User talk:Slakr/Archive 21

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.

After adding an {{unsigned2}} template to a comment, SineBot signed it. I reverted. --50.53.52.45 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SineBot hasn't edited for over three days. Could you look into the issue? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ansel Elgort. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that SineBot has been down for a while. If you are busy elsewhere in real life, is there an alternate maintainer to restart the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As an anti-vandal who welcomes many new users, I am also missing Sinebot. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've brought the issue to WP:BOWN. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on vacation then subsequently sick. Should be back now. --slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

May I learn why my edit on SESRIC moved ?

Thanks Ozguvec — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguvec (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ozguvec: User:Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) isn't an actual user, thus the page name you chose was invalid. Check out WP:USERPAGE for more info. --slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you migrated your great 3RR tool to wmflabs (or elsewhere). I can't seem to find it but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Want to open-source the code and see if another maintainer will step forward? I miss 3rr.php and reluctantly use Twinkle's ARV as a substitute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea where it went. Apparently the toolserver disappeared, and I think there was some paperwork or something that I have to do somewhere. I'll have to dig around and see what's going on. That also wasn't the only script I had on there, just the most used, so I'm sorta interested myself. --slakr^\ talk / 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now the bot message says "Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment". Would it be possible to change that to "Type four tildes"? After all, the bot explains how to add them with the signature button, so we can assume that people will type the tildes if they don't use the button. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The bot messages are all substituted templates (e.g., {{tilde}}). The relevant Template talk: page is where you'll wanna make that request (or straightaway modify the template itself). --slakr^\ talk / 03:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, I think you may have been the administrator making the decision to delete/redirect the Nok Nok Labs article. I wanted to understand the rationale for replacing the Nok Nok Labs page with a redirect (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nok_Nok_Labs ). I'm scratching my head as the article is now well substantiated (initially there was a press release referenced, but I modified the article to provide proper attribution). I realize that every article must stand on its own merits, but when I compare to other, similar companies in the IT security space (Adallom, PrivateCore, Skyhigh Networks, ThreatMetrix, Vormetric) I see the Nok Nok Labs article having as much if not more substantiation/citation.

Nok Nok Labs is one of the founders of the FIDO Alliance (where the redirect goes). I could get members of the FIDO alliance to weigh in with comments on the deletion if that would help illuminate the topic (unfortunately the AfD comment period passed without their weighing in.

Thank you for any clarification. --Cryptodd (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to also request deletion of the articles listed if you believe they, too, fail our policies and guidelines. --slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

See contributions. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's running but something must have changed in The Matrix, because it's having trouble editing. I'll investigate. --slakr^\ talk / 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done — apparently this was an ssl issue. It affected ProcseeBot, too, so it'll be catching up with blocks it wanted to make over the same span of time. --slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add a super-opt-in feature, e.g., {{Autosign}}, where I can authorize SineBot to always sign my talk posts without calling me out for having made an unsigned post. This would increase the ease-of-use of the talk pages, making the Wikipedia discussion process more user-friendly.

Using this template might result in wording such as the following in the absence of my signature:

Posted by Thisisnotatest (talk) (signed by SineBot by request)

followed by the time.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a complementary post at the Signatures talk page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The nag is to reduce reliance on the bot, which avoids a 1-to-1 ratio of talk page posts to bot signature posts. --slakr^\ talk / 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've revised the complementary post to make it a change to Wikipedia itself rather than to your bot. It doesn't matter to me whether it's done by Wikipedia or your bot, only that the process be automatable so that I don't need to remember to sign. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, recently SineBot auto signed a post of mine which I had already signed with 4~'s on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ErikHaugen#Hello.21_There_is_a_DR.2FN_request_you_may_have_interest_in. This however has started happened since I added colours to my referenced name. Is there anything I can do? DocHeuh 03:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heuh0 (talk • contribs)

See?^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heuh0 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Heuh0: You accidentally removed the links from your signature when you added the colors. Put them back and it will be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Test. DocHeuh (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, my bad. DocHeuh (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sklar, Please have SineBot go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Highjump and sign after the edit made on or about 27 Dec 2013. I cannot edit there. Thanks. Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) @Tjlynnjr: I don't see any edits made during that time period, so there's nothing to sign. Also to note that SineBot does not go back in time to sign unsigned comments - if it misses a comment, it misses it. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The entry I referred to was below the last edit of 06 Oct 2013.

Sorry. Best wishes for 2015. Tjlynnjr (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

