User talk:Slakr/Archive 6

hey could i get your help

Please Review Seton Hall University Here thanks Rankun (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My edit was appropriate

I removed a redundant list of herbs and spices. from the article [List of Micronutrients] - Wikipedia already has a list of herbs, and a list of spices. Herbs and spices also aren't Micronutrients and so the content was not appropriate for the article. I will be reverting your revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.98.109 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah cool, then ignore that revert :P Sorry 'bout that. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 12:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot & interwiki sigs

Ah, just having a laugh at some of the homophobic rants on your talk page. Referring people to the article on coming out is a class response. You'd get brownie points for that on Usenet.

I've put the opt-out template for SineBot on my userpage, so fingers crossed it's noticed when I submit this.

My sig, as you'll see, goes over to Wikinews - both for userpage and talk. Can the bot be made a little smarter about interwiki sigs? Perhaps append "Prior signature goes to the Wikinews/Whatever project". I think that will be less relevant when SUL is implemented, but for the moment it'll probably fend off gut reactions like mine of "This bot is of above average stupidity." --Brian McNeil /^talk 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, it didn't even occur to me to support interwiki sigs, because so few people have them, lol :P The only problem is that there's no way to verify that one person is another person without following some sort of link. That's partially why I usually just put soft redirects back here when I'm on other projects. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 09:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well roll on SUL... didn't think of someone using it to direct harassment cross-project but it might. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

is slakr a fag

i saw him having buttsex with (a celebrity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.177.22 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people say he's hot, but I have to admit, given the opportunity to buttsecks him, I'd probably decline— he's just not my type. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block away

It would be like, what, the 20th account of mine you nitwits have banned simply because another was banned due to incompetence on you laughable-so-called admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devendorane (talk • contribs) 12:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll find we'll do pretty much anything for you if you're nice enough about it; but, I guess you feel that taking that route is less than ideal. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sup?

Hey, man! I'm the one who vandalised Jack Thompson's page. I did it for a laugh, and I intended to revert it, but you beat me to it! You changed it within, like, 12 seconds! How the hell did you do that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilverAce (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pigeons. Very highly trained pigeons. :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!! I'm gonna have to keep an eye on your edits if this is representative sampling... Pairadox (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help me understand why this page was deleted

Hi there, I'm the author of the Cascade Server page that you recently deleted. As a new user to Wikipedia, I actually used the article on Community Server as a template, as that page's author did a great job in clearly, simply, objectively describing the subject. I specifically tailored it to be as objective as possible, and didn't use any extraordinary or extraneous adjectives in summarizing the subject. This was just the beginning of this article, and I planned to come back this week and add more to the History, Releases, and Features sections. Why was this page still deleted? Particularly when it's based entirely on the format, tone, and structure of another page about a company in the same industry that wasn't deleted? More specifically, here is the text:

Cascade Server is a web content management program, and is developed by Hannon Hill Corporation. It is built with SQLServer, MySQL, and Oracle, and is available as software that can be installed on a web server or via a hosting provider. Cascade Server may be purchased on a per CPU basis or as an S.A.S. (Software As a Service). The most recent version is Cascade Server 5.0, which was released on December 10, 2007[1].

Could you tell me what needs to be changed, or what is inappropriate? I'd like to get this back up as soon as possible. Thanks for your input.

Samberesford (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've read over your Talk page, I now see that the case for a Cascade Server page is even more valid. As an employee of the company that makes Cascade Server, I realize the extremely fine line that I have to tread in creating this article, but Cascade Server (and its owner and my employer) is indeed [1] notable[2], and the only text I had a chance to enter (as seen above) is clearly neutral. I just wanted to add this as I've familiarized myself a bit more with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks again.

Samberesford (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Press releases don't constitute an independent, reliable secondary source per our notability guidelines. Either way, the article didn't assert notability and the content of it was something I would have read in one of the countless IT magazines I get in the mail— mind you, not the good ones; the ones masquerading as magazines for the promotion of the lowest bidder. --slakr^\ talk / 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for future people reading my talk page, please keep in mind that just because it's The Truth™ and you can source it, it doesn't mean that your company/product/biography will survive here. You must say why it's important or it will be deleted on sight; and, even if you say and cite why it's important, that doesn't mean it won't still get deleted because it's not important enough. --slakr^\ talk / 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I concur with your statement that a press release does not constitute an independent, reliable secondary source, I'm not sure I understand it's relevancy here, as neither of the examples I provided above (one from CMSWire.com, the other Inc magazine's listing of Hannon Hill, Cascade Server's developer, on its annual Inc 500 list) are press releases.

However, I realize that you may be referring to the link I included in my first, basic Cascade Server entry. True enough, that was a press release. However, on Community Server's entry, on which I (as a new, unexperienced Wikipedia user) based the Cascade Server entry (the first, rudimentary one and the most recent, more substantial one), there are numerous press releases or other corporate announcements cited, mostly as a reference that whatever the author claims happened (i.e. a new version was released) did indeed happen.

Additionally, your subjective review of the entry's content as something you "would have read in one of the countless IT magazines (you) get in the mail...(and) not (even one of) the good ones" is unnecessary and veers into borderline personal (albeit trivial) territory. In some of the conversations seen above, I note that you've admonished others for this and reminded them that they can be blocked for doing so. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

I believe that the entry I re-posted states how and why the subject is notable, verifiable, and is not blatant advertising. Again, in reviewing this entry, please refer to it in the context of, and even compare it to, the Community Server entry, which I used as what I think is a great, concise entry on a subject that operates in the same industry in which Cascade Server does. Thanks again for your help.

