User talk:Slakr Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Questionable conduct issues

Slakr, I have come across completely by chance, User:172.209.8.246 who had contributed to the James Stewart (actor) talk page but insisted on highlighting the racism of Stewart which was acceptable but reverted as unattributed by another editor, who he then declared was a "pedophile." A quick trace through this anon's history shows equally ill-considered comments and I believe that some admin notice is warranted. I do not know how to proceed but I thought you might (hint, hint...) FWIW, it may be a sock hiding behind an anon's id? Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

He's already been blocked by Sandahl. Cheers. :) --slakr^\ talk / 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

buffalo wings rings

Why have you deleted the page without alloowing us to load the content? buffalowings&rings

Buffalowings&rings (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It was first deleted due to blatant advertising by another admin. This time around, it was still spammy, and you did not assert notability for companies (which includes restaurants). It was therefore speedily deleted. --slakr^\ talk / 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notice for Xisuthros is not Noah

I created that article to get the material off the Ziusudra article. "Xisuthros is not Noah" deserves deletion. But please wait a week to see what the original author does with it, then delete it. Greensburger (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazed

I am amazed at how fast you revert vandalism here. Also, congrats on beating me to vandalism and reverting it. Keep up the good work :) --Diehardinfo (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thx. Keep up the good work, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

123098john

Thanks for blocking that joker. He was really bugging me! Keep up the good work! DavidJ710 talk 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing up for rename

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing. –Pomte 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nerge

Sorry, you're absolutely right - cleaning up after User:FDR, got a bit ahead of myself. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 11:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Codelyoko193

Sinebot signed a comment I didn't make, but that I put back as it was removed. Is it supposed to do this? Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. It doesn't know if you're undoing vandalism unless you use the "undo" link or specify "reverting vandalism" or "rvv" or something similar in the edit summary. --slakr^\ talk / 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User Penser

Please look into a violation of 3R by User:Penser who has reverted Alexander Graham Bell three times in a 24-hour period to his version. The issue of nationality was a "hot" topic on the talk page and a resolution in describing the scientist's nationality was decided upon. The lead paragraph is carefully written to indicate a main birthright as "Scottish" although an American citizenship was obtained. The amount of time spent in Canada is also discussed wherein all three nations have claimed Bell as their native son. FWIW, the user in question has also made some intemperate "attack" statements although I had earlier attempted to explain the issues on his talk page. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, if 3rr becomes a problem, you might consider reporting the editor to the 3rr noticeboard and we'll check it out. :) Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Please check this page out. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Contract Lifecycle Management

Hello,

There was an article on the topic 'Contract Lifecycle Management'. This article has now been deleted. I found it to be a useful and interestign article. I am not the author, but I am trying to get familiar with this topic, so I was disappointed to see you have removed it. It does not reference a product and I think it is relatively neutral.

Any chance to get this article back ?

Thanks,

Kamal

84.20.53.224 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted due to an expired {{prod}} (proposed deletion). It did not cite reliable secondary sources, so it was unable to be verified. Moreover, it appeared to be original research. You might consider registering an account and verifying your email address, and I'll be more than happy to send its text to you if you feel you can improve the article up to our guidelines for inclusion. --slakr^\ talk / 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

bug?

I've gone back and edited entries in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Simulcast_stations several times since first posting comments there (I'm maintaining that has formed there). Sinebot got helpful and signed one of my edits though I'd already signed it using --~~~~ eariler. I'm wondering if it's related to my comments have several paragraphs seperated by blank lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtphokie (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Your Bot signed my that comment. Thanks Blue Laser (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congrats. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Imposter account

Just so you know. Note the capital I to appear as an l. Keegan^talk 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh nice. I guess the sincerest form of flattery is imitation? :P Thanks for the heads up. :D Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

hidden text

Can you have your bot ignore hidden text? I was surprised to see it sign this edit. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh weird— it should ignore it already. I'll go fix that as soon as possible. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

SineBot malfunction

SineBot just signed a comment I had already signed. Just wanted to let you know - [1] ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it was because your user link and user talk link in your signature goes to User:Tim62389 User talk:Tim62389, even though your actual user name is Timmeh. --slakr^\ talk / 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Opting in adding missing signatures but opting out automated notices

Hello. This is to let you know that I use User:Jusjih/monobook.js copied from User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to clear untagged images much faster. However, that tool is not perfect so sometimes notices to image uploaders have omitted my signatures while I never purposely omit my signatures when discussing. These have resulted in your SineBot sending me notices three times. May I opt in adding missing signatures but opt out automated notices to my talk page by your SineBot?--Jusjih (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not currently. The annoying talk page thing is, in part, there to be annoying. Obviously first and foremost it's there to help new users understand the importance of signing contributions on talk pages, but it's also there to prevent people from simply relying on the bot to sign all (or most) of their comments for them. --slakr^\ talk / 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

problems with SineBot

I am signing my comments, yet SineBot keeps changing it and leaving a message on my talk page. Evidently there is a problem with my signature, but I'm not sure what's going on. Enigmaman 06:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Double check the FAQ at the top of the page— your current signature doesn't have a link to your user and/or user talk page per the signatures guideline. --slakr^\ talk / 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. Somehow the box for Raw Signature got checked. Enigmaman (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

SineBot erroneously signing stuff

I am using TW and I'm guessing this is the problem as I've done it the normal way without problems before. Anyway, I use TW to report a vandal, and the stuff written by TW is indeed signed, but SineBot continues to sign it anyway. Look at this diff. Thank you. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's signed, but your signature's funky and is doing a whole bunch of stuff it shouldn't be using per the signatures guideline (most importantly, it's using templates via transclusion, which it definitely shouldn't do as it's hard on the servers). You might consider reading how to fix your signature to get it back to a normal signature (or something better than the current one). Lemme know if you need any help. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Slakr,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S:Merry Christmas :)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Slakr/Archive 5.
Have a Happy New Year !

^{Thedjatclubrock :)} ^(T/C)

Woo hoo! That tree will fit perfectly in my living room. One sec:

cp -R /tmp/tree /home/livingroom/corner/

Done. :P Thanks =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to all! And a happy Haunaka! And, um, a merry Kwanza . . . . or however that stuff goes.

Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!!Leprechaun17900 (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. And a happy Christmahannukwanzaka to you, as well :D --slakr^\ talk / 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Peacekeeper (Farscape)

Why did you delete the (redirected) article and then recreate it as a redirect? Isn't this against the GFDL as parts of the article got merged? (Honest question.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Add: I see in the deletion log that you deleted it as WP:CSD G4. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_11 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 13 may be of interest. If I did wrong in moving it into mainspace again, I'd like to know, so that I don't repeat it. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I deleted it because it in the mainspace despite the fact it had failed an AfD as well as the most recent deletion review. It looks like it was in your user space for you to work with it/make changes, but it should not have been moved back into the mainspace unless you actually had made changes to it (otherwise it's, in theory, recreation of deleted material). It's been undeleted since then by Bryan Derksen, citing GFDL copyright concerns for deleting it(???), which I'm somewhat confused about, as I could have overlooked something somewhere. :\ Anyway, I guess I'll go ask around to see what's up. Lemme know if you run across any other problems or have any other questions. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What should I do?

