowiki tags on a line/in a post (or use more than 1 in section header text), for example, so it might be okay to craft the filter to limit based on the fact that it's likely someone using the tag way outside the normal/legitimate use of the tag. --slakr^\ talk / 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to know how I can provide independent references and other information necessary which is available to reinstate a page that was deleted. The deletion was made 3 years ago on account of a lack of independent articles and references as well as the text of the article being the same as an existing website. Both issues can be addressed clearly and specifically at this point and I wish to do so. Please let me know thank you. The Page is on A. V. T. Shankardass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.105.40 (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I just posted this an AN/I, and I jumped back to Barnstarbob's talk page to notify him of the discussion, when I noticed you had already blocked him. What should I do now? Delete the AN/I discussion? Post the notice on BBob's talk page anyway? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection I requested on the FIFA U-20 WC articles. We've been dealing with this guy for quite a time now, and I think it's a problem that might be something more than just one bored guy with nothing to do. He's been too persistent for too much time, even after the protection of some pages. I suspect he's developed some program for vandalizing, and maybe it's a problem that may require closer attention from more people. At any case, thanks again. Ipsumesse (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See here. Tkuvho (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you review your no vio close, please? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please justify your deleting my article. Site the wikipedia regulations and examples for deleting Armslist.com article as well as a rebuttal to the summary i had posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebinkerd (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not state how it meets our notability criteria for websites. Please see "why was my page deleted" for more info. --slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, please be sure to read our conflicts of interest guideline, what wikipedia is not, and our FAQ for businesses. --slakr^\ talk / 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Explain why you are deleting my page! What is your premise! Explain yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb86 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already answered you directly above. --slakr^\ talk / 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing an entire guideline as a basis for deletion is not acceptable. I require you to cite the exact rules that you feel this article has broken. Also I will include an example article that sustains notability and is within context of my own article that has remained on wikipedia. Gunbrokers.com. If you are not able to cite a credible rule that keeps my article exempt, but allows gunbroker.com to remain active, i will be forced to call upon wikipedia admins to verify your credibility and I will cite you for possible abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb86 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I understand that you might be frustrated that my responses might not meet your expectations, but I've already given you several of our policies and guidelines to reference, the most important of which is the list of requirements for a website to be able to have an article on Wikipedia. It is now your task to read and understand them, then make sure your site meets them. If it doesn't yet meet those guidelines, consider waiting a while for your site to grow and become notable enough for inclusion.
• As for your article, if you cannot demonstrate how your website meets our requirements, it will be deleted. Keep in mind that your site must already be "famous"/already be notable in order for it to have an article—it doesn't work the other way around.
• As far as other articles go, if you believe that a given article fails to meet these guidelines and should thus be deleted, you can always nominate it for deletion if you so desire.
• On a related note, I am a wikipedia admin, and you're more than welcome to request deletion review if you believe I'm in error.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• • It's interesting that the minor changes that the original complainer made was so he could bootstrap an affiliate link into an article on AK-47 [voteban] - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.246.60 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sincostan Ak Flame and JasylnEntertainment should be created — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalin Wiseman (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[26] FWIW, and I say it with all due respect, but it is ironic. :) Crazynas ^t 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with the comments on wt:V that full protection is unhelpful in this case as no edit warring occured, merely some high frequency editing on different issues by different editors. Please give us some rope and unprotect the page, we might actually get somewhere on the whole issue. Yoenit (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good protection; since it is a policy recently under contentious edit warring that hasn't been resolved, they need to work it out on the talk page before implementing and reverting on the policy itself. Dreadstar ☥ 12:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A little irony.

You: "and everyone else seems against their changes"

Understandable given the history, but, honestly, I'm not necessarily in agreement with the removal of the category. I know I reverted at one point, but when the IP came back with some support in their edit summary, I stopped. Then other editors took over. This really stems from problems with WP:BLPCAT and how it applies to Jews, a recurring and seemingly endless debate over religion vs ethnicity.