Samberesford (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was a judgment call. I didn't mean any offense or anything, but you did press for the reasoning why I felt it appeared to be blatant advertising, so I told you :P. It was written in language and bias that had no neutral frame of reference, no assertion of notability, or had nothing that would be anything more than an advertising directory entry (in my opinion). G11 is very much a subjective category, but if you ever get around to new pages patrol, you'll probably see why a lot of the random stuff that gets created gets deleted as promotional or non-notable. Remember, this is an encyclopedia— not a directory.

That said, the new version is much, much better. To give you perspective, the first one had only one external link to a press release, had a total of three links back to your site, and had no criticism. Thank you for taking the time to work on that. :D Of course, someone might still nominate it for articles for deletion, so I'd suggest you find more secondary sources to solidify notability just in case. Also, many thanks for being civil about the whole thing— it actually does mean a lot to me. :) Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I definitely see the difference between the first entry and the current one, so thanks for your help in clarifying that, and for your professionalism. And I'll definitely keep on the lookout for more secondary sources. I think I may be getting the hang of this whole Wikipedia thing...

Samberesford (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Block Thanks

Thanks for the block. The district is tracking this down to see if it is the same students who were previously warned. I'll keep you posted --NERIC-Security (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot false positive

Hello! Wanted to let you know about a SineBot false positive, though I'm not sure if it's really preventable. It's probably a rare case.

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, our ship infobox is made up of four separate templates. In order to centralize discussion, I redirected the talk pages of the four templates to the /doc page of the first template, as in this edit. However, I retained the WP:SHIPS project banner so that the templates would still be categorized properly. I also retained the permprot template, but I realize now that that serves no purpose. Anyway, after I placed redirect tags at the top of the talk pages, SineBot signed my "posts". TomTheHand (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good call, I need to exempt #REDIRECTs, as I didn't anticipate people redirecting talk pages in such a way :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

whats your problem? no friends? dupe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnoman1234 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

dunno, man. --slakr^\ talk / 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, sorry for inadvertently reverting the reversion you made when removing the vandalism on User talk:Allen3 -- I had been tracking back what User:NOT A VANDALISMONLY ACCOUNT had been changing then hit 'last' and 'vandalism'... when your talk page came up I was thrown into a bit of confusion until I realised what I'd done. Again, sorry for that, I reverted it again. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I didn't even notice :P Keep up the good work, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Will Beback‎

You might be interested in taking a look at the recent history of this page. The editor you blocked is almost certainly a sock. Will's page might need semi-protecting, and the other socks blocked. Pairadox (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, but it seems like the block holds whoever is doing it for the time being, thus making it a pain in the ass for them to try to keep doing whatever they're doing. It takes me a couple seconds to block them, but it takes them considerably longer to create them. Eventually people catch on to that concept :P I'll semi it if it's needed, though— I just shy away from semi'ing user talk pages unless absolutely necessary. --slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

Three accounts that were recently indefinitely blocked (one by you), User:A Darker Echo, User talk:A Head Rocker, and User talk:Earache Dork are clearly all the same person. They were all vandalizing Swedish emigration to the United States, and two of them vandalized my user page after I gave one a warning. Isn't there some way to block the IP that is being used, or we will have to deal with a continuous string of these accounts? I read through some sockpuppet pages, but it isn't obvious where to report this. Hopefully, you can do something, or at least steer me in the right direction. LeSnail (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock

Check out Embarrassing Details (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - probable sock of Differing Views (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same M.O. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unban LaruaWA11

You idiots banned the account for no reason, now it's time to unban it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aranproxitile (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you have the wrong guy. I've never blocked that person. Check out the block log to see who all has. --slakr^\ talk / 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aranproxitile (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well

I still think that you an awesome person! Although most vadals aren't. SuperGodzilla2090 4 TACOZ! 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thanks, man. Take it easy =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You Suck Big Cock

deleteing my useful edits thats some asshole shit i was just trying to make wikipedia fun then you banned me from editing that was gay i bet you were one of those people that got bullied when they were younger (removed possible BLP issue name) WOULD KICK YOUR ASS YOur NOT A BADASS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.176.124 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but when I watched this family guy episode, what you said happened didn't actually happen. Your other edits weren't much better, but in your defense, you do come from a shared IP (your school in ohio), so it's quite possible that you did actually make a good edit in there somewhere.

As for me being a badass, I definitely don't claim to be, because I know you clearly already have that covered. Back in the '60s, there were teenage drinkers, crack smokers, violent gangsters, and bikers who used to kill policeman and get off with a slap on the wrist because they had the judges in their back pockets. But, now I can clearly see that you've outdone all of them, because you, my friend, have vandalized pages on Wikipedia. You've dared to go were no man boy has gone before. Now that's bBadass with a capital B. Badass to the max. Whenever you walk into a room, all the goodass turns badass so as not to evoke your badassed wrath.

As for being the bullied kid? Meh, not really. I wasn't popular, but I wasn't bottom of the food chain either. On the upside, I now make more money and have more fun in my life than the sum total of the popular kids squared, because I was always enjoyably the computer nerd who knew where his priorities were. Sure, it sucked, because I don't have a high school claim to fame, but now I have college, business, and soon medical school claims to fame. Funny how that works out, huh?