First of all Merry Christmas or Happy Chishannakwansica...

My Question.. if I cant add a temporary block template to a user then how do I notify an admin that a user continues to vandalize a page or a series of pages. I can't just keep adding level 4 vandal templates forever.. Is there a way that there can be a 10 minute block that then can be later reviewed by an admin.

Thanks, JT -WxHalo(T/C) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You are accusing me of vandalising Wikipedia

I have never, ever edited or attempted to edit anything on Wikipedia, so please take your accusations elsewhere. If this occurs again I shall have to take further action. Regards, Chris Battersby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.90.97.30 (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Frequently Asked Question #2 at the top of this page. If you didn't vandalize, then it was probably directed toward someone else who previously was assigned your IP address; so, it's safe to ignore it. --slakr^\ talk / 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

I see you have added an entry to the blacklist. However can I ask you to please log any entries that you make with a permanent link to the request came in some form. This may seem a little irritating but in 6 or 12 months time the rationale may be impossible to find and the listing will then be removed by someone. I recently had to do exactly that on a Meta listing than no one logged! Let me know if I can help - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you sort this please - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't know it was that important. I was trying to avoid "paperwork" since I just got back from vacation. :P I'll do it momentarily. --slakr^\ talk / 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done — By the way, since the log, itself, isn't parsed, it might be an idea to simply listify it or stick it in an easily sortable table to prevent the daily/monthly log hell traditionally seen on other, more high-traffic log pages and make pruning old entries easier while establishing a uniform look (and a template would make adding new rows easy). If you guys (i.e., those who tend to do the most work over there) want, I can write a script to convert the current log format over. --slakr^\ talk / 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

More than interesting - many thanks. Really all I did was copy Pathoschild's work on the log on Meta. To me the issue is whether in 6 months someone can sensibly (quickly) respond to the "why was this domain listed?" query. I'll look some more and ask around - the help is appreciated - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Since I know you're an admin, I thought you would be able to answer this.

Is this edit against policy? I didn't think it was one of the criteria for removing someone else's comments. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. On one hand, removing article talk page chatter (i.e., talk that's totally unrelated to building the encyclopedia) is okay. Moreover, if a banned user has made edits while banned, those edits can be reverted without question. Keep in mind, though, that a ban is different than a block, and I don't know the full background behind whether or not that user is banned or has made edits while banned. You might consider asking the user who undid the edit, The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs), or the blocking admin, Daniel Case (talk · contribs). Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 15:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How You Responding So Fast To Me User Page?

DannyNM (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC) How You Can Respond To Me User page so fast? do you have something that every minute show a new posts in Wikipedia New POsts?

i also got more question i seen some "Wiki Page" Like wiki.sa-mp.com And these pages have multi articles , how to have a wiki page(not user page) too?

December 2007 warning

your warning clearly show how Wikipedia oppress opinions, because Wikipedia admins are blocking my all efforts to resolve the problem about articles on Muhammad(PBUH) and Islam, and are also trying to threaten me to block if i did not take my petition back. so i just take a counter step. that will be the last response in case of Blocking me, or forcefully kicking me out of Wikipedia without any serious objection ;) . I am trying my best to resolve that dispute according to Wikipedia rules. but its my responsibility to mobilize masses to against such things. --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about the article or your dispute with it. Pure and simple, if you make legal threats, it is against policy. Period. This is the one realm where I and other admins are simply inflexible on the matter. Please consider resolving your disputes without making legal threats. --slakr^\ talk / 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will not make a legal thereat in future. just tell me am i allowed to make petitions in favor of my dispute because not all public and fight on Wikipedia, and what weight admins give to such petition.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sl, he might be talking about this petition which I think would be off-wiki canvassing. Recently a lot of people have come in removing the images. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Farazilu: I have replied on your talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 06:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuck.

Oh, yeah.

File:Doggy Sex Position.png

a picture added by a vandal

You like it, don't you? DON'T DENY IT! I can see your cock gettin' long. I wanna suck it like a sucker 'til all the candy comes out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hail all ye faithful! (talk • contribs) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I scaled your picture down a bit. I hate to say it, but I didn't get erect at the picture. Cartoon porn just doesn't do it for me. On a related note, you might be interested in our article on psychological projection. --slakr^\ talk / 07:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz Ahmad

You may want to keep an eye on Talk:Muhammad, this guy's been uncivil from the start. He refuses to believe that any action against him is anything but hate-mongering. Zazaban (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He's just declared a cyber crusade. I have the distinct feeling he's never going to give up unless he's blocked. Zazaban (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help me with this? My updating of Mike Wallace's status on the Zeta Beta Tau page (currently Correspondent Emeritus) was deleted. His entry in Wikipedia and in numerous web pages, publications, etc., shows that he is now longer a regular correspondent on 60 minutes. Don't understand why my update was deleted and how to enter correctly the new info. Thanks. Marciamaria --Marciamaria (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on signature help

I've posed a question at the Village Pump involving embedding signatures into templates. I think you might have some insight because of your Sinebot. Here's the discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Auto signing.—Markles 20:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

... for your kind words regarding the Jack Mandelbaum article improvement. All the best in 2008, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

Article doesn't have talk page, because it has been deleted, even though it says that it has been voted to keep.

I'll continue to screw with that page because Wikipedia really fucked up on this one and it doesn't seem like anyone agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.64.50 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Sorry about that. Thanks. Will ^(talk) 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cofteamchink

Just curious, what's wrong with the name? (You could ignore this if you feel that even explaining it would be inappropiate) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It contains the word "chink" (which is similar to "nigger" in its slang/derogatory nature), at least, as far as I know. --slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that it had to do with that, but I though you had deciphered the first half of the user name as well. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a gaming clan of some sort, so it'd be something similar to "Cofteammember" except it's "Cofteamchink" perhaps? Dunno. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

signing an edited post

What is the proper way to sign a post that you have just previously made and signed, then noticed you needed to edit it? See the following example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180528012 To keep SineBot from adding the duplicate signature one could simple delete the original signature and add a new one with the edit. Not sure if that is acceptable of the best way of doing things. In this case I simply deleted SineBot's edit and the orignal signature and replaced both with a new single signature.