I just wanted the battle to stop as it's mostly a waste of resources, and I certainly didn't want to raise the issue, either on the article's Talk page or at WP:BLPN, and begin yet another discussion on this issue. So, I took a practical approach, even if not fully supported by policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The main point is that from an administrative perspective, registered users equal ip users in editor status, so when you said, "At least let's remove the non auto-confirmed users from the fray," that, alone, wouldn't have been a valid reason for semi-protecting during an edit war. Rather, it would have been full-protected. --slakr^\ talk / 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. I appreciate you deciding in favor of a warning rather than a sanction here, and I do realize that edit warring is bad and can get me blocked even of 3RR is not violated. I've decide to leave that page alone for a while. but I wanted to ask you if that warning was only directed at me (that seems to be the case, since you phrased it as "Warned for now due to the self-revert"). As you must have seen, the editor who filed the report actually reverted the same phrase more times than I did, and against the opinion of at least two editors (now 3, as a third one has chimed in on the talk page). Why does he get off without a warning? Is this a game of who reports the other one first? Jeff Song (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point; I've dropped a note to that effect on Severino (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Slakr-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of BAG and an active member of the bot community, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. What does CerebrumBot do on IRC? Pine^talk 09:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. It looks for open proxies matching User:ProcseeBot's database and notifies an alert channel if someone joins with a matching host.
2. If you're in a channel where !pinfo is enabled (en-alerts, for example, but not -en) then you can use !pinfo <ip> to run a quick check to see if the given IP is listed in its database; if it is, it'll say whether it was verified as an open proxy, how long ago it checked, whether it was blocked, what type of proxy it was, etc....

--slakr^\ talk / 19:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, user:Extra999 posted on my talk page and didn't sign his post. I was surprised that SineBot didn't add a signature - I think SineBot does a fabulous job and thank you for the work in maintaining it. Is there some reason that the bot didn't catch this edit? Is there something I should add to my talk page to tell SineBot that it's more than welcome to sign any unsigned posts there? Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He has 6449 edits. When editors have over 800 edits, the bot ignores them unless they opt back in to signing using {{YesAutosign}}. --slakr^\ talk / 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't realised that experienced editors are ignored by default, but it does make sense.  :) EdChem (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

HELLO Hello Slakr, Thanks for your advice, I will appreciate if you tell me, How I can post a comment, correctly? ( Tsvetozarv 13:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) )

Check out the talk page tutorial. That should get you started. --slakr^\ talk / 19:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

	You're awesome.
	'Sup? John Smith 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In your decision in this case [[27]], you applied the 3RR rule when it appears that WP:1RR applies to the article in question per this Arbcom ruling: [[28]]. The editor in question was well aware of the 1RR status of the article, having participated in the Arbcom case himself, and having been blocked before for violating 1RR.

If you believe that 3RR applies instead of 1RR, could you please append a statement to that effect to your decision, along with an explanation of why you believe so? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. I thought I'd made it clear in my report that articles related to abortion, broadly defined, are under 1RR, so I think more explanation than the standard "there weren't four reverts" template is necessary here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement requests are thatta way. --slakr^\ talk / 04:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Filed. FWIW, you're the only admin I've ever encountered who doesn't block for 1RR violations; I'd be interested in hearing why (and particularly why you choose to close ANEW reports of 1RR violations in this maverick fashion, rather than leaving them for others). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a laundry list. It's rarely clear-cut, and arbitration enforcement requires knowledge and background in the case, reviewing the final outcome of the case, then making sure an article and/or action falls under those restrictions. Then, one has to realistically make sure that the user was properly warned and despite that warning continued to revert. If you take action, you then have to log the action in the AE log—more red tape. Not to mention, no matter what action you take, the chances are good that you'll have people people coming to your talk page and complaining about it, or you'll end up with someone stalking you because the admin by-default becomes "one of the cabal" for helping their opponents. WP:AE is there for the admins who don't mind the drama, and there's a big notice there about the dangers of said drama: "If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned." While blocked edit warriors are one thing, blocked arb'ed users can be plain annoying.

Long story short, it's disproportionately more work to try to enforce something that's otherwise not edit warring on a noticeboard that's used exclusively for cases of clear edit warring. If other admins are fine taking AE action on AN3 reports, then so be it; I was not. I'm sorry that you had the bad luck of me closing your report.

--slakr^\ talk / 22:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem confused about what a "revert" is.

When someone *else* violates WP:3RR as User:Hyperionsteel recently did on Ezra Levant, calling in another user to do his third bald revert before doing two more, it will often be the case that statements removed will re-appear multiple times in the attempt to provide sources that satisy the rather arbitrary expectations of such people.