As for you? Well, I can't say much, because I honestly don't know. I don't really keep in touch with the types of people who had your same type of personality and enjoyed your same interests. Sadly, I haven't heard from them since— well, actually I'm not even fully sure if they graduated. I mean, surely they did (or at least got GEDs), but I just don't remember their names to be able to try to find them again. I mean, I'd probably recognize them if someone said their names or if I looked through the yearbooks, but if they walked up to me today? I dunno. It's weird, too, because I'm only 22. It's just funny to realize how quickly the people who were once at the pinnacle of their fame quickly fade into obscurity— all before they turn 20.

It's ironic, too, because they were the types of people who would write in my yearbook things like, "You better keep this, because one day I'll be famous." Truth be told, I actually had high hopes for them, because back then it seemed they had everything needed for success. Recently, though, my hopes for their ambitions suffered a minor setback, as I heard that one now works in the parking lot at Walmart on the east side of town, but that's just hear-say. Surely the others have gone on to more noble pursuits... surely....

On the upside, you, on the other hand, might just defy the odds that are stacked against you and come out on top. Be sure to let me know how all that pans out for you a few years down the road, because so far none of the others have been heard from again (oh, excepting the shopping cart dude at Walmart, but I'm still not sure on that one). However, if you want to make your odds for future success considerably greater (regardless of your current academic standing), then you might consider reading the encyclopedia instead of vandalizing it. You might start at our article on book burning. It's fascinating, a good place to start, and I think you might be able to personally relate to it.

Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot mistake

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that SineBot made a mistake with [3]. Thanks! -- Creidieki 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Mysdaao ^talk 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signature

thankyou for your sine bots info on signatures it will help me in the future and nice name i get the pun slakr slacker lol ;) Mirrorofsauron (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

MAN you sure seem pretty unpopular from what i have read on your talk page

but i have no grudge against you so dont take me into account for things like that most of the time ip addresses can be blocked because more than one person uses them that has happend to me before it was strange —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually all of the personal attacks are from vandals whom I warned and likely proceeded to block, so I don't really see them as attacks, but actually compliments that I'm doing a good job. I'd be more worried if they didn't post that stuff, because then I would feel that I wasn't doing enough. :P --slakr^\ talk / 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing something already signed

[4] Thanks. MRSC • Talk 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Eek, it looks like you missed the extra tilde to add the datestamp (signing with only three tildes produces only the first part of the signature). Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Exploding Wales

I've closed it early due to the current consensus for a redirect to the current FA, Exploding Whales. If you have any other comments, don't hesitate to ask. Best, Rudget. 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I remember reading about exploding whales... totally didn't see the redirect, and I simply assumed that since it had no prior AfD it should have one. Anyway, thanks and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ;) Rudget. 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Paris

Hi, maybe you know it, but since the edits of Moose Sheriff and my attempts to fix them, the talk page of Paris is in bad shape. I prefer not to try to fix it myself, so if you can help. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Weird, I could have sworn it was already reverted. Anyway, fixed. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello! How are you? 24.68.139.249 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, and yourself? If you're looking for a good place to start, you might consider visiting our welcome page. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

i fell in a crick, waytr, get me my soup. 24.68.139.249 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Actually I felt more amused than harassed. But thanks anyway! MSGJ (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, *shrug* I figured I'd undo his nonsense and block him anyway. :P Keep up the good work, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 15:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnoticed comment

I cannot find a responce to my question which I sent you a month ago. You most likely responded, and I just lost the message, but where exactly is the bot's source code located? ffm 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It currently isn't public yet. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that it could be set up for the OLPC Wiki? ffm 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

LOL, proxies. 75.170.30.173 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Anon

Umm, okay? :P Unfortunately I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask/say. --slakr^\ talk / 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{sudo}}

Just wanted to drop by to let you know that I LOL'ed when I saw that {{sudo}} redirected to {{editprotected}}. Very creative =) Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 22:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And also a convenient way for me to keep track of all the protected edit requests I've made since I created it. That is, unless someone else starts using it – Gurch 23:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to realise missing sig

Didn't SineBot used to give users a little bit of time to realise they didn't sign before auto signing for them? Jecowa (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It still does, except on certain high-traffic pages where edit conflicts are more likely or people have explicitly requested it. --slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Normally im not dropping a note on these kind of things. However, i just had to let you know that was the best line for removing a Semi Protect i ever saw. :)

(cur) (last) 13:58, 14 January 2008 Slakr (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism": rm semi - seems the dirty socks have found their way to the laundry for the time being [move=sysop]) (undo)

--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, you should see some of my block durations. I'm sure the school vandals here in the US scratch their heads when they see the word "fortnight" :P --slakr^\ talk / 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for SineBot

After just getting a notice about needing to sign pages, I came up with this idea: Could SineBot check to see if the user is an admin or "experienced" user in that then they shouldn't get the notice? I didn't check if I had forgot to sign something, but: I don't care. SineBot (and others) cleanup my mistakes most of the time and I don't really need a message from a bot telling me to sign pages. I'm clearly an experienced user, and the notice is slightly annoying than helpful for someone like me. I see the opt out, but it's too late: I've already been notified. Just an idea, please take it as an attempt of constructive criticisms and nothing else. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion. I very much appreciate it. =) On one hand I thought about simply doing that (i.e., signing anything an experienced user forgets to sign and not bugging them ever), but I don't want people to be over-reliant on it. I think the good compromise, though, would be instead of reminding experienced users every 3 sigs:24 hours every 3 days (or whatever I have it currently set at), I could just bump it up to like 10 or something, so that the only way it will bug someone is if they're clearly trying to rely on the bot instead of simply signing their posts. Thanks again =) Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki SineBot??