Thankyou, for notifying interested parties about the discussion. The editor who brought the complaint didn't bother to notify anyone except me and misrepresented both the content dispute and his own involvement, bringing the complaint a few hours after his own edit was reverted by me, and without any attempt to resolve the matter on talk (over Xmas too). Whatever the right or wrongs of the content, this is not the way to resolve matters. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob. --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Lawn (GRTC BRT station) have been quickly recreated by the original editor. I bring this to you attention as the closing admin. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've WP:G4ed them and let the guy know. --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith. I was unaware that you had left the previous message; you will observe from my contributions that I was not online after your message until after someone else had left a message on a completely unrelated topic. Your actions completely failed to consider that consensus held that this institution was of a type that is considered inherently notable; this would be acceptable were the voters all SPAs or otherwise non-established users, but some of the participants were established users whose opinions must not be ignored freely. Moreover, you inserted your own opinion into the close and flew in the face of long-established custom with this kind of institution; when you disregard consensus and give a supervote, you should expect to be reverted, and threatening the reverter and assuming bad faith is nowhere near appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Except I didn't close the discussion; you did. I relisted. The point of the relist, if you read my rationale as well as WP:RELIST, is particularly important when non-policy arguments are being used (e.g., "it's inherently notable" is not substantiated via RFC in the community nor in the relevant guidelines @ WP:NSCHOOL nor policy @ WP:NOT#DIR, something brought up by someone in the discussion). Someone might say that in a discussion, but that's why it's important, when closing a discussion, that the policies behind the arguments, if any, be taken into consideration. Personally, if I were looking to accuse anyone of supervoting, it's more likely the person who explicitly removed my relist, deleted my rationale, ignored the underlying policies, and closed it as an "obvious keep." :P That's, of course, if I were wanting to accuse people of supervoting, which I'm not. ;) On a related note, I normally try to assume good faith when at all possible, but let's be honest: you've made at least a few edits to your talk page since mine, so it's not unreasonable for me to assume you were ignoring me after several days. ;) Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're volunteering and there are time constraints. I get all of that, because I have to deal with that too (and no doubt I, too, have accidentally ignored people). Still, it would help to answer when people ask (or even proactively drop a note when you revert someone in that manner), especially if they feel (or are likely to feel) their toes have been stepped on. I just hope that perhaps you consider, at least in the future, that maybe—just maybe—people like me are trying to help and aren't simply out to get their own way. Again, FWIW. --slakr^\ talk / 05:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that you ignored everyone who participated in good faith, so no notification was necessary, and that my monitor, at least, didn't show anything above BohemianGal's statements. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: "Ignored" implies wanton disregard, but I admittedly did weigh the arguments per deletion guidelines for admins, hence the relist. Let's recap:

• "secondary schools are routinely kept at AfD as long as they can be proven to exist...." — invalid argument, contradicts guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL, but does mention the GNG later in it, so that's at least partially a valid argument.
• "As a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus." — invalid argument, contradicts actual community-wide consensus embodied in guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL.
• "We keep all degree-granting universities and colleges with a real existence" — invalid argument, contradicts actual community-wide consensus embodied in guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL, contradicts community-wide policy @ WP:NOT#DIR.
• "Finally, if the sources are the primary concern of whether the article should stay or not, all other Dutch University Colleges like Amsterdam University College should be removed as well because they are heavily based on primary sources (more so than Erasmus Univeristy College)" — invalid argument; no policy substantiation; obvious example of WP:OTHERSTUFF.

It doesn't matter if the comments are made in good faith or not (well, excluding obvious socks, for example), it's basic AfD closure 101: you don't count votes, you basically count and weigh valid arguments, with priority to policies then guidelines then local consensus, should it be obvious and not severely contradict the two former. At best, if you had to pull my leg to close this, it would be a no-consensus (certainly not a delete). Don't get me wrong, if I'm actually screwing up, I'm more than happy to admit that, because I'd like to know what the right way to handle situations like this is and where that's written for future reference.

And by the way, I'm not even asking you do anything. If someone thinks the article should be deleted at some point in the future, that's up to them and they're free to renominate it or whatever, as I couldn't care less (and I'm certainly not going to take it to DRV—god help us all :P). So please, don't feel like you need to justify or defend anything, but my point is that this response is basically all I was asking for in the first place: your reasoning and a sort of heads up. :P

Whatevs.

--slakr^\ talk / 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, slakr,
Are you able to open source of SineBot (mostly signing), ’cause such a bot is needed on other projects, not only Wikipedia?

— 109.68.234.45 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

SineBOT got a barnstar. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! =) Thanks :) --slakr^\ talk / 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Slakr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SineBot

--  David  Adam   Kess\ talk / 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. Would you explain how the "delete" arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky established that Austin Madaisky failed both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and WP:NHOCKEY? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I could, but I doubt that I would be able to do so in a way that would satisfy you. The arguments raised by the editors involved were fairly very clear, and where there was believed to be ambiguity in the guidelines, your opinion simply wasn't the one the others in the discussion shared. --slakr^\ talk / 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please try. I would like to understand your close better. I thought Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ clarified what "non-routine secondary coverage for sports" was. I don't understand how the sources can be dismissed for being from "people connected to the topic matter" when no such connection was provided.