User:Hyperionsteel is specifically confused about what "neutral" and "reliable" mean. He seems to expect that a source has to be itself "neutral", which it doesn't, as long as it is "reliable" on facts. See debate on talk pages for users involved and Talk:Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines and Talk:Ezra Levant, in particular his removal of facts from sources vancouverobserver.com and savethefraser.ca - He is further a little over-zealous on policing WP:BLP. He has broken WP:3RR before and apologized for it at User_talk:Hyperionsteel. Further he seems to over-interpret "original research" to include all synthesis of multiple sources, which is ridiculous (Wikipedia would be very verbose indeed if no one was allowed to do that). No user involved seems to be intentionally trying to defeat another's valid sources or valid reporting, these are simple legitimate differences of perspective or priorities.

The issue seems to be largely resolved, with User:Hyperionsteel agreeing to edit paragraph by paragraph rather than bald-reverting a lot of material whose sources he hasn't bothered to read. I have also asked him to review his removal of the actual First Nations declaration regarding the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines as it seems a serious systemic racist bias to deny them their own voice on this important matter. You may wish to review what constitutes reliable sources.

Thank you for voicing your concerns. Although your beliefs in what constitutes a revert may not align with our policy on the matter, I nonetheless would strongly recommend that you ignore your beliefs and heed the policy in order to avoid being blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 22:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When SineBot left me a message on my talk page, I am just asking if that has to do with me NOT signing my comments. Which I did.

--John Smith 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC) comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney (talk • contribs)

Hi Slakr: I noticed that User talk:GinnylovesHarry contains content very similar to User:SineBot, including the bot template. Just was wondering if this was a legitimate alternate account, or if they swiped your page and the bot template should be removed. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not legit. --slakr^\ talk / 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi slakr, Salvio, & Ed,

User:Ruslik0 is now defacing the RfC, and even edit warring over it. Could you speak with him? There's something very wrong here.

1. As the RfC page recommends, I set aside a section for "Threaded discussions". I also created sections for references and quotations. I specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because we need to keep the refs and quotes spare and accessible so we can refer to them easily, and I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote pass without pasting his POV all over it. (Actually, I figured it would be him, because he has in the past said that quotes are "lies", even when they are accepted as legit by everyone else, and linked to their sources online, as these are.) And voilà, he pastes his comments all over the quotes. (He is, of course, welcome to add any bits I overlooked, or to correct any errors I made, or to add completely new sources that support his POV: that's what these sections are for.) And he posts comments like "You are again lying here" where I literally clipped and pasted the lines out of the ref. Does he not understand what a quotation is?

2. There is a discussion section dedicated to the tables and 4 bodies Brown says are DPs but the IAU does not. It's called "The tables"—a neutral title, where people can say whatever they like. Ruslik added a new section, called it "Remove Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar and 2007OR10", and put it at the very top, presumably because he thinks it's the most important. It says the same thing he already said in the tables section, and so is completely redundant except for pushing his POV into the structure of the RfC.

And, of course, when I clean up his mess, he edit wars over it.[29][30] (I didn't do his work for him and separate out and save his legit edits. He can do that himself.) If we cannot have a serious RfC, we'll need to go to mediation. But maybe I'm unduly pessimistic and he really doesn't understand how this works, or is one of those people who comments on references without actually reading them, and might respond to instruction from you? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're really not helping, either. Outright removing someone's relevant comments (as opposed to moving them or asking the user to move them) is a huge no-no in my book, so you might just as much be in the wrong as he is, especially when such an action will result in further conflict. --slakr^\ talk / 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, idd just like to ask u if my ideas, whateva u may call them, might bring me small benefits, just enough to stay closed/focused on what i think i do, which is no so complicate 4 me... it looks to me computer elo>3000 is more like my ideas (progressive scan) n i think i can do the same with chess players:what da ya say, ha? !

pls use mateif64 on gmail, ok? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

TTYL, Florin Matei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see. 67.6.133.90 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, do you really feel a 31-hour block is all that's in order for this gentleman? He moved British Pakistanis to "Dirty Bastards". Seems like he got off a bit lightly. Cheers, JonC^Talk 16:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He actually did more than that; there were 3 pages total. I'd normally indef, but he had other good contribs and wasn't otherwise warned. If another admin feels it should be extended, by all means. :P --slakr^\ talk / 17:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, no worries then. Didn't even spot the others! JonC^Talk 17:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