Hiyya. SineBot is doing an awesome job here. I happen to be an admin on three other wikis (indeed, the sole admin on gdwikti!!). I was wondering if you would like to possibly run SineBot on some more wikis (pretty-please!) It would be totally awesome to have your bot on ga.wikipedia :) I'll do any translation work needed, if you're into doing that. Thoughs? - Alison ^❤ 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure... I've been trying to work out the possible issues on a the run at wikinews, which is so far promising. Plus, they juuuust got my toolserver account activated, so I'll be poking around there to see how stable it is and sticking some stuff on there for public use. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh - excellent! Do keep me posted :) If this works out, I'd like to give it a shot to have it running using the Irish language and Scottish Gaelic :) Anything I can do to help, let me know - Alison ^❤ 06:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

reversion

When reverting to ClueBot, as you did here, please be sure that the edit that was undone by the bot in the first place was actually vandalism. The bot adheres to 1RR for a reason, because false positives do exist. —Random832 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually do, and I also did in that case. I reverted the edit because I felt that the blog link was spam and notified the editor accordingly. Thanks for looking out for me. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way... that school's down the street from me. I take it you have it watchlisted in order to have seen that edit so late... did you used to go there or something? That'd be kind of weird/cool/coincidental, 'cause one of my close friends went there back in the day. :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I watch the cluebot false positive reports. Just thought I'd leave a note since I couldn't see any obvious reason for the removal (I didn't see your note on the user's talk page) —Random832 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For always having humourous remarks here on your talk and elsewhere, I hereby present you with the Barnstar of Good Humour. Enjoy! Midorihana~いいですね？ 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. :) I don't know why, but now I'm suddenly craving Good Humor ice cream. Weird. :P --slakr^\ talk / 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: BryanBot

Yes, I know that approval is needed to run a bot here. Unfortunately I have to do a one time; Moving back commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request) to the English Wikipedia. It should be done very soon. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I do not know why my page is going to be deleted. Can you help? It says it in the front on my page. SuperGodzilla 2090 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind it was just a template error. SuperGodzilla 2090 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no prob. I was about to say— how dare they delete something from Super Godzilla? Don't they know that he'll level Tokyo for the 1,233,459th time? By the way, I never understood that. Godzilla destroys the city countless times, and yet they just keep rebuilding it, only to have him destroy it again and kill a bunch of people. Couldn't they just as easily move elsewhere and let him just have the damned place? Godzilla would rise for Godzilla 34: Godzilla vs. Gamahydrabugylndra, see that the city was still in ruins and say, "Well crap... I was expecting them to be finished by now. Screw it, I guess I'll just go watch American Idol."

Anyway, glad your page is still there. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thanks anyway! =D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergodzilla2090 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to sign my post to see my new sig but Sinebot got to it first. Supergodzilla^20|90 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