I likely will avoid participating in ice hockey AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bonner now that I know the sources I find do not meet the high standards that do not exist in other topic areas. Cunard (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, enough of the talk about not participating, because nobody's asking you to do that, silly :P. More sources are always good. :D Anyway, I believe their main argument wasn't that they weren't independent so much as the coverage was too run-of-the-mill/routine. For what it's worth, I've noticed people's interpretation of the GNG (as far as what constitutes routine coverage) varies by subject areas. The bar seems lower for less-broadly-popular fields (e.g., academics) and higher for mass-appeal ones (e.g., athletes)—at least, that's from what I've seen people argue. *shrug* --slakr^\ talk / 03:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just venting my frustration at having wasted time futilely looking for sources. ;) Thank you for the interesting comments about the different interpretations of GNG by subject areas. The athlete standard seems very high to me because it's easy to dismiss all the newspaper articles as routine, leaving only athlete topics that pass WP:ATHLETE or have had entire books written about them. Cunard (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr-- Sorry to meet you in what seem to me these strange circumstances, but then I am new to Wikipedia. I am the original author of the A Call to Action page. I was surprised to find that it had been deleted since the first time I heard about it was from a third party. I don't quite know what your role was but I note that no deletion summary has been provided. The article attracted a great deal of attention and controversy for a supposedly non- notable topic and from the first this much of the consensus (such as it was) appeared to come from a narrow band of opinion. I really fail to understand how this organization did not meet notability criteria which refer to mainstream news media since its chair was interviewed on the Today programme and other places as representing Catholic lay opinion, and it was on BBC new site. It was referred to a 'booming new organisation' in another article in the Independent, and appears copiously as cited in Catholic Independent News and all UK Catholic national weeklies. It has a national organization involving every diocese, and has had official representative meetings with the Cardinal and several of the bishops (again as cited in the press). It has run 3 major national conferences with hundreds of attenders, and these themselves attracted attendance in the hundreds. There is no doubt at all that it is the main Catholic progressive organization in the UK with priests and lay members and distinguished theologians. I would very much like you to review and reverse your decision without further ado. Please do not be influenced by the numbers arguing for delete-- there is something of a stich up here and they by no means amount to a consensus. With thanks for your attention Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I do hope to hear from you shortly. How can I see the deletion summary? Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary policy-based argument that was advanced was that it failed our standards for the notability of organizations, while some also added concerns over its non-neutral tone. There is no "deletion summary," apart from the discussion by the community --slakr^\ talk / 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I have also just completed a short revision of the text and will also be seeking further advice. I do hope that you will now reconsider for the reasons copiously explained above so that we can avoid a full deletion review, and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I hope that you will now reconsider and look forward to hearing from you. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not my argument; it's the input of experienced editors from the community, in good standing, who were involved in the debate. My role is mainly just to check what the main arguments are and that they align with the existing consensus of the community, as reflected by our policies and guidelines. Although you believe that the article might meet them, that belief does not trump that of the rest of the community, who in this instance appear to believe to the contrary. --slakr^\ talk / 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Sorry, but if you take out of the reckoning those editors, only one of whom is an Administrator, who have a record of editing wars and deletion requests for all progressive RC entries -- (documentation available) you will find that there was not a consensus. Your phrase 'the rest of the community' even without that is completely wrong, as you will see if you examine more closely. I am definitely going to ask for a deletion review if you are not able to reconsider Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly convinced of your views with abject certainty, so it appears there's nothing more I can do. --slakr^\ talk / 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" I am not a person who takes offence easily, and I am sure you are doing your best, but I find your last remark rude and far from objective and neutral. It is quite unnecessary. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at SineBot's talk page! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On Dec 11, 2014 you range blocked 2001:1388:106::/47 explained here for disruptive editing. The user has returned, same geo location, Lima Peru, as 181.66.157.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 181.66.157.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making same disruptive edits to same articles. Some good, some bad, lots of work to sort them out and in net not helpful to project. Since this is pretty obviously the same user, this is also block evasion. Current range looks to be 181:66.157.0/24 and doesn't look to have much potential for collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	How fast does this bot block IPs and proxies? t 1234567890Number c 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? I don't know how to restore it and I'd like to at least copy the contents for my own reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.37.94 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not edited since 5 this morning (UTC). See contributions. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears the Jetboil article is devolving into near edit warring again. If you could keep an eye on the article and the talk page — and offer any advice and council, it might increase the chances of a positive outcome. Thanks.842U (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Should unsigned templates be substituted. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.199.189 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Best Bot Barnstar
	How fast does this bot block IPs and proxies? t 1234567890Number c 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Once it confirms it as open, it's blocked within a minute or so. --slakr^\ talk / 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

SignBot doesn't seem to be adding {{Unsigned}} when I forget to sign my comments on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Is there something about that page that keeps SignBot from editing it? Or, is there something that could be done to get SignBot to edit it? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It skips non-whitelisted template additions to be safe (e.g., someone adding talk-page notices or something else complex). In this instance, {{ping}} was part of the comment. --slakr^\ talk / 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So should {{ping}} be added to the whitelist, since people will want to sign a post when adding it? Thanks! 03:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

Glad it works here!  :-) GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Slakr, Thanks for all the work u do!

Hi I was wondering if I could continue putting up comics that I have made on my talk page Ben drowned xxx (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Ben drowned xxx

@Ben drowned xxx: Please see what Wikipedia is not as well as our user page guidelines (e.g., things you should avoid putting on your user and user-talk pages). --slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thought I should point you toward this. Would be great if you could pop over and comment, perhaps you could run the bot for Wikidata also? Cheers. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, since you seem to be in and out, and may not have seen this ping, could you take a look at this request I made of you: [1]? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, do you think SineBot could be easily adapted to run on other-language wikis? Tropcho (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If I find an unsigned comment, I'd like to fix that before replying to it, so ppl know what's going on (I'm not replying to myself!). If Sinebot didn't take care of it automatically, how can I ask it pretty please to do so now, just for this one comment? It's really tedious to do a good job of this manually myself.

I'd have thought others would have asked this before, but it's not in the FAQ. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @A D Monroe III: You might be interested in User:Anomie/unsignedhelper to help with adding {{unsigned}}. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Good morning. Last year I updated a Wikipedia entry that someone created about our company because it was incorrect. However, the changes I made to the page were subsequetnly deleted. However I don't know why they were deleted. I want to create a new page for our company and would welcome your feedback as to what was wrong with my last entry. The company name is ClearView Wealth Limited. I modelled the entry on a similar company in Australia, AMP Limited, so I am not sure why my entry was not suitable. Thank you for your help. 124.47.134.54 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Slakr, I'm not sure if you got my earlier request as I forgot to sign in. My question is about a company page I edited last year for ClearView Wealth Limited. Someone created a page for our company but it was not correct. So I updated it using as reference another similar Wiki entry for AMP Limited (a company which is much like ClearView). But you deleted the whole ClearView entry and I'm not sure why it was not acceptable. I would like to create a company page again and just want to be sure what I can and can't do. Thanks for your help. Maplepond (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it for now. I just wanted your opinion on it. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Slakr!
Is it possible to run your bot on our german wiktionary? Please do not start it instantly just give my the answer so I can ask in my wiktionary :) Greetings, Impériale (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully you have time for a quick question. Why is it called "SineBot" and not "SignBot"? Was it a typo? Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, Thnx 4 UR kind (automatic) advice in regards how to sign the message! Sincerely Uzi Oz עוזי אוז UziOz (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, You have a lovely robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw you deleted a bnb page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleckley_Inn, you should also delete this one from the same author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Wailuku_Inn_at_Ulupono

Here's the author explaining how to create a wikipedia page to better rank bnb business: bnbwebsites(dot)com/wikipedia.htm He is mentionning both pages as examples at the end of his article.