Also if additional time has passed should one added as seconded signature as in the following example:

Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC) edited Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just interested in your thoughts as you are the expert in signing unsigned posts. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, normally the bot will detect it if you alter your own comment within about 5 minutes after adding it and ignore your edits (so long as someone hasn't edited the page in the meantime). But, to explicitly tell the bot to ignore something you're doing on a page, add "!nosign!" anywhere in the edit summary and it will explicitly ignore your edit. --slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and info. But do you know what the policy is regarding signing edited posts, I have not found anything in the guidelines on the subject. Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't one. WP:SIG would be the closest, but afaik you don't technically have to sign an edited post; but, if you make substantial edits or edits that change the meaning of what you originally posted, and it's likely that someone has viewed the page since then, it's generally polite to simply tack on whatever you want to edit (or use <strike>) and leave a note stating what you did so as to avoid confusion, but that's totally up to you. *shrug* :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and WP:SIG is a guideline, so you technically don't have to follow it anyway, but people will probably annoy you and complain if you don't :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the expanded replies, it does help. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to it, Slakr. But where can I express my hate to Pervez ? thx. 125.161.195.245 (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps at the polling booth? You could always not vote for the person. Alternatively, there should be plenty of forums and mailing lists out on the internet that are critical of any given politician, so you might consider making use of them to associate with others who share your views. --slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not A Vandal

Was he, or was he not, President of Iraq? How can reporting the facts not be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.19.111 (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but my primary concern is the fact that it completely messes up the page's links and renders the image invisible (since it's not named "President..."). You might consider discussing on the talk page first. --slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

YOUR A PRICK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.50.86 (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007

Hope you don't mind, I moved this down a bit (it was getting in the way of the FAQ— people might think that I'm calling them a prick, and clearly that wasn't your intention. Anyway, I'm sorry you think that I'm a prick for reverting your vandalism. I assure you I only did it so that other people didn't think that you, yourself, were a prick for vandalizing. Rest assured that in the future I'll continue to take the liberty to revert your vandalism and even take the time to protect you from harming your reputation if need be. Thanks, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wing Chun Magazine

I received your message on my talk page. I'm a long time reader but am new to contributing to Wikipedia. Although I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to Wikipedia, I would like to add my share as time allows. My article for Wing Chun Magazine was recently deleted. It looks like it was deleted because of CSD A7? There are many Kung Fu magazine, but Wing Chun Magazine is the only magazine dedicated solely to the art of Wing Chun. Can you help me to restore it? Cripken08 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the second time it was deleted because you created it empty (i.e., with '.' and nothing else). The first time SatyrTN deleted it (not me), because it didn't assert notability of websites. If you feel that the site can meet the guidelines for inclusion of websites, then let me know and I'll restore it to a subpage on your user space for you to work on. --slakr^\ talk / 06:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'll work on it. Thanks for your help. Cripken08 (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done @ User:Cripken08/Wing chun magazine. Also see the message I left on your talk page. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandal - trying to revert a vandalization of an update I placed last month.

My entries we vandalized by someone adding 'rape cock monkey' in the middle of sentences I had added, causing their reversion by cluebot.

The page I am trying to update is frequently changed, by two differing camps (methadone/12 step - suboxone) some information added, while 'verifiable' by studies, are refutable by studies of equal validity at least. People basing medical desicions off of this information are harmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.0.174 (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2007

Aha! I see now. Sorry 'bout that. Ignore me :P Sorry 'bout the mix-up. I saw the monkey balls and assumed you had to be up to no good! :D Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mechquest

Why was mechquest deleted? All i did was try to restart and article that was deleted for no apparent reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Horseman of Pestilence (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2007

You received a notice on your talk page regarding its deletion. It didn't assert notability, it provided little or no context, and, what I first saw it appeared to be vandalism as it was clearly a statement against wikipedia's deletion of the article in the first place. --slakr^\ talk / 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

German vandalism

yo stupid why dont you just admit that all germans are barbarians and are stupid instead of hiding it your probably a fucking germans and let me tell you something barbaraisn german all germans suck and so do you —Preceding unsigned comment added by German1234567 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2007

I wonder if Germans say the same thing about people of your nationality, because judging by your actions, they'd have more foundation for their claims than you do for yours. --slakr^\ talk / 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Kober edit warring

Greetings Slakr, I have no problem with a warning to Kober rather than a block but respectfully I believe he should initiate the next round of mediation if he really feels that his version is correct. It's really not fair that I should always be trying to come to a consensus by posting to the talk page or going to an RFC while all he does is hit the revert button. The fact that he tries to imply that I'm adding linkspam is just his way of trying to wikilawyer in order to keep his version. In summary, since an apparent consensus was reached from the RFC I should revert to my version and he can initiate the next level of mediation if he feels strongly about his version. Your thoughts, and can you help? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Kober is well aware of the 3RR rules if it means anything, I can produce diffs to this effect. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. I totally understand where you're coming from. It can be frustrating to be involved in a content dispute. Just remember, there is no deadline, and there are plenty of various ways of resolving disputes. Consider mediation and requests for comment on articles; or, if the content dispute is only between you and other person, consider asking for a third opinion.

Overall, I tend to shy away from blocking unless someone's been sufficiently warned. In this instance, the person had no prior blocks and no prior 3RR warnings, though I didn't dive completely into his talk page archives. Either way, it appears that for now he has stopped. No worries, though; for, if he continues (even if he doesn't technically violate 3RR), he can still be blocked for edit warring— especially if consensus has been established on the article's talk page and yet the user still continues to defy it. I'd just say keep posting to the talk page and try to work toward consensus among other editors. That way, 3RR or not, people who make disruptive edits can more easily be blocked. It's his loss if he chooses not to use the talk page– not yours. As for this particular person, since he's now officially been warned, it is unlikely that I or any other admin will hesitate in blocking him next time he violates 3RR or edit wars.

Thanks for the report, by the way. It shows that you truly care about helping to build a better encyclopedia. =) Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ScoreHero

An article that you have been involved in editing, ScoreHero, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScoreHero. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the upside, they made a bunch of good edits from when I originally {{prod}}ed the article. *shrug* Thanks, bot :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SineBot question- list of pages excluded from auto signature

I just wondered if there was a reason so many talk pages were in the list of excluded pages. It seems like they are pages which are likely to attract vandalism and/or anon edits. Is that the reason so many are excluded? Just curious. Slavlin (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure... you'd probably have to ask the people who excluded them :P --slakr^\ talk / 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ME!!!

Care for some berries?

Hey buddy bot patroller guy I'm HaW creator I don't knnow what happened to Carados so I', chatt'n with you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaWCreator (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ermm, hi? :P Have we met before? I suck at remembering names. :\ You might be confusing me with my bot, SineBot. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI user:kober is at it again

Please see Wikipedia:AN3#user:Kober_Reverting_continues_.28Result:_.29. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. I received your warning, but I would also ask you to have a closer look at the page history. I was not behind this edit war. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice bot

I like how your bot recognizes the factor that I didn't leave four ~. Can I ask you about where you found that ability? It is very interesting and very useful. Thanks, H*bad (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Signbot.

Is there any chance if your Signbot could auto-sign comments on my user talkpage, certain users did place a message which i've just archived and it didn't include ~~~~ at the end of the sentence which meant i had to place the unsigned template manually. This is a bit annoying but i wouldn't mind if your bot could also monitor my user talkpage for unsigned messages. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Pocopocopocopoco

Hey there.