archiving AN/I for racism in userpage

No, it's not resolved. The overwhelming consensus on that particular AN/I thread thinks there is nothing offending about the mere presence of the header, but Viridae violated WP:OWN, conflict of interest (protecting a page when he is in the middle of an edit war), and continue to wikilawyer his action. You're intentionally shutting down the community's voice by archiving an issue that is clearly NOT resolved as my page is still protected because of Viridae's personal bias.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually betacommand archived it, I simply closed the thread, as it was veering off topic. If you want a page unprotected, either contact the protecting admin or request unprotection. Suspected socks should go to suspected socks. I've unprotected your user page for now, and in the future, consider not re-adding the offending text, as I'm fairly confident that it will result in your entire user page's deletion and possible salting, as controversial remarks violate the user page guideline. --slakr^\ talk / 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, "so that people quit shouting "admin abuse" and all that nonsense" - almost sounds like you mean the two posts above yours, which would be me saying "There is a risk that you will be thought to have misused the admin tools" and Jehockman citing a source to say that "In both cases revert-protect action is cited as admin abuse". Neither of us are shouting, neither of us are calling it admin abuse and neither of us are talking nonsense. I'd assume you're talking about other venues where this was shouted? It's not clear from your comment... ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict..I fail to see it as offensive, rather it seems like a concerted effort to persecute and censor my userpage. Controversial contents such as joke banner and that particular header are "frowned upon" based on WP:USER, but not prohibited. Viridae has so far only wikilawyer, but cited no substantial proof for ground of removal. Most of the editors disagree with his protection on the AN/I thread. He ignored them. That's the second time I've been abused by this admin in the last year. He clearly thinks he WP:OWN my userpage even though the community disagree with his action. He also violated "conflict of interest" by engaging in an edit war then protecting my userpage to keep his preferred version. Thanks for unprotecting my userpage though. I'll give it a few hours to see how things go.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you're saying you didn't want me to de-escalate the situation? :P I mean, maybe it's just me, but it seems like a pretty simple and quick solution that is mutually beneficial to all involved parties: i.e., tell the user not to post controversial stuff on his/her user page or the whole thing's gonna get deleted. It doesn't need indefinite full protection or a discussion spanning anything over 20kb of text, nor allegations of admin abuse. :P And yes, "nonsense," because there are better things to be doing than this nonsense. As you know, we have processes and channels for dealing with this so that we don't have to deal with it individually. Please don't take it as me saying that anyone's individual concern or argument is nonsense, though— only that in my opinion, the whole situation, itself, is silly. :P --slakr^\ talk / 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(in response to Certified Gangsta): Whether or not you find it offensive is besides the point. If others find it offensive— that's where you've gotta be careful. Obviously, there are exceptions, and that's why we have miscellany for deletion as a sanity check. I was merely cautioning you that that's likely where your user page will end up if you continue to re-insert controversial text. --slakr^\ talk / 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Better yet we can examine Viridae's admin conducts throughout the past months and his repeated effort to persecute me while turning a blind eye on others. Sure I appreciate your effort to de-escalate the situation. Thanks. But I am making no promise that the alllegedly-controversial header wouldn't go back. I consider myself the victim in this case. It's as simple as that. Me and Viridae can shake hands and go about our business and everything would go back to normal, but if he continues to insist against overwhelming odds that he owns my userpage, then it's hard not to see this ending up in arbCom. That wouldn't be beneficial to anyone, does it?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And btw, Viridae unilaterally remove certain contents from my page. I reverted him while also posting on his talkpage citing diffs from the past as explanations. He ignored them then reverted again and protected my userpage. Put yourself in my position, wouldn't you feel pissed off?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Of course that would suck— especially for arbcom... they're already overloaded :D. But, I mean, do what you feel is best for the encyclopedia. If you truly believe that the header is ideal for establishing harmony amongst your fellow editors, then by all means, readd it. Of course, if it unintentionally does the opposite, then be prepared for the red tape of people's objections (e.g., in the form of WP:RFC, WP:MFD, et al). Just be sure to deal with it civilly (naturally :P). Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the most recent: Well, technically-speaking user pages are open to editing by anyone— that is, the user to whom they "belong" doesn't own them, but by convention most people leave others' user pages alone. Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as objectionable content or content that doesn't mesh with our policies. Regardless of whether the dude's actions were right/wrong/whatever, it would seem that you're able to edit your user page again, so you now have a choice: you can keep readding stuff that seems to get people edgy and then risk it all getting deleted (or just the pain in the ass of having to keep dealing with it); or, you could simply get back to editing there's a lot of stuff to be editing besides our user pages. :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No one ever had any objection other than Sumple, Sumple's sock, Sumple's IP and now Viridae. I can tell you now that MFD would be a waste of time because there wouldn't be a consensus. It's just joke banner redux.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean, if people come to the consensus that it's fine to leave it be, then Viridae won't touch it any more (nor anyone else) so long as you don't up the ante and add something else others perceive as controversial :P. But, if they decide to delete it, then it'll be a serious pain in the ass :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't up the ante. Me and El C have a gentlemen's agreement not to add anything offensive to my userpage. That header was deemed appropriate. It is already a serious pain in the ass having to deal with this not to mention the time wasted. I'm not available on wiki 24/7.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

HI IRISHGUY

Hi

just wondering what is wrong with me supporting the Eyliner page its not as if i actually made it.

Gassy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.111.73 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Irishguy :P --slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unable to find history of deleted article on "Charles Derry"

I've spent 1.5 hours trying to find the thread that documents your deletion of "Charles Derry," without success. It seems not to be listed in and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 [Month] [Date]" through a month prior to the deletion on 4 January 2008. It seems strange that an article would be deleted without even a mention.

I do plan on providing arguments for reinstatement, including citation of several studies of film history and genre that attest to the importance of Derry's work. Bur I presume that the arguments must be tied to some record of the deletion. Let me know how to continue, unless this Slakr page is merely a record of Bot actions...

If there's any muttering to issue, it is that the actions of deletion function rather fast for reaction from some editor who has a life to live, far removed from watching every letter typed in Wikipedia...

Hope to hear from you soon, and through tgkohn@aol.com, if at all possible. Tgkohn (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I deleted it due to an expired {{prod}} (check out proposed deletion for more information). It was originally tagged on Dec 30 by Carl wilhoyte (talk · contribs). It was also unsourced and therefore unable to be verified for notability of biographies since July 2007. You are welcome to recreate it— especially if you feel you can improve on the prior text. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SineBot and REDIRECT

Hi, I redirected some talk pages today, whose associated article pages were a redirect to another target article. I think if a user also changes the talk page to a redirect (the only thing left on the page) SineBot shouldn't sign it, as a #REDIRECT is not a comment. I've opted out of auto-signing now anyways. Thanks. --Breno ^talk 09:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An example is this history. --Breno ^talk 09:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: arbitration statement

I have a strong objection to the following characterization

Inadvertent canvassing using Template:Watchlist — I say inadvertent, because posting a watchlist message to registered users is an issue of conflict of interest, much like posting a rally to a non-notable forum up for deletion is also a conflict of interest. My reasoning here is that there is a fundamental net gain from any editor supporting the ability to receive +rollback who isn't an admin already. As a result, people who wouldn't even be interested in policy changes in the first place or even know what rollback is are suddenly called to action, thereby artificially inflating the vote count, stimulating a false dichotomy, and reaffirming why polls are evil.