Bests,

xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2EA7:BE0:519E:4905:BEE4:ECA (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

SineBot has been down for six days at this point. Any updates as to when it'll be up again? --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Sorry, my bad; I've been busy IRL. It's back now. --slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 04:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the Bot Owner's Noticeboard some days previously. Slakr, I think everyone is grateful for one of the most important bots on Wikipedia, particularly if you deal with noticeboards frequented by new users, where retrospectively signing is cumbersome and awkward. But I'm concerned you shouldn't have to be around 24/7 to keep the bot running and it would be nice to share the load so you can take a break without worrying about it falling over. Any thoughts on that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

--Jeff 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)== Rajeev Jain ==

I recevied message from SineBot. This reply was for SineBot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartendunatyaakademi (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Very Much. Sure I will sign after my post.

Please bear with me some time as I am new at Wikipdedia.

Regards--09:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartendunatyaakademi (talk • contribs)

Jeff 09:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please configured pending changes settings (Pending-change protected) for this article for prevent vandalism by IP DoDung2001 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has applied protection and blocked the user. In the future, please use requests for page protection, as you'll likely get a faster response there. --slakr^\ talk / 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Slakr: I have been working on Wikipedia since December of 2005, but some of that isn't recorded? I was trying to add some information tonight on a talk page regarding Basal Metabolic Rate and the "Bot" wouldn't allow the topic. I did sign everything. Is there another reason why the Bot is not happy? Was it the type of reference link Vox.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Media and the subject "21 maps and charts that explain the obesity epidemic?" Sincerely, BRileyPTA wikipedian since 2005.BRileyPTA (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@BRileyPTA: The bot adds signatures. The content you added is still there. You also did sign correctly, however, some of the <ref> tags you added were unclosed, so it broke rendering on the page (and thus ~~~~ didn't turn into a signature). I've since repaired it, since doing so can be tricky. In the future, what you should use / what it should look like when you're using ref tags is "<ref>something referenced</ref>" (notice the closing </ref>), or, more appropriately on a talk page [http://theLink.com/you/are/talking/about.html description of the link] so that it actually displays inline with your comments (e.g., like this: description of the link). For some basic help on wiki formatting, including links, check out the cheat sheet for formatting, as well as Help:Wiki markup. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

See this edit: [2] SineBot has added a signature to an unsigned post by User:Deadroses, but signed it as 'User:Webbe' - a non-existent account... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The account was renamed. --slakr^\ talk / 02:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that the A Call To Action page which you deleted has been recreated under the title A Call To Action (British Catholic association) with much the same content. Mangwanani ^(talk) 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The new article doesn't seem to be a copy of the old, and shouldn't qualify for WP:CSD#G4. Plus it has new references that came out since the old one was deleted in December 2014. In my opinion the article could be kept in its current form. If people are not happy with it, it could be nominated for deletion in its own right. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=661311327 the bot signs the 'Definition vs Pseudo Code (Conflict)' section but in the edit summary it indicates '‎Pseudo-code of function damerauLevenshteinDistance' section. It's not a big problem, of course, anyway a mistake. --CiaPan (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You might be very busy, but I wanted to know, how SineBot works? Does the bot has an alternative? In which language was it written? How much time it took?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of that info is on its user page, version history, and BRFA. --slakr^\ talk / 14:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Given there was only one merge !vote and one redirect, I don't see how there is consensus. I would think a relist would have been in order to gain consensus. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@LibStar: If you want to, go ahead (or I can also do it myself a little later). On these, when there's enough participation and clearly consensus against keeping, but there's not clear enough consensus for full-on delete, I tend to round to merge, as it eventually becomes the same as a redirect, and if none of the content ends up being merged (something that's really the decision of consensus at the target, not AfD), then even the redirect can die at WP:RFD. Essentially, my reasoning is that "no consensus" isn't accurate, but neither is anything else. A relist could obviously work if you feel there will actually be more participants, though, despite it being open several days past its scheduled close. *shrug*. --slakr^\ talk / 14:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

... annnnd  Done Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 14:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LibStar (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SineBot doesn't appear to be signing unsigned posts (including from IP addresses) at the WP:Help Desk. Can you please look at whether it has stopped? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah, it was having problems. The WM servers are throwing errors for me, too, occasionally, so it's probably just transitory. I'll keep an eye on it. Should be back for now. --slakr^\ talk / 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	There is no bot barnstar, so this is a gesture of appreciation where no other barnstar is appropriate. You maintain an excellent bot (even if it occasionally stops). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read anything we typed? You clearly missed evidence of English Top Billboard listings - which are notable for albums - they aren't there is no such thing as an expert in the field of music.

Think about that, not the band's notability, that's the album ... but your comments clearly showed you did not read every post you wrapped up into that bundle.

As I stated over & over again with copypasta ... I don't have time to triple paste every link I found that was legitimate because this other person clearly did not do due diligence in their own search, but rather padded the snot out of their edit count. --IamM1rv (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never objected to deletion before. I tried to summarize my position.

I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards.” Because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting.