I tried finding you on IRC before I acted, but you weren't around. I've taken the liberty of unblocking User:Pocopocopocopoco: it was a short block and he promised to stay away from the disputer article. I hope you won't take this as a reflection on your original block, because it wasn't. If the block had been for longer, I wouldn't have acted without having contacted you. — Coren ^(talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU!?!?!! (heh just kidding) :P It's no problem, I just needed to get the point across that they needed to stop and that both of them had descended into edit warring despite knowing not to. I tried to avoid it in the first place, especially considering they're otherwise good, prolific editors, but alas.... :P If they're willing to forgo that disruptive behavior and/or seek DR, I would have been right there with you unblocking. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 18:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Accounticus001

Thanks for taking care of Accounticus001. I had just created an article on an out-of-the-way community in Sterling County, Broome, and couldn't figure out why half the page disappeared :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, I'm 99.99% sure it's a sock of someone I warned and/or blocked, since its first contribution was vandalizing my user page :P It sucked, too, because his talkpage vandalism wasn't even something to which I would respond with a witty comment. :\ Oh well, I guess not all vandals can be fun. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the brownies!

I don't think it's a big deal and I think you meant well but I disagree with the double blocking. It was apparent from the article that my last edit was a self-revert and that should be an indication that if I was a participant in an edit war (which I don't totally agree that I was), that my participation was over. What I was hoping was that someone could convince Kober of being a participant/initiator of Dispute Resolution just like I did with the RFC and, as I mentioned before, it was never my intention to see him blocked. As I mentioned before, my wiki-experience with trying to collaborate with him is that he will simply hit revert whilst I have to do all the hard work of trying to get a consensus with doing things like posting an RFC. And that doesn't even work either as he didn't respond to the sources I had posted in the RFC and in fact my impression was that he tried to disrupt the RFC. It might all be an exercise in futility because for whatever reasons he things I have a grudge against him (which I don't). Despite the fact that I have an interest in the subset of article that we disagree on, it's not the only interest I have in Wikipedia. By the way, I noticed you are the developer of Sinebot, good work! Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

how did you know I did that i added one letter ( an instead of a) how did you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.35.51 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect it already :-P

Avruchtalk 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of me doesn't want to. It's more fun to know the vandal has been typing in CAPTCHAs while I'm sitting back and clicking a button. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Tkguy

I don't think page protection was the appropriate resolution on the Asian fetish article. Page protection is generally used when an intractable edit war involves multiple users on both sides. In this case, the "edit war" consisted of User:Tkguy breaking Wikipedia policy on sourcing and NPOV, and everyone else cleaning up after him. Cool Hand Luke, Saranghae honey, and myself were all opposed to the changes this user was making, and we all repeatedly pointed out to him that he was violating policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV. He simply refused to listen. No other users supported the alterations he was making. I feel that it is inappropriate to prevent further work on an article because one editor refuses to behave himself. *** Crotalus *** 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was already protected when I got there. You might consider discussing it with the protecting admin, Royalguard11 (talk · contribs). Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be protected for now, but can you remove the "resolved" flag? The problem is with Tkguy, who caused the previous edit war and previous protection one month ago with completely different parties who he has effectively chased off with his stubbornness. Cool Hand Luke 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco is back to edit warring

Hi. I'd like you to look at Pocopocopocopoco destructive activities at 2007 Georgian demonstrations again. Not only he is back to edit warring he is back to very irritating tactics based on lies and manipulations. On top of pushing his POV without presenting any evidence he starts trying to derail his opponents with obviously false accusations. Here he is requesting to check me and user:Kober for the second(!) time in a row (see here for the first time). I do not know if this is acceptable practice on Wikipedia but it certainly is very irritating. Can you may be suggest how to deal with this situation? I know I am somewhat guilty of edit-warring here as well but dealing with Poco and his style of Wikilawyering sometimes forces people to push the proper editing boundaries.(PaC (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Since it seems like there's disagreement based on the talk page discussion, I've protected the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My Bad, but...

in reply to your message concerning my Jehovah's Witnesses edit, i would like to point out that i have made sure to look up the definition of the word "Cult". it is not my opinion, i have been part of their religion and i know that their beliefs and actions fall under the definition of "Cult". Regardless, you can keep the page un-edited as i understand now that it may offend. Thank You. Jason787 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya on that one. I'm not a huge fan of cults or certain organized religions myself, but I have learned that no matter what the group, they tend not to like being called "cults" even if they really are, and the term "cult" is subjective. I did see a funny cartoon that I wish I could find to link you to it again, but alas I have no idea where it is any more. :( Anyway, whether or not the jehovah's witnesses people are or are not cults is probably a point of debate (and hence isn't established "fact"). However, if you really feel it needs to be mentioned, and if other scholars out there are mentioning it, you're more than welcome to add in criticisms, just so long as they're properly cited in reliable, verifiable secondary sources and they conform to our other policies and guidelines. Naturally, you should probably discuss it on the talk page first if it's a potentially controversial edit. *shrug* Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 08:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

W/E

How do you get around so much? I realized a while ago that in three instances you are ish... can't really think...

Technically, can one really vandalize wikipedia? All information is indefinatly stored in the infinium of wikipedia... so any change made can be reverted in mere seconds. I thought vandalism had a more... long lasting aspect to it. Like... hacking wikipedia. Or, if I wer to post pornographic images upon wikipedian soil. That would be vandalism... but what is making minute changes that are so easily removed from site called, if not be vandalism? And, technically, since the sandbox and the welcome to wikipedia pages ARE still under protection, is it really goodish to direct another to, yet another vandalisable source?

oh yeah... and death to SineBot! (At least you have an exempt option...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.219.74 (talk • contribs) 31 December 2007

Hmm... I think it's just more of adaptation. Over time we've developed a whole array of tools, scripts, programs, and plugins to deal with vandalism, spam, and other random stuff. Groups of people, believe it or not, actually band together and actually have fun competing (playfully of course) in reverting vandalism the fastest. The natural added benefit is that the encyclopedia stays cleaner :P. Some people also like the challenge of making automated programs and scripts to automatically detect and revert vandalism or simply trigger notifications and alarms for further investigation. Either way, it takes minimal effort to undo whatever random stuff comes across through "teh tubez," and practically 100% of the time it's quicker and easier to revert the vandalism than it is for the vandal to add it in the first place. *shrug* Some people will still try anyway.