202.138.6.105 (talk · contribs) Thank you for blocking. That won't stop him, though. He's an IP-hopper. His target talk-pages need to be semi-protected again, as they were a month or so ago. He waited for them to expire and then went right back to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You should revoke talk page access for this user, as he is abusing his talk page. I've seen it happen always after this specific user gets blocked. ─═Klilidiplomus █ Talk═─ 06:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I second that emotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done and blacklisted the URL. --slakr^\ talk / 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the Facebook URL? If so, that's for the girl he's stalking, or at least pretending to be. And 2 weeks semi of his target talk pages is not nearly enough. He's been at this for some time now, and simply waits for the semi to expire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it'll be a bit more difficult for him to post it now. :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but those article talk pages need longer than just 2 weeks semi. He's been doing this for months now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder if someone should notify the target of his obsession, or just leave it be? Maybe I should raise that issue at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd just ignore it unless it's a threat-of-violence or the like; the more attention that's drawn to the victim, the more spillover/unintentional harassment the victim is likely to experience...but that's just me. --slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but I posted on ANI just to be safe. It's a dilemma, in that it's "probably" just some harmless obsession, and why scare the "target" unnecessarily. But if it's not harmless, and we do nothing, then we have at least a small share of the culpability, morally speaking. (The Joe Paterno situation has been on my mind lately, for example.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

A thought has occurred to me: since SineBot has been working great on EN WP for years now, how about "lending" it to other wikipedia projects as well? You might not even have to publish the source code, just let it work on there as well? What do you think -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Since I'm a PHP programmer, I could help with whatever modifications necessary for the transition. -- CoolKoon (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Slackr! Just wondering - is it expected for the bot to tag one IP with another IP's address in the blocking comments or was this an error? Also - how can I check whether or not that open proxy is still active or not (a user is requesting unblock on it).  7  07:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If the block message has another IP in it, then the other IP is the entry point, while the blocked IP is the exit point. E.g., if ip "44.55.66.77" was blocked with <-- 123.45.67.89:1234 --> then the IP you should check for an open proxy is is 123.45.67.89, port 1234. Without downloading extra software, the easiest way to check whether a proxy is still open is by configuring the proxy settings in a browser that supports it so that it uses that proxy. You might have to try both HTTP and SOCKS proxies. Alternatively, there are tools and other stuff at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. --slakr^\ talk / 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it - thanks. I'm stuck behind a corp firewall most of the day already so will let others review those types of unblock requests.  7  23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do or say, but posting it to my talk page 3 times in a row didn't help to elucidate it in any way. --slakr^\ talk / 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to your bot, I now know how to sign my edits!

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection for this page has been requested again, concerning the behaviour of User:Bidsar. Since you handled this case before, I recommend that you help handle the request at WP:RFP. (message also sent to User:Tom Morris.) Deryck C. 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is sinebot tagging these posts as unsigned when already signed. Signed post [31] then bot [32] My mobile accounts signature is linked to my main account but it shouldn't be being tagged by the bot. Thats happened twice.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You were editing from the account "Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile," but your signature said "Edinburgh Wanderer." --slakr^\ talk / 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I Followed the guidelines which state you link your alt sig to the main account. The sig was generated by using four tides not added in manually the bot should see this as signed.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This was the other time it did it [33] then [34].Edinburgh Wanderer 23:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you advise if sinebot isn't able to determine when a signature is used via four tides that links to a users main account from the alt account as is suggested at sock legit reasons and what I was advise to do by an arb. If that is the case I will need to add to the blacklist. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile (talk • contribs)