I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” I presented the published sources on this. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915 should be treated using that standard. Insurgency of 1915 is no original research or synthesis, or another thing. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their research. I presented their publications, citations to these publications, and the publishing houses for these publications in the discussion page. During the discussions there is a strong evidence that contributions were not made in good faith. Contributors tried to influenced the outcome of the discussion beyond the what is presented in the article. My personal request to point a single sentence in the article “denying killings of civilians and/or mass murders” did not get any response. The voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome. "Bad faith" opinions presented were associated with sock puppets (and there was also an open investigation), and/or accounts created [mainly] for voting on the deletion discussion (there was a user majority contributions was limited with various voting activities). The discussion was riddled with issues created by Campaigning and Wikipedia:Canvassing. (a) “Stealth canvassing” Opening of the deletion process began with User:Steverci's request for Speedy deletion.(1-link to deleted page). The administrator informed User:Steverci that content do not belong to Speedy category. (2-link to deleted page) User:Steverci exchanged an email to |User:Sandstein “Private concern related.” Next activity was to add the deletion template (3-link to deleted page). An private e-mail was send between 2-link and 3-link. (b) During the discussions the user User:Tiptoethrutheminefield followed the other contributions of the editors [[3] and [[4]]. He tried to engage with them by looking at their edit history. (c) There was also distracting the discussion from the content matter to a wider political issue, | the repatriations], to influence the decision process.

During discussions participants stated: (Merging Requests): The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified, after re-write with a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. (Deletion Requests): The main idea behind this position was represented by [|this remark]. The deletion of this article is removal of the content which were mainly contributed through these publications from Wikipedia. In the discussions, credibility of [these authors] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide diners. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence.

Your closing decision was “Deletion.” I understand your decision was along the “Deletion Requests” and you presented your summary based on (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The Armenian armed activities behind the war zone (1915 insurgency) is controversial but an academic area. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Should we delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Removal of a published content from these authors brings an interesting positions on verifiability. Objections dusing the discussions were all about the authors. There was no single objection presented for the facts presented in the article. Enforcing a decision to delete a content based on the labeled Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by participants rather than the source material is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The other two points were neutral point of view policy (the information from Akcam and Bloxton added to every fact presented), and undue weight (viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.).

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is very controversial academic topic. Requires wider attention from Wikipedia community. I recognize that you are an arbitrator, I thank you for all your contributions and all your work.SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was going to warn you before but you looked so enthusiast... You can't cope with these "Armenian extremists" and their masters. (Please forgive me, "normal Armenians".) They also have a staunch ally in their "radical Greek" (again, sorry "normal Greeks") similars. These are guided by hate, not logic. Now as you just learned they also have their administrative support. If you still got energy to continue, try the Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you will see that all those Wikipedians who belive they are intellectuals and are ready to discuss for weeks on stupid details will leave you all alone in front of this irredentist mob. Take care. --141.196.198.85 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Armenian national liberation movement - so it seems there is another pov fork to be deleted? Or at the very least requiring a major rewrite? Its title converted by SelimAnkara into "Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920" accurately describes its current pov message and content - message and content that, like the deleted 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire article, cannot be genuinely supported by legitimate sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to SelimAnkara1993 points in detail because I think it was all covered in the deletion discussion. But I will take issue with SelimAnkara1993's claim here that "information from Akcam and Bloxton added to every fact presented". During the deletion discussion I supplied quotes from Akcam and Bloxton to show that both these sources completely oppose the notion that there was any "insurrection" and are clear in stating that these insurgency claims are part of Turkey's Armenian Genocide denial narrative. I still do not know if Akcam and Bloxton and others were cited in the article thanks to some cherry-picking OR by SelimAnkara, or if it was actually sources like Erickson who had decided to use selective information from Akcam and Bloxton to support the "insurgency" position (in which case it was Erickson's interpretation and the citation should have been for Erickson, not for Akcam or Bloxton). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely honest with you: I'm not going to be reading any of this section. I'm not an expert (or even interested) in the subject, and my sole interest is in reducing the backlog of discussions at WP:AFD as well as other administrative tasks. The close reflects what I feel were the predominating rationales for deletion, given by editors, that reflect our policies and guidelines. I did, however, sanity-check some of the assertions, and it looked to be fairly representative of other cases of POV forks I've run across on other subjects raised in AFD. If you feel the close was procedurally incorrect or clearly in error, please consider raising a discussion at deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 23:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise. I tried to follow the steps at deletion review. I'm not sure achieved all the steps. I do not understand step 6. I added the step 5 here:

Hi, I am writing to you according a bot you're operator of (User:SineBot). I am member of plwiki (Polish Wikipedia) and in the name of community of our Wikipedia we'd like to kindly ask you to provide us source code of your bot. We would like to monitore talk pages of our users and sign unsigned comments. Wikipedia is open knowledge-sharing project and we belive in cooperation between projects, we hope you'll accept our request. Thanks in advance. Please contact me by email. Best regards, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You sd'd Free published source per G11, but pretty much the same content is posted at User:APPOLO .P. NSSUBUGA. I added a {{uw-userpage}} to their user talk, but I'm not sure if the really understand that what they are doing is inappropriate since they also added the same content here, here and here - Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

okurogluselo:Really I cannot believe that such a content deleted in wiki. This is an encyclopedia. Nobody denies civil Armenians deported and killed in masses, bu also nobody could deny that Armenians had been armed and fought against Turkish Army or police forces. During 1915, well equipped by Russia, about 25.000 Armenians attacked to Ottoman forces, and also to Turkish villages which supplied support and privates to the army. The enrolled Armenian men increased and it was a civil war obviously. And the real scene was World War I. Who can deny a civil war occurred? These all were real, and yes, of course we can cite tens of reliable references including German and Russian army logs. Such attemps to erase the facts from wikipedia are censorship, nothing other than this.