I always just laugh it off, though, because I know that statistically speaking, those same vandals will eventually return to Wikipedia and need something we have. It could be our article about Pluto for a science fair project, info on a kickass Green Day song for pleasure, or details on an old football game to settle a discussion between friends. Over two million articles and counting; and, there's no greater satisfaction in the irony of knowing that someone who tries to destroy us will invariably need the the thing he was trying to destroy in the first place (well, unsuccessfully destroy— lucky for him it's unsuccessful, else he'd be screwed). :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You can consider this a barnstar

Happy holidays my favorite slacker! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I do hope you noticed this! I hope you like it, I consider it an improvement myself! Very much like this... ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
zOMG I got steved! :P And yes, it's a considerable improvement. I'm pleased with the work you put into it: the colors— the contrast— the splendor. Absolutely amazing. You win The Prize™. *gives you The Prize™*. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For being the shit, That's a good thing! I thank you, you know why, and now I'm off to eat some chicken soup and fall asleep while watching the Chicago Bulls play. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ships of Homeworld (3rd nomination)

Hi, I have fixed the template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ships of Homeworld (3rd nomination) that you closed. You need to put the afdtop template above the article heading or else the system won't recognise it as a closed AfD. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. :P I think I got confused while I was dealing with {{Closing}} and was on autopilot. Thanks for that =) Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a talk page

Moved down from top

Jeez, it's not like I was going around blanking pages or anything. How about this: I'll add (and not remove, change, or delete what's currently on there) a whole lot of crap to my talk page that wouldn't make any sense, and/or have no significance whatsoever, and edit nothing else on Wikipedia in a harmful way. I won't vandalize pages other than mine (and not change the messages currently on there). Deal? 24.20.124.237 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* people are generally more free to do stuff to their user pages, just so long as it's in line with our policies. You might consider creating an account and making a sandbox subpage (kind of like how I've done) to test out stuff. Just avoid making it too large, and avoid obvious reasons for deletion (e.g., obvious advertising, and/or attacking other editors). I'd avoid vandalizing the talk page of your IP, though, because people are more prone to revert vandalizing to talk pages of IP users— particularly if the IP received recent warnings. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. :) Earofdoom (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, fun user name. :P If you want to create a sandbox, simply follow this link. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Slakr I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ExpireBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot block button on Wikinews

Per this page Sinebot on Wikinews should have a "panic button". --Brian McNeil /^talk 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Diffs for your consideration: [2][3][4][5][6]

My guess: Sinebot doesn't recognise its own signatures. Therefore if an unsigned comment is left by someone, signed by sinebot, deleted, then restored, Sinebot will sign again with the name of the restorer.

I imagine this is rare. Medium rare, at worst. So please rest assured I will not be the tiniest bit offended if you do not fix this. But if you do fix this signing problem, and my guess is correct, then consider wiring me some steak. Rare, or medium rare, as appropriate. I have a meatpal account. On the other hand if you decide you'd rather fix the sine-ing problem, please send me some stake instead. Cheers, --192.75.48.150 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (not drunk)

Good catch. It does recognize its own signatures, but only when someone removes them (so it won't resign). But yeah, it doesn't anticipate someone only restoring one comment that's already signed as being unsigned. :P I'll put that fix on my to-do list. Thanks, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your recent edits

Yes, I do know. In fact, I almost always do that. But in regards to the edits you're referring to, I'm copying relevant comments made by other editors to the appropriate peer review pages, in which case I do not want to claim those contributions as my own. Please don't sign those as mine. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermm... okay... just ignore it or opt out so it won't bother you. --slakr^\ talk / 20:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Miniter

Does anyone even look at what they revert? you removed a BLP dispute template, restored nothing but external links, and broke a category wikilink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How fast does Sinebot go?

I mean, I just posted a comment and I was just looking up my username (I know it sounds like I'm the dumbest guy alive, but it's one of the number ones, I don't know about making my own User account, anyways I can't remember the numbers too well) well I was going to sign it and going to put a comment up, but when I got back I saw that, (by the way is it ok if I signed again over it?) but I still put a comment up. But then my computer got stuck, which happens alot, (check my previous edits, it happened before), and i only got halfway done.68.81.252.24 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)68.81.252.24

It depends on the page. Some pages are high-priority pages on which any unsigned contrib is signed immediately. Others will generally carry a delay of a couple of minutes. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit

Please refrain from sucking cock, as you did to all the male administrators on Wikipedia. Your cock-sucking appears to constitute inappropriate sexual acts and has been frowned upon. If you would like to experiment sucking more cock, please use a gay chatroom. Thank you. 75.31.98.197 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

zOMG you found out about that!? Who showed you the pictures? WHO?!?!? --slakr^\ talk / 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Last Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your repeated cock-sucking.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did by attempting to suck my cock, you will be blocked from human society. — 75.31.98.197 (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eww, c'mon... I have standards, remember? Even if I were to go around performing fellatio, I definitely wouldn't do it willy-nilly— You've clearly demonstrated above that while there may well be over a thousand of them, I'd only go after admins (well, those are the only ones I'd have time to go after anyway) *shrug*. By the way, I noticed you seem a little preoccupied with the idea of having sex with another male. We have an excellent article on coming out which you might be interested in reading. --slakr^\ talk / 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot code and foreign langages

Hello !

I've contacted you a while ago [7] about the release of SineBot code. Now I see that you have not made any major changes to your code for 1-2 months and started to cleanup your code/make it less en-specific.

I'd really like to offer you my help in this process. Please consider it :

I am a bot owner on fr:, I could help providing a different PoV.
I am also used to the pywikipedia framework, which is available for every wiki : I may know already how to address langage-specific problems.
I could help commenting your code making it available to everyone

I am a coder. And I know how sometimes it is hard to let others perform changes to my code : I think that I sort-of understand which problems you may encounter releasing your code. Your code may be messy, deprecated, unfit, unnecessarily complicated, I won't mind... I just want to help...

At first you could simply set up a SVN with specific rights : commit only for you, update only for chosen ones/co-developers. This would prevent anyone from changing your code in the beginning : I would only submit you patches, that you could apply, alter, etc...

Also, if you worry about your time, because you're not willing to spend it explaining others how your code works, well, do not worry. If, for some unprobable reason, I can't figure by myself, I'm not going to disturb you...

Please consider my offer. Seriously : SineBot is a wonderful tool, and a lot of foreign wikis are looking forward to an internationalization...

Cheers, NicDumZ ~ 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Inches away from archivage, hu ? A simple plain 'no' would have had done the trick, though... NicDumZ ~ 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, trust me, if it was a flat-out no, I'd say no. I actually do want to open the source up once I get around to doing so, but right now I have more stuff on my plate for upgrading things and fixing current issues as-is. I definitely would like to convert it over to the php wikipedia framework I've been working on, because pywikipedia, from what I hear, is still using inefficient screen scrapes for stuff that can easily be replaced by api.php. SineBot would provide a good example base for the new framework, as it makes use of several props of api.php. --slakr^\ talk / 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My Signature doesn't work!!!!