I'd suggest that you either update the alternate account's signature to point to its user page (and the redirect that to your user page), or simply opt out the alternate account from automatic signing using a method listed @ User:SineBot#Opting_out. --slakr^\ talk / 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a slow edit war going on Julian Assange page between User:Audrey Horne 89 and User:AndyTheGrump. Technically, it doesn't violate WP:3RR, but looks rather annoying (goes back to Feb 6th). I have no idea if anything shall be done, but if yes - it would be great if you could do whatever is necessary :-). Ipsign (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear slakr,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Avajathaka balla stay from us.Do not warn me.Modaya ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be sure to read our policy on sockpuppetry if you intend to use more than one account to edit. Furthermore, please remember to assume good faith; when people put warnings on your talk page, it's because they're trying to help you avoid being blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 08:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
how flexible is ProcseeBot's IP harvesting side? http://www.wildtunnel.com/ is switching its IP every day and is open for editing on Wikipedia. I don't know the exact time the IP is changed, or whether it's really exactly once per day. From the data I can only narrow it down to between 07:23 and 15:20 UTC.
Would it be easy to add for you? There has been some abuse through it, but not really too much (yet).
Cheers, Amalthea 21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a peek at it; I've basically been out of town for the past week. :P --slakr^\ talk / 16:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey. My sig is nestled neatly inside a template, so doesn't show as a link directly, even though it is there. Is there a way to work around this with SineBot? PuppyOnTheRadio talk 08:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey slakr Who are you ? am trying to contact u regarding utn1 page becos you used to control some of the content so and its me hassan one of the members so i would love to know who are you and talk more about the details of the page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanutn1 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please look into the issue regarding the Battle of Aanandapuram article? I was involved in a detailed discussion with the editor who added the link (in the article talkpage), but he seems to have quit the discussion after that incident. I've explained why I was compelled to revert that edit in this comment. Waiting to hear your opinion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't quit. I thought better not to discus with you since you are coming to square one pushing your POV. I am considering whether I could initiate an ArbCom to put an end to your POV pushing on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

:) Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you delete my user space totally. I am totally discouraged with the comments from some admins and even calling me with abusive language. My objective was to spread the knowledge and let people know about technologies. Not to support any company. The discussion was taken to totally a wrong way and became personal. So I would like to stay away from further comments. Means totally delete it so that it cannot be Googled. I would like reduce one click for users who want to know more about the technologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchallag (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear sir I did some editing on the Wiki 'tent pegging' page/article but some of these were removed by your 'sinebot. Now, this included a link (external links section of article) to the Pakistan Olympic Association, as is a major Tentpegging nation but doesnt have a separate Tentpegging Assoctaion site, this link also links up to the events and work etc of Pakistan's Equestrian federation and tentpegging events etc. Could this please be restored thanks 39.54.82.233 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

Um...I couldn't help but laugh when I arrived at this page. Seeing as how a new user at that IP might be overwhelmed by all the identical messages on that page, I think it calls for some sort of change in the way SineBot operates. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, SineBot removed the signature it had just added to another of the IP's comments in a different section. Anomie⚔ 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing with username Kondicherry for about three months, and it got blocked by Procseebot, with help from an administrator I got my username unblocked. Do I need to do something about it? and can this happen again? Thanks --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, with ipblock-exempt (which you now have), there's nothing else you need to do. --slakr^\ talk / 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As administrator you had deleted this article and closed this discussion, therefore I am sending this information to you: There are numerous references to establish the notability of this person. I can provide many more and several are available online but here are some major and reputable journals and TV Interviews: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/mission-impossible-4-ghost-protocol-mi-4-mission-impossible/1/164476.html http://m.economictimes.com/PDAET/articleshow/5117663.cms http://www.indiajournal.com/?p=20471 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB10Df01.html Please restore this article so I can make corrections and provide references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.122.128

How can this page be re-instated?

(talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm...—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the user links fulfill WP:SIG; one is to an account that differs from the posting user, the other is an interwiki link. --slakr^\ talk / 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested a page protection for American Idol (season 10) because a single editor was persistently putting in false information. That person also kept changing American Idol (season 9) and Lauren Alaina. the result was user blocked by you, but since the user has a dynamic IP address and the IP address changes every time he or she reboots the computer, blocking user is ineffective. Should I make a further request for protection? Hzh (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. All 3 pages protected, and the returning IP blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 23:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

mongo keeps deleting my work under Criticism, of the Adam Walsh Act. it was deleted without specifying what was unsupported by reliable reference. it was no different than the sentence i currently have posted under the same Criticism. what, other than the U.S. Constitution, does he think is an unreliable reference? Metoo702 (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no verified claims to this person's death, should the page be reverted to at least edits before today? Oxfordwang (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. :P Feel free to clean up anything I might have missed, though, as I'm not well-versed in the subject. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. It would be useful if the procseebot could do something with crap caught with an edit filter like 271. Just a thought. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Eww. It looks like someone's cracked the ConfirmEdit pre-generated captchas. I'm thinking it might be time for Wikimedia to use the reCAPTCHA module instead—FancyCaptcha prolly isn't enough. If that's the case, a blockbot isn't gonna stand too much in the way of the unlimited number of bot variants that will happily jackhammer away at the pre-generated captchas. --slakr^\ talk / 15:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you could clear up something on the Signature talk page. The question is under the section "Why isn't this automatic by default?". When I looked at the page last, it was the latest discussion thread. ThanksSchnapps17 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.102.83.61%2FWagon_Wheel_Motel%2C_Caf%C3%A9_and_Station&action=historysubmit&diff=487622412&oldid=487622292