I offer to change the headline of the article or writing it from beginning. How about, "Civil War in Eastern Anatolia in WWI"? We may not use the date 1915 at the headline or the term insurgency. Also the article may contain Assyrian armed rebellion during the same period, and nearly in the same region. Assyrians approve they attacked to the Turkish Army, however they claimed it was a reaction. Then they have their own claims about Assyrian Genocide. In fact some Armenians confirm that thay fought against the empire, however like Assyrians, they assume it was self defense. The article I propose may include all the aspects claimed by sides.Okurogluselo 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply about the last unfortunate case I have been experiencing. I can obviously say make everyting to collabarate with the user of conflict. In fact the main editing I made on the article was correcting the assertive and determinative language, just I changed the sentences with modal "can", and I added references to show that further researches might explore something new, because nothing can stay unchangeable forever. Also, the article need references, before my attempt, there was no references to support it at all. You may contact with the member User talk:CorinneSD about the language and fashion problem of the article. Also, you may see TaivoLinguist's manners to the other members for similar issues, in the article's talk page. However, the member rejected to listen me, as he does with everybody. In case of any kind proposal, he accuse the members with an opposite idea, for being incapable to understand, rudely. I am a scholar, I didnt take such a claim seriously and I was able to protect my kindness. And, as you know, the first principle of wiki is believing in good will and mutual esteem. The user of conflict systematically opress the other ideas from wiki members. His aim is not to help developing but only to use wiki as space of power and satisfaciton for himself. In this case, it is impossible to explain something to someone who doesnt listen you.

Despite all my kind efforts, the user erased and reverted my contributions five times. Please consider, It is a violation. Anyway, I am respectful to your decision. Thank you again. Okurogluselo 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) --Okurogluselo 14:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

Again I like to say, my main problem with the articles of Sumerian Language and the Language Isolate is about the language and style. These are determinative and assertive, even dogmatic more than scientific. Nothing can be considered to stay permanent forever, the theories are subject of change, with the help of new studies. Otherwise it would be religion not science. So we should mention in wiki pages, about the possibility of change in recent situation with the help of new development in any area. Of course with giving reliable references.

A reference is reliable in case of its being monitored in respectable indexes or published by serious publishers. Here we should not argue about dignity of such publications, but just we should give a change to wiki readers to learn about them. That is all about my intensions, no more.

By the way, if I request kindly, may I learn the wiki nicknames to send talk requests to the editors who support the reverts made by TaivoLinguist? I would like to supply them with some articles. Maybe I could convince them about my opinions.

Thank you for your valuable time.Okurogluselo 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

Please seek dispute resolution; we have numerous methods to do so. If you're looking for people to contact regarding the edits, you'll need to familiarize yourself with understanding and using page histories. --slakr^\ talk / 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: ( I wrote my objection on the edit warring page also. I know you are busy, I will be pleased if you will read it).

As I declared, I agree and I am respectful to your decision on my side. However the decision of decline about the other side means, some editors is permitted to violate the three-revert rule and they can erase the conrtributions of others, without listening them and with insulting them. You should consider that TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) must consult the issue with other editors first. However, as obviously you declared, he gained support after his action. In an opposite order. Even other editors agree with his actions,TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs), it doesnt mean that he violated three revert rule. Moreover, he obviously violate the principles of civility WP:CIV and good faith WP:GF against me personally and againsy my good efforts. The case is a whole. The editors in charge must consider these violations of TaivoLinguist in parallel with his reverts on my edits. This must be accounted and then the side of TaivoLinguist must be warned, for an impartial sentence. Okurogluselo 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

@Okurogluselo: He didn't violate the three-revert rule (3RR), and he's clearly an experienced editor who's well aware of the rule's existence, so a warning to that effect would be redundant. My suggestion to you is that while we encourage people to make bold edits, you should then respect the overall process of bold-revert-discuss. You made a change, it got reverted, you should then discuss—not revert the reverter. While doing so is sometimes allowed up until you violate the 3RR, it's not a free pass, and you can still be found in violation of the larger, more subjective policy against edit warring and disruptive editing—even if you don't violate the 3RR. Those are both judgment calls on the part of patrolling admins and the consensus of the community as a whole, and as a new user, it's more difficult to know with certainty when you're in violation of them; so, to avoid unintentionally running afoul of those, it's particularly important to seek dispute resolution instead of reverting changes repeatedly. You're already taking the right steps, however: keep discussing with the editors involved on the article's talk page to try to reach consensus. They might see your point of view and agree to some changes, or they might not. If you feel an opinion of uninvolved editors might help, there are plenty of options available via the aforementioned dispute resolution link. --slakr^\ talk / 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Slakr! Is it possible to run your bot on our german wiktionary? Please do not start it instantly just give my the answer so I can ask in my wiktionary if they would agree :) Greetings, Impériale (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Slakr! I know you bot ops are busy, but I was hoping if you had time that you could chime in at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot. It is going to take quite a while to reach the allotted 100 edits, but I have other tasks the bot could do in the meantime to help meet that threshold. Advice is appreciated! Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Slakr, could you please review me edits and if you come to conclusion that I could have a higher access, promote my account? Yours. Esmatly (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Esmatly: "Higher access" is usually done, based on demonstrated need, at requests for permissions. Not being aware of its existence, however, probably demonstrates that you might need a little more experience to begin with. :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Slakr, thank you. I will check that. I am Iranian, and on Persian Wikipedi, we ask an administrator to promote our account :-). Iranians do things differently, even on Wikipedia! Esmatly (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to create a page for the company soundsmith. It says you previously deleted a page with that title.... wayyy back in 2008.