I was adding a comment on the talk page of List of one-club men. As you can see here (just scroll to the bottom to the last two comments), I did put the 4 tidles, but somehow it doesn't link it to my user page. It probably won't work when I sign this comment as well. Since you appear to be into signatures, do you know ehy it may not be working? Thanks. Udonknome 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Check your preferences. Clear out the signature box and uncheck "raw signature." --slakr^\ talk / 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Udonknome 07:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udonknome (talk • contribs)

Testing...Udonknome (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot is malfunctioning

Hello, Slakr. I've noticed a moderate discrepancy in SineBot's actions on the Zanbatō article discussion page. It appears to be blocking the addition of all further discussion following its signing of anonymous contributions. I removed SineBot's additions on said page and the information then became readable. After doing so, SineBot then signed my addition after I had already done so, which may or may not cause another such problem following my addition. This could present editors (especially rookies) with a difficult and frustrating obstacle, as you'd have to at least partially know your way around the Wiki to pinpoint the cause of the error. I thought you should be informed of this in case such occurrences are happening on more of SineBot's patrolled articles. I imagine there's quite a few. Cheers. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 12:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's nothing wrong with SineBot at all, it was this edit that caused it, because that edit introduced a non-closed HTML comment (<-- without the -->) From then on, parsing on the page was messed up until someone fixed the problem, which you incidentally did by removing its signature that the user had originally broken. --slakr^\ talk / 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Apologies. Not entirely sure what the above problem is and how it works, but I'll take your word for it. Tell SineBot I said sorry. I wouldn't want it going SHODAN on my PC as revenge for tarnishing its reputation :) Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Nice talk page! I've been trying to deal with vandalism recently, including 2 impersonations, and getting fed up with the personal attacks. But a very minor sinebot issue (signing the addition of a sentence in the middle of a pre-existing comment) has brought me to your page. It was a fun read. I see I'm going about this the wrong way, letting the vandal and his friends annoy me. Thanks for the shift in thinking. --Stéphane Charette (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just be sure not to overtly insult the vandals. I find their vandalism amusing more than anything, because I'm so used to those types of people. But, I also walk a fine line between escalating the situation and completely dissolving it by saying the exact things they don't expect me to say by making fun of myself at the same time. They don't expect someone to honestly laugh at their personal attacks. :P I guess I've just got a weird sense of humor. :D --slakr^\ talk / 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

as it states on my talk page,dont tell me to sign my posts and DONT LEAVE MY ANY MESAGES TELLING ME TO DO SO,YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 January 2008

You might consider reading the signatures guideline, which reflects the consensus of the community regarding why you should sign your comments to talk pages.
If you don't want SineBot signing your comments, visit its user page for information on how to opt out.
You can leave all of the warnings you want on your talk page telling people not to leave you messages, but editors will still use it to get in contact with you when direct contact is required. I know the new messages box can be annoying, and there are scripts you can use to get rid of it, but since it's customary on here to use User talk: pages to contact editors, I'm afraid that user-to-user interaction is a bit of a necessity on an encyclopedia governed by consensus.

--slakr^\ talk / 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Destroy

I come to destroy and cause destruction.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhumor15628012 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, in that case, goodbye. Thanks for dropping by. --slakr^\ talk / 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Cacus

I was trying to remove the hacked image that is displaying on that article.

Kewl. Ignore me then. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:That user

No problem. I was just about to contact you personally when you blocked him. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

youre gay

youre gay and i hate you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunningham Higgins (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how deleting an attack page makes me gay. Though, if that's the case, I suppose I'll go elope with KnowledgeOfSelf. He'll be the only man I ever love. --slakr^\ talk / 14:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its seems that nobody done anything Special:Contributions/Cunningham Higgins --ジェイターナー ^✉／_✐ 12:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

His only contribution was a page that was deleted, and once a page is deleted from the encyclopedia it vanishes from a user's contribution history. --slakr^\ talk / 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree ur not very str8, wikinazis ftl 66.69.219.50 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I r not str8? Sry tht u feel tht way. Hope u can contrib 2 r encyc in a gd way. --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont th1nk tht will hppn, hes at aiv. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

o noes— he gt blockd. :( --slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slakr,

I'd be really turned on if you right a story about me sucking your 2 inch cock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.109.92 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2 inch cock? Well, I'm not good at fiction, sadly. Perhaps you might be able to fill me in on the details from your personal experience on yourself? --slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SLAKR U FUKIN INDIAN WHY U BLOCK ME FROM PAGES U FUKIN DIPSHIT

BURN IN HELL U STUPID WIKIPEDINOB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishlad (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your comment up here (despite the all caps, ironically). Please keep in mind that at wikipedia we are not censored, so please remember not to censor your personal attacks. Thank you for your consideration. --slakr^\ talk / 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hey. User:Tex66436 blanked User talk:Slakr's a jackass and User talk:F36unp (two indef. blocked users) as his third edit after vandalizing Oscar Meyer, so just noting the possible connection. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Another admin indef. blocked him. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trey Pelton

This is real! Just because It sounds like its ridiculous doens't mean that it isn't real! Please reconsider! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jggf (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's out of my hands— you should have expressed the concerns in the {{prod}}, which I placed there to allow you to fix the errors in the page. Please express your concerns at the article's deletion discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No

I did no vandalism! ): --62.158.70.31 (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

blatant advertisement, huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacworks was a blatant advertisement?

get a load of these pages; and delete them too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

I suggest you start a civilized discussion first before instead of being trigger happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacwiki (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was torn between blatant advertising and failure to assert notability. With regard to deleting IBM and Google: I would, but fortunately both IBM and Google are fully-developed, well-recognized companies with multiple secondary sources cited, extensive media coverage, more content than a link to a seven person company, and both IBM and Google started long before November 7, 2007. You might consider reading our notability guidelines in general as well as our notability guidelines for websites and spam guideline. Most importantly, be certain that if you choose to recreate your company's article at this stage of their development that you follow the above guidelines or it is likely someone else will delete it fairly quickly after your create it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And also consider reading up on conflicts of interest. --slakr^\ talk / 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

since when did size or date of inception become a determining factor for inclusion? there was nothing in the article that suggested it was trying to promote itself. "conflict of interest" with who? you? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, which is defined as

a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

. since when did information about a company fall outside this category?

I bet you'd love to knock every corporation off Wikipedia but you simply cannot because they are too big for you.

here's what one of your precious rules says:

Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.

it's probably time you take a good look at the rules yourself instead of referring me to them simply because you've hung around here longer. Blacwiki (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Blacwiki

I understand you may be unhappy with the recent deletion of your article, and there is absolutely nothing preventing you from recreating it. I'm merely trying to give you tips on what to say in it to avoid this happening in the future. If you would rather inform me of your interpretation of our policies and guidelines, you are totally free to do that, too. While from time to time I might make a mistake in interpreting them myself, I do not feel that this is one of those times. Therefore, I feel that you might have more to gain by heeding my advice than rejecting it.

With regard to our conflicts of interest, I noticed that your user name is substantially similar to the article you just tried to create, hence my cautioning. If you actually are not involved with the company, then you can simply ignore it.

Date of inception is not a de jure factor for inclusion, but, depending on the circumstance, is a de facto factor for inclusion based on notability of a particular entity (i.e., there are occasions where some companies can fall back on historical significance), but it is a telltale sign of advertising and promotion. Plenty of "brand new" and "up and coming" companies and people are attracted to Wikipedia due to its visibility. However, if, after only two months of being in business, a company sparks the attention of multiple secondary sources and demonstrates notability of corporations, date of inception doesn't matter at that point.

With regard to your assertion that I want to delete big corporations from Wikipedia, I would like you to demonstrate where you're divining these interpretations of my actions, because not only are there none supporting your assertion (from what I remember), that isn't even my personal belief. If anything, I'm merely deleting the small, non-notable corporations that don't assert their notability or are here to promote themselves. If your assertion is the latter, then I'm more than happy to admit my guilt.