This is a {{userspace draft}} - a partially-completed article sitting in user space. Any way to get the bot *not* to sign anything with the "userspace draft" template on it, on basically the same rationale as WP:AFC fodder doesn't get signed on-page? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's a draft, don't stick it in a talk-page namespace. Other than that, follow the instructions on User:SineBot#Entire_talk_page. --slakr^\ talk / 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, my signature is valid. It contains both a link to my user page and a datestamp, as required. The only difference is, it points to my home wiki. Please fix your bot to not add duplicate signatures in such cases. Thanks. --TMg 17:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMg (talk • contribs)

Funny bot. Thats what I'm talking about. This is my user page. All my other user pages in all other WikiMedia projects are redirects anyway. --TMg 17:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMg (talk • contribs)

Also this is annoying because that's exactly what I did, signing my post by typing four tildes. And there is an error in your edit note: “Added {{tilde}} note.” --TMg 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going crazy with this stupid bot. My contributions are signed. There is a timestamp and a link to the only user page I'm watching. Stop denouncing me for not signing. For now I added a hidden link to my signature. Lets see if this stops the bot. I don't like this "solution" because it adds useless HTML every time I write something. --User:TMgTMg 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The signatures guideline wants a link to your user or user talk page on enwiki and a timestamp. If you do not wish to provide any of these, follow the directions on User:SineBot to opt yourself out of automatic signing. --slakr^\ talk / 01:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All I say is the bot should not add duplicate signatures if there is already a signature, no matter where it links to. This is annoying for everybody. It's not a task for a bot to decide what a useful signature is and what not. A link to my user page and a timestamp. My signature contains all this. --TMg 22:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And there is nothing about "you can not link to your home user page" in the guidelines. --TMg 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

However, the problem is in determining what, exactly, a signature is, and whether the post contains one. Although a human might look at "[[:de:Benutzer:TMg|TMg]]" and go, "oh, it's an interwiki link for :de: and "Benutzer" is likely German for "User," a bot has no such intelligence, and across hundreds of wikis in hundreds of different languages, combined with username mismatches and all sorts of other fun possibilities, I simply don't have time nor care to code for all of the possible variations. I apologize if this is unacceptable to you, but the good news is that you're always free to opt out.

On a related note, the reason why we imply the signature should be to your enwiki user/user talk pages (at least as a starting point) is because most enwiki users don't speak German, so it presents a severe accessibility problem to have signatures instantly linking potentially-newbie users to a different, non-native language and user interface simply because they're trying to contact another user and expected their English user or talk page. Again, I understand that you might disagree with this rationale, so you're more than welcome to ignore it.

For the time being, however, I have to respectfully decline changing my bot to align it with your personal beliefs and requirements. Thank you for your feedback, however.

--slakr^\ talk / 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody needs to speak German. I don't see why you think that. About being impossible, thats exactly what I'm saying. If it's impossible to decide if a link is valid or not then don't annoy people with an inappropriate template when they clearly signed with a link and a timestamp. And the edit comment is still broken, as mentioned before. --TMg 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lol, ok... whatever you say. --slakr^\ talk / 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the confusing comment “Added {{tilde}} note.”. What is a “tilde note”? Is “{{tilde}}” a broken template that failed to expand because a comment line can not contain templates? I finally understood what it means but I'm sure nobody else will. At least none of the users addressed by the template.

This is one of the reasons why I think what your bot is doing is like telling the people “you are to stupid to use Wikipedia”. Bots like yours should be used to invite people, not to drive them crazy.