Why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterbryn (talk • contribs) 00:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Walterbryn: It was written in a highly promotional tone. You're free to recreate the article using neutral wording, but I strongly suggest you read up on our guidelines covering your first article and our frequently asked questions for organizations before doing so to avoid it being deleted again. --slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear closing person. When I have tried to participate to this discussion, I have headed my message by a "===xxx===" instead of a proper "====xxx====" heading. May be, this is the reason why this message hasn't been included in the pink box. The message was stamped 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC) while your closing was 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC). If you think that it is better to include this message at the end of the closed discussion, please do it. If you think otherwise, I will not criticize your decision. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pldx1:  Done [5] --slakr^\ talk / 21:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Say, a talk page that was being peppered with unsigned comments by a single IP? Right now the page is very confusing because this person has responded to so many previous (sometimes years previous) comments. Is it possible to ask SineBot to go through the page again? It's Talk:Lee_Siegel_(cultural_critic) valereee (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

page protection
Thank you, recent changes patroller not known for taking yourself too seriously, for helpful bots, for dealing with vandalism, page protections and articles for deletion, for good closes, and for your belief that WP "embodies free speech at its finest, ... filtering fact from fiction" - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 890th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to act on the request I made at the AfD for Swartz Creek Area Fire Department or not? Spshu (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

For your work on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjbmr. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job!!! Have some beer!!! KC16 07:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request a userpage lock; vandals are persistent. I just undid edits from one such vandal.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: an IP has opened a DRV on this page. It was actually deleted and salted by Anthony Bradbury, but then re-created as Achraf Baznani (photographer), which you deleted after this AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw you just closed the discussion on this article with a no consensus vote. You might have missed that I just added info to the lede of the X Tour (Ed Sheeran tour) article. They're filming a concert movie on this tour. The two delete votes included one person who wanted more sources, which I added, and one who never heard of the musician, which I don't think counts. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia I've never heard of - doesn't mean they should be deleted. So realistically we're looking at a keep consensus. I suppose this probably doesn't matter unless the deletion nomination comes up again.Timtempleton (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Rfa-question}} automatically inserts my username, but SineBot still autosigned my question. Did I do something to confuse it here? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Burninthruthesky: It looks like the format of RFA questions changed at some point over the last few years. I've adjusted the regex to hopefully to account for it now. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisting is not a good option, so I am asking you to reconsider your no consensus judgment in favor of delete. While the !vote was 3 keep and 2 delete, the keep !votes were either just a !vote or well met. Here are the complete mentions of Rebel Pundit from the two of the three (one was duplicated) sources listed on the AfD discussion: "Are African Americans Abandoning the Democratic Party?" 1 and 3

The video was posted by Jeremy Segal’s RebelPundit.com, who said McKinley, and three other people in the video have all served time in prison in the past, and have since taken to the streets of Chicago to fight against the injustices in their community. Rebel Pundit says it is on a mission to expose "the true nature of liberalism and the toll it has taken on regular peoples’ lives is our top mission."

Safehaven86 didn't actually "add" a source, it is a duplicate of another already at the article. It is "TheDC Exclusive: Conservatives hit Beck for taking content without attribution" 4

A remarkably large number of conservative writers say they feel robbed. During the March 18 airing of his television program, for example, Beck ran a portion of video created by a Chicago-based blogger who calls himself Rebel Pundit. The blogger, who does not publicly reveal his name, says he was initially pleased to see Beck running his video, which featured left-wing protesters demanding amnesty for illegal immigrants. He was soon shocked, however, to see that Beck’s staff had obscured the watermark logo of his website, RebelPundit.com, from the tape. "I put my website name on there for a reason – to bring people from the movement to my website so they can see the other stuff that I’ve done," the man behind Rebel Pundit told TheDC. "You’ve got pretty much the biggest guy in the movement take your stuff and actually have his editors spend the time to scrub my name off of it."

Rebel Pundit is one of "dozens of conservative journalists".

"Indiana Senate candidate to apologize for 'assault' on conservative blogger" 2 This is the only article I've found to be more than a passing mention of Rebel Pundit. It is a short blog post, only notable because it involved a U.S. Senate candidate and an "assault" on Rebel Pundit. How could one mention of the site on its own merits (A-A Democrats video "scoop") and two short items only notable because the stature of the other person involved (Glenn Beck and Richard Mourdock) come even close to "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works"? Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, whenever I sign something with the four tildes, I get my signature and a date-stamp twice over. Is there a way to rectify this? I would be very grateful if it could be sorted out, while it's a minor complaint, it's really getting on my nerves.

Thanks,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 23:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Gotha^☭  _Talk 23:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go back to the default signature and see if that double signs. If it doesn't, try redoing your custom code. If it does, try three and five tildes. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that! Gotha^☭  _Talk 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hiya. Fantastic tool you wrote SineBot. Of course, it goes down for maintenance or whatever from time to time, so an unsigned comment may be missed.

But I came across 2 successive comments on Talk:Porthmadog posted on diff. days, that were unsigned. (Actually, I've used {{tl:unsigned}} on them just now, which admittedly confuses my point!)

However, would you say it's just coincidence that 2 users on the same page [had] remained unsigned?