You seem to be saying "only policy wonks should have a say in policy". That not only should we ignore the masses, but measures to increase participation are actively harmful. And the idea that the views held by the general population of editors is somehow different than what would be arrived at if this proposal were left to obscurity seems to be saying "There is a consensus for this, but I don't want it to be known that there is a consensus" rather than claiming there was any distortion to consensus, and even saying you would LIKE for consensus to have been distorted by limiting participation. (this is ignoring, by the way, the fact that the only reason it was put up there was due to complaints, from people who were against the proposal, that the village pumps and WP:CENT weren't adequate notification.) And it's awfully rich that you point this out while ignoring the blatant canvassing by Doc Glasgow on wikien-l (WP:CANVASS says the wording of the message matters, and his message was horribly biased against the proposal) —Random832 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I never said, "only policy wonks should have a say in policy," nor did I suggest that as a remedy to the solution. What I was saying was analogous to this:

1. Someone proposes that every +autoconfirmed user be made an administrator (a policy that surely will not garner consensus, all things considered).
2. Someone posts that proposal's vote (remember, the second run was a de jure vote as opposed to the first) to {{Watchlist-notice}}.
3. Resultant storm of users agree that that's the only way to prevent admin abuse.
4. "Consensus" is achieved.

Granted, it is unlikely that that would ever happen, but it involves the same force: an influx of users with a self-interest in advancing their power, creating a tyranny of the majority. It's a simple direct proportion: the more people that can gain from a proposition are recruited, the greater the possibility that they will voice support for it. The concept applies to AfDs where people rally supporters in an attempt to sway consensus. However, the good thing about AfDs is that the closing admin actually is (usually) impartial, and knows policy well enough to sift out the SPAs and nonsense arguments. In an actual vote on policy, however, there's nothing to fall back on, and the only determiner is presumably sheer numbers. So, again, if the people who are in the clear majority are presented with a choice of either gaining an edge over someone else or not, it would seem natural for them to favor gaining the edge.

Is this what really happened? I have no clue. :P Was that intentional? Probably not. :P I'm just saying, with everything taken together, it doesn't make for either a good measure of consensus or a good measure of well-informed vote. --slakr^\ talk / 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know of the canvassing by Doc Glasglow or whatever (I don't subscribe to that list). Still, it doesn't make either side right: two wrongs don't make a right nor balance each other out. --slakr^\ talk / 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So, since all non-administrators have something to potentially gain from this proposal, what you're actually saying is that only administrators should have a say in policy. I'm not sure that's any better. But the assumption that a profit motive is the only thing driving any wikipedia user who participates in policy discussion is quite contradictory to WP:AGF. —Random832 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict: *swats at you for not using "show preview"*) No, yet again, I never implied that— read my AfD example: every user has say in AfD, but when they canvas for 'keep' support, that's when things turn to muck. Remember, I said inadvertently, because Watchlist-notice is so new that there's not really precedent as to its use and whether it should even be used extensively on policy issues. I'm simply stating that this is one of the instances (i.e., an issue of clear self-interest on the side of users), that Watchlist-notice probably shouldn't have been used. But, that's only my opinion (i.e., had I had the choice of doing it), and keep in mind I'm far less BOLD than most. :P --slakr^\ talk / 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take semi-protection as a counter-example. Every non-administrator has something to gain from the implementation of semi-protection: the ability to, uninterrupted, edit pages that would otherwise be fully protected due to vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc. So, non-admins shouldn't have been consulted for that?

or, How about the ability for autoconfirmed users to do page moves? Let's suppose, for whatever reason, page move was limited to administrators and then we later considered giving it to autoconfirmed. Should that proposal be limited to admins (the only people with nothing to gain from a positive result, since they can already move pages)? or, hell, deciding it in the first place - there'd be MANY more pages move-protected if non-autoconfirmed users could do page moves, so the stuff above I said about semiprotection applies more clearly to this —Random832 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that there is in fact nothing for anyone but the servers to gain from non-admin rollback anyway, so your premise is false. —Random832 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing that any proposal should be limited on any scale. I used a generic, hypothetical permissions/power-based scenario as an analogy as to the potential issues surrounding mass notification of people who would clearly be anticipated to vote in one specific direction, not based on what's good for the wiki, but potentially what's good for themselves. Those that actually are interested in the health of the encyclopedia will already be watchlisting active proposals. Same goes for people from "Forum zOMG!" that is up for deletion— the people who care about inclusion/exclusion on Wikipedia will be the ones voicing their concerns by default, but people will rally support for "keeps," again, like I was saying, because posting to "Forum zOMG!"'s forums that their entry is up for deletion spurs interest in otherwise uninterested individuals. --slakr^\ talk / 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that there is in fact nothing for anyone but the servers to gain from non-admin rollback anyway, so your premise is false. — If you care to make a wager, I'll gladly run statistics on the number of users who will pass RfA without +rollbacker and/or people who have controversial +rollbacker histories. --slakr^\ talk / 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And what will those statistics accomplish, besides to establish (if anything) that ordinary users have something to _lose_ (by making RFA more difficult to pass) from +rollbacker being enabled? Whatever the merits of that being a problem, it's not the best way to support an argument that they have something to gain. —Random832 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't supporting an argument that they had something to gain (see below), since we've bifurcated. :P --slakr^\ talk / 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

bots

Tacking on bots to a discussion about users and the subsequent hard-closing discussion after only 3 days of being active with atypical reasoning “I'm closing this, because it's already been acted on” ??? I could be wrong, but someone being BOLD in giving bots +rollbacker does not constitute consensus— especially after only 3 days of discussion (presumably because someone assumed it was a vote, which, in that particular case should be highly frowned upon because it involves technical issues that actually do need discussion).