Besides, this discussion is a good example why a link to my user page can be useful. --TMg 21:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates actually never expand in edit summaries—only wikilinks do. Also, the main reason the edit summary is so terse is because of the issue at hand: people who might be tempted to argue with me over the color of the bikeshed, or, applied to this case, the exact wording of the edit summary. As such, unless there's clear, significant consensus for it to change (after years of operation as-is), it'll be staying the same to avoid me having to proxy a color-of-the-bikeshed edit war over its exact wording. As for the content of the {{tilde}} warning itself (and its user-friendliness or perceived lack thereof), you're more than welcome to take that up at {{uw-tilde}}, either by changing it yourself or discussing it on the template's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

slakr^\ talk /, it was brought to my attention that User:GarnetAndBlack,[35][36], is edit warring again on the same Clemson University pages that he has been warned about in the past. I noticed recently that you already blocked one of his anonymous IP's on February 17, 2012 [37][38] for edit warring over the same / similar content. I am a bit overwhelmed here; do you think you could take a look at this: [39] Thanks in advance for your time. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the 3RR patrolling award. In my acceptance speech, I will mention the invaluable 3rr.php tool, without which... etc. etc. Speaking of which, when will you let me modify the PHP code to identify consecutive reverts? :-) .. I now use User talk:Alex Smotrov/histcomb.js to look at edit histories so I can count blocks of consecutive edits. Thanks again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just getting my feet wet in contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software. As part of the project's scope, I was in the process of creating an article for Harvest_(software), but it seems that it was previously deleted over a year ago. Harvest was one of the first applications to embrace Ruby on Rails, one of the web application frameworks driving the proliferation of software_as_a_service. I'm trying to gauge whether it's worth writing a piece on Harvest. However, I have no idea how the previous articles on Harvest were written, and if they did any justice to the software. Is there a way to view an original version of the deleted pages in the archives? Cloudymorning (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for singing my posts Mr. Humanoid :) HansRoht (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you administrator on the english wikipedia, can you lock the page on this article so that only registered users can edit her, for abuse of return changes, the red links, removing references and other things, because I can't every day return on the old changes. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djole 555 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help semi-protecting those pages that my bot uses. Blevintron (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A poster on StackOverflow.com was asking about a way to have a page that is in one category automatically added to another category. They do not want to manually type in both categories, nor do they want to sub one category of the other in a tree fashion. I was thinking maybe you could help them fancy a bot similar to SineBot that could do that for them. Check out the original post Here. Thank you. -- ShoeMaker   ( Contributions • Message )   04:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories that are always part of another category typically are, and will end up being either parent or child categories, due to Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Therefore, the bot would also likely fail to pass a bot request for approval because of this. For one-off exceptions to the rule—and I'm not sure what those would be—AWB is an option. --slakr^\ talk / 19:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked for that the List of domesticated animals be semi-protected just to force a cadre of uncommunicative identically behaving IP addresses to at least explain such things as recently adding the article Red Panda. It's very tedious trying to protect that list and because they change back and forth from one IP address to another so my one granted wikipower, "Rollback privilages" doesn't work on them anymore. None of them ever speak or discuss or sign in. Right now they are in the process of adding every fish in the tropical fish store and anything anyone keeps as an exotic pet. This is all I'm asking: that the article being linked to on the list state or imply that experts consider it a domesticated animal. That is all. And if they don't like my criteria, then fine, let's come up with a reasonable one. I have to go through like every day or two and by hand remove the most obvious examples, but I'm not going to do that anymore because I can't keep up with it unless there's some sign that anyone else cares and I can't keep up with it. So anyway, I asked that it be semi-protected and you declined, stating, that there was no evidence of recent IP disruptive editing. Please help me decide what to do next. I'm at a loss. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with their edits, revert them. Also, get in a habit of providing diffs when trying to make claims of vandalism. If you're claiming there's rampant disruption, and nobody's actually reverting edits, it makes it difficult for me to believe the claim. For example, recent ip edits: good faith, good faith, good faith. And no, rollback isn't some sort of magic "power" that allows you to revert good faith edits, and using it to do so will result in it being revoked. If you disagree with a series of edits, just edit whatever old revision you want and save the page. You don't need semiprotection to get you that far. --slakr^\ talk / 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been reverting them, when I can, and but it's usually impossbile as they add stylistic ones after the substantive ones and alternate IPs so you can't undo or rollback, you have to go through like every other day and by hand inspect them all and remove things by hand. It's extremely tedious and they are relentless so there's no way I can keep up. I'm giving up unless I can get some cooperation. And also, I have made not a claim of vandalism. You shouldn't say that someone has made claims of vandalism like that without checking to be sure that such is the case. Adding every animal called a "gerbil," domesticated or not, for example, isn't an act of vandalism, it's an act of someone who thinks that all "gerbil" species are domesticated or something. Adding Red panda is maybe a reply to personal knowledge that they are sometimes kept in captivity and thinking that therefore makes them a domesticated animal, who knows. It doesn't matter why they do it, there is no sign they are not trying to improve the artice. Where did you get the idea that I was accusing anyone of vandalism? I'm saying they keep adding animals with no citations whose articles linked to do not say that they are considered domesticated animals on a daily basis and totally stonewalling and "I didn't hear that"-ing to any attempt to talk to them and ask them to work out some standard of inclusion. Nor did I say that stuff about rollback. That felt like a gross distortion of what I said, consistant with an interpretation of a hostile reader. I was just saying that using my only privilage/tool which I was using to effetively deal with them, rollback, is no longer effective because they have learned how to get around it by changing IP addresses back and forth so many times and following substantive edits with cosmetic ones, so rollback is useless. It has nothing to do with me misusing rollback in any way. I assume that you will in good faith to try to understand the situation there, but if you've gotten your back up and do not want to help, please just say so and I will try to find another way, but if you want to help maybe you could just put it on your watchlist and watch it for awhile and maybe you can see for yourself what's happening and make an informed decision as to how to help. We just these IPs to edit cooperatively and to do that it would help if they would just sign in and not do two or three edits with one IP and then the next two or three with another IP and so one and so on so there's no place to talk to them except the talk page which they continue to ignore.