If you are still unhappy with my deleting of the article under CSD G11, then you are free to instead imagine I deleted it under CSD A7, as it didn't assert notability either. You might even say it matched CSD A1 — little or no context, which actually is a size consideration. In any case, you should be very happy it didn't go to articles for deletion. There, there would be a permanently archived discussion with plenty of people (some of whom are not nearly as polite as me) saying how non-notable and/or insignificant your company is (if it actually is). From there it would likely be deleted anyway, it would be difficult to recreate it (as it would be very quickly deleted as a recreation of an AfD-deleted article— possibly regardless of content, and then the discussion would be crawled by google bots and included in our public database dumps for all the world to see. That would have definitely been the worst-case scenario. At least when an article is speedily deleted, like was done in your article's case, no such discussion or record will take place.

So, you're free to view this however you like. You could view it as some sort of attack on you or your company, or you could view it as a favor and excellent opportunity for correcting past mistakes in order to create a much better product in the future. Personally, I'd take the time to read why your page was deleted, your first article, and what Wikipedia is not. I'd even consider taking the tutorial. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 09:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Slakr, you should be happy I didn't launch a personal attack against you like many people on your talk page. I'm sure this is crawled by bots, too. I know the content on my page was nothing more than a line. I could write about what Blacworks has done so far, but that would definitely be blatant advertisement. For the record, I own Blacworks. However, I will never resort to underhanded methods like creating a remote sounding user handle to write about it. It's pretty easy to add a link to every page I browse. That will constitute spam and blatant advertisement which don't need any rules to interpret. I'm not afraid of this sort of discussion being made public. Also remember that administrators are not saints. You're not doing me a favor by explaining how you personally interpret a rule or by being polite. I too can be rude if the situation demanded it.

[[With regard to deleting IBM and Google: I would,]] but fortunately both IBM and Google are fully-developed, well-recognized companies with multiple secondary sources cited, extensive media coverage, more content than a link to a seven person company, and both IBM and Google started long before November 7, 2007.

do I need to further tell you from where I concluded I that you want to delete big corporations? Feel free to go ahead and propose a permanent deletion to my page. I will stand up to whoever declares that my page is an advertisement or my company insignificant. Cheers Blacwiki (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Slakr, you should be happy I didn't launch a personal attack against you like many people on your talk page. — I suppose you could, but then I'd just say something comical that other editors will post to their humor pages, then I'd proceed to block you from editing for personal attacks, and that would suck, because then the entire discussion about you possibly recreating a better article about your company would become moot; so, let's avoid that. I mean, I do thank you for adhering to the no personal attacks policy. But, I actually restore personal attacks from vandals from my talk page's history (which is actually atypical for most other editors). I think it's because I don't give a fuck. :P

... BUT, in contrast to a dork like me, corporations, on the other hand, actually do have a public image to uphold, otherwise people will be reluctant to do business with or invest in them, and a slew of editors saying that the company is "crap" or "doesn't deserve a page here" (actual comments I've seen on AfD before) probably won't help that image. Feel free to ignore me if you feel I have no idea what I'm talking about— it won't hurt my economic interests or feelings in the slightest.

For the record, I own Blacworks. — Then it would seem that my concerns over your conflict of interest based on the similarity of Blacwiki to Blacworks were well founded.

I could write about what Blacworks has done so far, but that would definitely be blatant advertisement. — actually, you writing about it would be a conflict of interest. However, if your company did something notable (as demonstrated by citing independent, reliable secondary sources in order to verify the claim), it'd be perfectly fine for someone to write an article on it. I mean, technically speaking, you could write the article yourself, but you have to be very careful to not do what you have already done— that is, making it promotional. Though, I'd probably say that an otherwise notable company is unlikely to be deleted even if its primary contributors are from the company itself—so long as it meshes with our policies and guidelines. Of course, it all depends on the consensus of the AfD people.

If you want, you can work on an article in your user space (e.g. User:Blacwiki/Sandbox). From there, you can ask ask other editors (or even me, just so long as you're nice about it) about whether it's likely okay to include in the main space. Editors who have been around longer tend to have a good feel for whether or not something is likely to pass or fail AfD discussions. That way you don't have to worry about it getting the axe too soon and you have a full revision history to work with.

In response to you quoting what I said, perhaps you didn't see the part where I said, "fortunately," which completely changes the meaning of the sentence (i.e., fortunately they're sourced/well-recognized/etc, or they'd be deleted just like every other non-notable company). It's late/early. Perhaps you read it as "unfortunately," which would imply that I actually would want to delete them— obviously not the case.

Finally, articles for deletion is not "permanent deletion," and we don't arbitrarily nominate an article for deletion if it doesn't exist. But, if an article is deleted due to notability concerns (like it would likely be in your case), it is considerably harder to recreate the page without clearly demonstrating notability (in comparison to the ease of recreation of a speedily-deleted article, like yours). However, if AfD is actually want you want, perhaps consider re-creating the article yourself, assert some sort of notability, and nominate it for deletion if you so desire. *shrug* It's totally up to you :).

Overall, perhaps I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by arguing with me ad nauseam. Nothing's going to change, and I am not going to reverse my decision. In the time you've spent arguing policy you could have addressed the problems I've mentioned and possibly made something golden. Don't worry, though, there's still plenty of time to remedy the situation, as there is no deadline. --slakr^\ talk / 12:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're an Asshole

Yep thats what you are an Asshole--Ni5674 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Spaceballs:

Colonel Sandurz: That is his name sir. Asshole, Major Asshole!

Dark Helmet: And his cousin?

Colonel Sandurz: He's an asshole too sir. Gunner's mate First Class Philip Asshole!

...

Dark Helmet: I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes!

Cheers. :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Alex tew page

Dear Slakr

I created a short page on Alex Tew, why was it deleted? I thought it was fair and objective. drop me a line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakenmeister (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see slakr FAQ #1 at the top of the page. Then see the deletion log. --slakr^\ talk / 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

yep, seen them. I thought that it was a good idea to separate the person from the website, and in fact move the personal details of the founder to a person's page. the reasons for deleting it earlier were because it repeated other material, I agree with not repeating materials, but I think that splitting material is the answer to that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakenmeister (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The first afd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Tew) decided that if the only thing notable that he's done has been that site, then he doesn't need a new article. The new article didn't add anything new that was notable, so it was deleted, because it didn't address the concerns of the prior AfD. --slakr^\ talk / 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving off the Rollback page

There's no sense continuing on the Non-admin rollback page - except that you're right, I did misread and "mis-answer" your post and I should have read it more carefully, my excuse is that I didn't want to see any more selective quotes from IRC channels, that's not a good direction to go on WP nowadays. That said:

1. In theory, bots are supposed to slack off when they see replication lag, the &maxlag=5 parameter is a basic tenet of the bot pages. The bot should queue it's changes locally until it gets clear access otherwise IMO it's a bad bot. But that doesn't matter because:

2. From the bot POV and the WP POV, who cares? If it's a vandalism revert, it's necessary, so why not put it on the queue? It's an UPDATE to write back the BLOB, just let the query planner deal with it. If that lags the DB, so what? It's not deadlocking anything, it just slows down the rate that new pages are acquired, if anything, that's a beneficial rate-limiting step.