citation needed. —Random832 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why I need to go back and sift through the madness just to re-quote all of the potential problems I raised for re-discussion on my talk page. I guess I'm too lazy and too easily let things go. Best case, nothing bad happens and life is roses; but, it would seem that my concerns about non-rate-limited rollback were valid enough for the developers to unilaterally implement rate-limiting (5rollbacks:60secs) for +rollbacker users. So, if you'd like to rehash that point, you can take it up with them. Moreover, I don't think I need to cite the first part of my concerns, which involved prematurely closing a discussion based on non-consensus-based reasoning. --slakr^\ talk / 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they were able to implement it with no fanfare clearly indicates it's not something that should have sunk the proposal. Several of the other opposes (there were only six total, and only three distinct ones, the last being an objection to the general principle of letting bots do anything above autoconfirmed) were objections to the fact that rollback undoes every consecutive edit by the user instead of just undoing the last one, which was ridiculous because (A) the bots already do that and (B) admin rollback already does that; which are both because (C) if someone blatantly vandalizes, their other edits to the same article in the same sequence 99.9999% probability weren't constructive either. —Random832 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(in response) ... I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. Your original concern was over my concern about closing the discussion prematurely. How do the merits of bot rollback factor in to that? I could just be having a blond moment, though. :P

(continuing from above) ... My point exactly— it could have a net loss. Regardless, this isn't about the merits/pitfalls of non-admin rollback, and this isn't the place to continue a discussion on it. I'm fine going with consensus (see also: my entire edit history on any topic), but my continuing problem is that I'm not sure if this was an accurate gauge of it. I hope it was, but from my perspective, I feel that there were plenty of anomalies to suggest that data might be skewed. Whether you choose to agree with my conclusion is totally up to you, and it would seem that you do not. That's totally fine too, but I don't really wanna re-enact the entire discussion at the original proposal/talk page, because I really wanna get back to doing more important things. :P --slakr^\ talk / 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

... which reminds me this might be of interest to you. --slakr^\ talk / 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a DICK!

What the fuck did you delete the page for? It wasn't vandalism or a hoax. That was just a page about me you fuckin' kike commie butt fucker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleph-'Ayin (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as vandalism, but if it was intentional that you create an article that does not mesh with list of policies, then the more specific reason would be that it provides no context and that it is about a person and doesn't assert that person's significance. You might consider looking into our userpage policy if you would like to upload non-encyclopedic stuff. Also keep in mind we have a no personal attacks policy. --slakr^\ talk / 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to assert my significance because you deleted the page before I could even finish it you fuckin' retard. How the fuck is anyone going to do anything constructive when lifeless retard virgins like you sit on the fuckin' computer and delete their shit before they get a chance to finish it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleph-'Ayin (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that you were creating your own article, because that would be considered a conflict of interest. As a result, I simply assumed it was someone possibly attacking you as well. Actually, for all I know, you could actually still be intending to do so. Aside from that, if you would like to work on the article in your user space (you can even create a subpage on it), we'd be totally fine with that. However, it would be advisable that you stop the personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing, and that would totally suck. --slakr^\ talk / 23:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:SineBot#Hail, Glorious Bot! - request to include another page

I'm not sure if you read the talk page above very often, so I posted a link to it here as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take a look at its user page for all of the opt-in options. In short, you can add the page to Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed and the bot will monitor it. --slakr^\ talk / 02:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind. By the way, I noticed you're creeping up on 200,000 edits. Lemme know what you want for the big two-oh-oh whenever you get a chance. Later. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not my day

I'm still a bit new to this whole anti-vandalism thing having only been at this a week or so. Those unregistered users don't seem especially fond of me today, with two attempts in less than 12 hours of copying *their* warnings to *my* talk page. How do experienced users like yourself deal with things like that? DJBullfish (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just ignore/revert them and possibly send a {{Uw-tempabuse}} in reply. Either way, it clearly means they've read the warnings and have ignored them, so the next time they vandalize you can just report the person to WP:AIV, as I highly doubt they're going to miraculously start editing normally at that point. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My edit to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi. Here I was just restoring a comment by another user that had been lost; I don't think it's appropriate for my signature to appear there. Regards,--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'd say just use !nosign! in the edit summary to prevent stuff like that (the bot thinks you're signing as someone else). Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing

I did sign my name but got logged out at the last minute. So I logged in and signed again underneath it. I was about to post this on your bot's talk page, but there were too many rules and specifics over there, and it linked over here. ― LADY GALAXY 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill out man!