Pardon my curiosity! Trafford09 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you're a busy person, but I've added a floral gift :)

Trafford09 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

After all, there is no deadline. Trafford09 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please review your decision at this discussion since no consensus was present at the time of deletion? I was collecting more reliable sources (as suggested) and wanted to include those into the article. I believe the deletion was made too early in the discussion. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; had surgery. I closed it as a "soft" deletion (due to lack of substantial turnout or opposition, as you noted). You can get it WP:UNDELETEed speedily if you'd like. --slakr^\ talk / 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rebel Pundit. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrew the DR as endorse was clear consensus. Sorry to read about your surgery. Hope you feel better. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Oh lol... sorry, yeah... I'm sorta all over the place at the moment, but am gradually feeling better. :D By the way, I agree that the article's of questionable notability, at best (and tbh I'd also be inclined to !vote delete if I had joined the discussion), but I was more just neutrally patrolling the AfD backlog to close a bunch of wayyy old stuff. Usually the ones I end up having to deal with (as far as AfD goes) are all part of the backlog and therefore tend to be the more difficult closes nobody else wants to deal with. In some instances margins like that don't matter (e.g., something that's a BLP issue, a predominating-policy-overriding-a-guideline issue, or clearly discardable/inaccurate arguments can simply be closed for what they are, because I can confidently predict the people at DRV will obviously agree if it's raised there or if someone screams zOMG adminz abuse/cabalz!), but this one was more subjective and had low levels of input, so I erred on the side of caution. I'd say just re-nominate it in a few months and there'll likely be more and clearer input. It also looks like a chunk of the sources are kind of one-event-y, too, so you might also mention that next time (i.e., "is the event most of the article is based on even notable itself? Is it enough to truly make the site notable?"). *shrug*. Schools are out of session in North America, and people tend to take vacations in the summer, so participation in the various community areas (including AFD) dwindles and makes things like this happen. :\ Sorry for any frustration (and delay in response). Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. Per WP:RFC, "RfC may be extended beyond 30 days by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date." That was not done for the Hastert RFC, so it was not extended beyond 30 days. So was it necessary to close it, and to add a closing statement?

In any event, while the closing statement is correct as far as it goes, it does not address the strength of the opposing policy-based arguments, which is necessary to determine consensus. That is, WP:Consensus says that, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."

So, I would suggest undoing the close. But if you think a close is appropriate, then please address the quality of the arguments. I'd prefer undoing the close, because I deliberately did not try to extend it by modifying the time stamp (I can explain why if you want).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It's been 10 days since there was any additional input, and there was an open request for closure. In this case, it actually is more the quantity of the argument, in large part because you narrowly framed the question. The question of whether to include it at all in the lead is the main significant secondary issue which would have weight, but the way you phrased the RFC's question mainly framed the choice as (and coaxed input in the form of) "abuse" or "sexual abuse," so the result inevitably would likely (and did) yield one or the other, so long as there was enough agreement for one or the other (and there was—just not the one you wanted). I do feel it might be appropriate to run a follow-up RFC of sorts to determine whether a mere allegation should even be mentioned in the lead at all (and/or for possibly a generalized trimming and re-structuring of the lead), because several people did mention, despite the forced choice, that it might not be appropriate to mention mere allegations in the lead in the first place if they're disproportionate / UNDUE (whereas those !voting aren't explicitly saying "yes, this must be in the lead; no it's not UNDUE; AND, here's my choice."). That's really more the additional point of clarification, and that's why the close for the narrow question is itself fairly narrow (again, since I feel it would be an over-reach to imply that, based on the discussion, there's inherently consensus solidifying agreement to include it in the lead in the first place). --slakr^\ talk / 03:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I was thinking about a followup RFC to see about just getting rid of the whole last paragraph of the lead, especially given that news coverage dropped off quite a bit. It's obviously a difficult subject, but worth making sure it's done right, so your reply is much appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. Thank you for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC! Would you consider adding your extended explanation above to your close at Talk:Dennis Hastert#RfC: Should the lead mention that there were allegations of sexual abuse? so that the RfC participants are aware of your thoughts? Cunard (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You're getting this because you're listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth and have some fairly recent edits in your contribution history.

If you're still in the DFW area you might want to keep your eye on this and consider participating:

Amon Carter Museum edit-a-thon

I've volunteered to serve as their editing assistant / technical advisor to help the folks who show up (many of which are apparently going to be Wikpedia newcomers) with how to edit. More experienced hands would certainly be useful if this project gels. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)

SineBot hasn't edited in over a week. Mind checking it out? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Back now. --slakr^\ talk / 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Slakr I am Gameroffun, I just wanted to give you a BIG thanks for blocking Thevideogameexpert. He was really annoying. I am very happy that you could understand my report on him. Now I can have some peace. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameroffun (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello slakr, i have noticed that you deleted an article that i was working on it, i was just wondering why? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraharvey (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was clearly a hoax, as the claim to notability for the person is patently false; they obviously are not a professional athlete for the Dallas Mavericks. If you were using, e.g., an article about a professional basketball player as a template, I'd suggest placing it in your sandbox instead of the main article space while you work on it. --slakr^\ talk / 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The date of the upcoming edit-a-thon at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth has been changed to October 10, 2015. An event page for the event should be forthcoming shortly. I'll be serving as the technical adviser for the event and your participation would be very much appreciated. I'll let you know when the event page is up. TransporterMan (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)

User:70.208.147.201 is making pornographic edits all over Bunk'd. This user needs to be blocked immediately. 2602:306:3357:BA0:562:C07A:19FB:4239 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@2602:306:3357:BA0:562:C07A:19FB:4239:  Done and page protected. --slakr^\ talk / 04:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have information otherwise, I think you may have misinterpreted what was going on. The 96 IP address popped up yesterday making strictly non productive edits on highway articles in the US Northeast. I am pretty sure the 50 IP address is related to an ongoing stalking issue I've been having due to the pattern of a PA on my talk combined with multiple blind reverts. This is the third or fourth time this has happened. Other IPs were in the 138 and 174 groups, along with some IPv6 addresses. I don't think 96 is related at all. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)