3. And despite BC's comments, if a single user can bring down the WP servers that is an impressive achievement and doesn't bode well for DDOS attacks! Plus there's a paradox there - the bot's are supposed to be reverting vandalism, if there is so much vandalism that the bot can slay the servers, doesn't that mean there's no way to combat vandalism? I don't know the bot methods, I would think the best method would be to subscribe to the RSS Recentchange feed (which many thousands can subscribe to), analyze for vandalism there, then come back to correct it with the form calls. However they do it though:

4. What these guys seem to be asking for is access to the "rollback token" which means that once they decide to revert, rather than use the server to assemble the sequence of retrieve the page, format it into an edit page c/w edit token, transmit, client returns the entire requested page version, server writes it back; they wish instead to push back a token that lets the server instead "update PG_VERSION set data = (select data from OLD_VERSION)" [pretend that's real SQL syntax] What this does is avoid multiple SELECT's, HTML'izing on the server and to/for network load. There will (or should) still be one UPDATE per vandalism.

5. And my concerns are: they could do all that by just requesting admin status for their bots, which they have done in the past and been rejected; not sure how to read BC's comments but it seems like he already does indiscriminate rollback when the first (latest) vandal diff is detected - I don't like that thought; and I don't necessarily buy the whole bot/load/bandwidth argument.

Anyway, sorry for the verbiage, you happen to be a good place for me to type my thoughts to see if they're a load of crap. I actually don't know all that much about the whole process, I just have some reasonably good clues :) Even if I misread your comments, I still think your real comments are all wet, it just took me longer to decide that :) Regards & Cheers! Franamax (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude don't worry about it, I don't really care. :D All things considered, it probably doesn't matter in the long run. Even if there is a negative server impact (which is unlikely), it would be negligible. I was just noting that in my opinion, bots don't need it (again, my personal opinion). I just tend to err on the side of caution (partially for selfish reasons), because since I'm an avid RC patroller, if any given bot goes awry, I'll likely be one of the handful of people scrambling to clean it up before edit conflicts arise (which, after that point, it becomes a pain in the ass) :P Most of my posts were simply rebuttals to people saying "zOMG BOTS NEED IT NOW!!!!" kinds of things. --slakr^\ talk / 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the other really important thing I forgot to mention (that you reminded me about by mentioning sysopping of bots): if bots have rollback they're at an increased risk of being targeted by "teh hax0rs" due to the literally awesome power of mass-rollback. It's likely most bot passwords are stored in cleartext, potentially world-readable, and on a shared server. It's only a matter of time before someone exploits that— especially if the bots are given enhanced editing abilities. --slakr^\ talk / 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(2 e/c's now - I really should type faster and think less :)

Well now you've seen a response from an old-timer who obsesses over every single disk access and network byte and how it relates to the big picture - that's where the BAG guys are coming from too I think, though they may hate me now 'cause I'm against them tagging onto a proposal made for people rather than bots. I'm a zealous RC patroller too, I just do it on my ever-expanding watchlist, I check every change I see coming through and I see lots that get past you front-liners - and each one I look at; evaluate; undo or rollback everything; place a welcome, question or warning if I think it will help; and I take my time 'cause I want to do it right. I can't say I'm happy with a bot blindly doing, well, anything, and I'm not all that happy with a button that lets anyone just point and shoot without having to look at what's under the gun. To mix metaphors, maybe we're singing from the same songsheet. :)

And after the e/c - I don't really buy your argument about bots and passwords either. Getting a bot password doesn't compromise the bot code, it just gets access, no different than any common spyware can. I'll grant you that it's quite possible, I'll also bet you that as soon as it happens the first time, the ensuing storm will temporarily shut down all bots and the problem WILL be fixed and any immediate damage will be quickly fixed. That's just a regular old hacker attack, WP faces way worse problems, like the subtle POV and manipulation of things no RC patroller could ever identify - we can deal with brute force, we are a self-healing community :) Franamax (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'm right with you. It's highly unlikely anything horrible will ever happen, and if it does, it's fixable. But naturally, I had to voice some opposition to the whole thing based on the grounds of it being proposed under some sort of "need" that would outweigh the pitfalls, which I still feel it doesn't demonstrate. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'm also not too thrilled about Betacommand boldly opening a developer ticket to add rollback without clear consensus. --slakr^\ talk / 10:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the link, that is certainly a novel approach :) I see there is a comment in there "apparently this bug is for tracking purposes..." - wonder where that was discussed? I've watched some of the BAG group efforts and I think they're quite frustrated with not being able to get community approval for some of their efforts. I do have sympathy because they are sometimes opposed on less than reasonable grounds but I'd be much happier if they made a single-purpose up-front effort, then I could jump in and support it! Franamax (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

... or just put together a well thought-through proposal, anticipate people's objections, and find a way to alleviate their fears and concerns. For example, if someone had put together a good case for giving the vandalbots rollback (e.g., a benchmark, some calculations, etc— basically ANYTHING that I'm used to dealing with in real life computer-based decisions), then I'd have more gladly signed on. But, alas, when I see stuff like that that's kind of... well... shady, it makes me start to question motives, which is, I guess, part of my job a security freak. :P --slakr^\ talk / 10:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Slakr/Archive 5

Questionable conduct issues

buffalo wings rings

Deletion notice for Xisuthros is not Noah

Amazed

123098john

Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing up for rename

Nerge

Codelyoko193

User Penser

Bot

Contract Lifecycle Management

bug?

Thanks

RfA

Imposter account

hidden text

SineBot malfunction

Opting in adding missing signatures but opting out automated notices

problems with SineBot

SineBot erroneously signing stuff

Toolserveraccount

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Peacekeeper (Farscape)

What should I do?

You are accusing me of vandalising Wikipedia

Blacklist

Question

How You Responding So Fast To Me User Page?

December 2007 warning

Fuck.

Faraz Ahmad

Question on signature help

Thank you!

Response

AIV

Cofteamchink

signing an edited post

Not A Vandal

Wing Chun Magazine

Not vandal - trying to revert a vandalization of an update I placed last month.

Mechquest

German vandalism

user:Kober edit warring

AfD nomination of ScoreHero

SineBot question- list of pages excluded from auto signature

ME!!!

FYI user:kober is at it again

Nice bot

Signbot.

User:Pocopocopocopoco

Accounticus001

Thanks for the brownies!

Semi-protect it already :-P

Regarding User:Tkguy

Pocopocopocopoco is back to edit warring

My Bad, but...

W/E

You can consider this a barnstar

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ships of Homeworld (3rd nomination)

It's just a talk page

Your bot request

Sinebot block button on Wikinews

Sinebot

RE: Your recent edits

Richard Miniter

How fast does Sinebot go?

Your Edit

Last Warning

Sinebot code and foreign langages

My Signature doesn't work!!!!

SineBot is malfunctioning

Vandalism

Destroy

Iowa Cacus

Re:That user

youre gay

Possible sock

Trey Pelton