Anyway, thank you for doing that work on protection requests and I understand that there is a big backlog there and sometimes complicated situations are difficult and mistakes can be made, but I appeciate you doing that work. Chrisrus (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand that most people reviewing RFPP requests won't be experts in the field. Because of this, we need some sort of reference point (i.e., an ostensibly "good", or at least demonstrably stable revision) to show us what, exactly has been happening over time. Usually we can divine this by vandalism-labeled reverts and the changes other editors make over time. Without any of this (and without specialist knowledge about what constitutes "domestic" in the field), it makes it difficult for us to verify whether vandalism is, indeed, happening, or whether it's a content dispute over technicalities (e.g., over whether animal "x" is classified as domesticated or not).

That said, I did take a look, and the stuff coming from 178.73.192.0/18 seemed to be the most dubious and in several cases overtly vandalizing. After some digging, it turns out it's a netblock of many anonymizing VPN services, which naturally give us no recourse for dealing with abuse. Thus, I blocked them as anonymizing proxies. Let's see how that affects what's going on.

--slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

They do good work at times and seem to be trying but don't seem to get a few things about how Wikipedia works. We just want them to log on and cooperate and not go off on their own without developing with everyone else some reasonable standard for inclusion on the list such as not contradicting the article we link to about whether it's a domesticated animal. This has nothing to do with vandalism. I appreciate all the work you do about vandalism but vandalism is when you aren't trying to improve it but to hurt it and unless it's blatant which it isn't in this case you shouldn't mention the word because to do so would be a violation of ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Not every case is clear at first blush and as you obviously can't be expected to understand not only the topic of the articles but also the details of complicated problems that might lead to it being a good idea to ask everyone to log on to a page before editing for awhile, or not to do so, so for that reason in such cases you need to investigate, ask questions maybe, look into the history or watch the page for a few days or try contacting some of the editors involved, or some combination of these or other things you could do before making quick decisions. If that's too much work at a particular moment it would be better to ask for help or even to nothing than to make a rash decision and then stonewall at the place to discuss the decision and let it go archive without replying. On my part, I should have written a better semi-protection request, and may be wrong that forcing everyone to log in before editing is actually the best thing to do to protect the page. There may be a better way to approach it. And also I thank you again for your contribution to the project. Chrisrus (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the RfC on pending changes, which looks as if it is going to turn out in favour of their BLP use, could you grant me reviewer rights? Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC) _{(Disclosure: I have already asked User:Dennis Brown for this right, and he felt that having been an admin <10 days, he couldn't grant rights to anyone)}

If the RfC closes to support use of pending changes (and thus justifying the issuing of more +reviewer flags), then an appropriate section will be available to post your request at WP:RFPERM. --slakr^\ talk / 22:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)