All I'm trying to do is create a page, but every time I try, it gets deleted because you and some "IrishGuy" keep jumping the gun. Now your trying to say that next time I try I'll get blocked. I don't know if you are just following policies or you are following your own personal vendetta but please chill out and don't block me for such petty matters. Besides, it isn't like I was caught vandalizing Abraham Lincoln. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsdgato (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Return vandals

As I mentioned on WP:AIV, 64.28.14.214 and 139.179.90.207193.213.12.174 are both return vandals, with countless warnings, by appearance on a single-user IP, often making defammatory edits over a space of several months. And you don't believe this is worth a longer block than 31 hours? The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Their edits only span a the last day, so presumably they are on dynamic IPs. So, if I make the block too long, then I'll affect potentially good users; and, I try to avoid collateral damage when possible. If they return under the same IP, I'll be happy to block for longer. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

64.28.14.214 has been the same person every time. Vandalism in June 2006: [5] and November 2007: [6] are clearly the same person, and the vandalism style is similar: laughs vs. laughs vs. laughs; also actually using text vandalism (not to mention the use of accounts on the IP as well, like User:Yomansdatter). The second isn't as bad as I first thought, though I stand by the likely possibility. However, I just don't see the point in waiting until next time, when there have already been 5 next times before. IMHO, it really trivializes the effect of warnings, so that users know they can ignore them. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, they couldbe the same people, but I don't think the similarities are uncanny enough for me to make the call that they're definitely the same person. Plus, they only seem to vandalize in very short-lived, self-contained spurts. The last one was a few months back, the one before that even longer. --slakr^\ talk / 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi slakr, why did you block one account Dreamyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but not the other? 74.133.9.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They were obviously the same person based on the contribs. Thanks. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Helloooooo is anyone there? 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's redundant. Blocking the first account autoblocks the second one (assuming they're the same person, which I'm 99.9% confident they are). --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh oh well. It'd be more fun to block em both don't ya think? Cheers. ;) 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DFW

Are you a part of the DFW WikiProject? It currently is inactive, but I (not knowing this) became a member. I wanted to "revive" it. If you are interested in helping, contact me. Basketball110 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to help when I can. =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

I was wondering, since you have "Sinebot", and you seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to bots, can you help me make one? I have everything is should do, when, you know... I just want to know if you can help me first. Is it possible to reply on my talk page? Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to create a bot similar to yours, but instead it reminds people to use edit summaries when they forget 10 times or more in one week. Check out this template: {{summary}}, that is the message it should leave them. Can you help out? It would be appreciated! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cavanaugh Family

Regarding Francis Cavanaugh, Francis Killian Cavanaugh, Lucas Cavanaugh, and George Cavanaugh. Thank You for the advice on the page number thing. I have added proper page numbers to all of my recently added pgs and I am still trying to find more references and more books. I did a whole research paper for this family in high school and I"m trying to do another now in college. Also I have a little back round with them. The page including Francis Cavanaugh, he is the brother of my great-grandfather. So I have no clue what that makes me to that whole family but I still like to research them. --Hdxstunts1 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but fish snackums are real...

They appear in the cartoon Jimmy Neutron, and Spongebob... Also they are eaten in a few northern Europen countries... If you would like me to submit a more detailed page on them, I shall. You, my friend are flat out rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MXB2011 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, just please be sure that they're in line with our policies. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Non-standard warnings

Hi there... I was just wondering why huggle doesn't use standard Wikiproject user warnings templates. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't have a parameter for a link to a diff of the reverted revision. Also, I don't like them – Gurch 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

4chan

Removing the external links I added was understandable, removing the rest of my serious edits to that article was not. The current Anonymous campaign is getting massive amounts of media covrage. Mrmoocow (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, my bad. I totally didn't see those there. I need sleep :P Anyway, fixed. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote or die, bitch!

Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Rjd0060. 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ermm... I've never voted on RFA in my life. :P Btw, please keep in mind we have a no canvassing policy, as I've noticed your recent comments are fairly canvass-y. Cheers. :) *dies*. --slakr^\ talk / 05:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

could you ban user froggerr5 the revenge. he constantly vandalises wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matster9090 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AGENDA article

May I know why is my article deleted the entire time?

Why am I not allows to include Agenda's news into wikipedia?

I see Publicis, WPP, Leo Burnett articles in wikipedia as well, and so is another subsidiary in WPP.

I need to know why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missylane (talk • contribs) 10:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Chances are the article itself might be fine, but the entire thing was blatantly written like an advertisement for the company. If you happen to work for the company yourself, please be sure to read our conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 10:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so basically it is the way it was written not the article itself?

What do you mean the way it was written sounds like blatant advertising? I was basically trying to follow the style of how the rest of the companies were written? :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missylane (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out our neutral point of view policy. Basically, pretend you're writing an academic/research paper about the company, so avoid peacock terms, weasel words, and all sorts of other non-neutral things that you wouldn't find in a normal encyclopedia. --slakr^\ talk / 10:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Slakr : Im afraid Im not too computer savvy. With regards to my edit signing four tildes was something I did using the tilde click as I cannot find the appropriate symbol on the keyboard. I hope that is satisfactory.

come on!

how could u delete AWESOME SQUAD, its so amazingly funny and stuff, just because it doesnt have acutal importence doesnt mean it cant be on here, does the word indefatigableness's have any acutal imporntence either besides the fact its a word, AWESOME and SQUAD are words so you are just being wordist, jerk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabebeck (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's possible it was awesome. but, it didn't assert why it was awesome, so it was de-awesomed. --slakr^\ talk / 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Then, do you know a place where I can take my rage out at Pacific Hills Christian School? 220.233.30.154 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've always found it ideal to use a blog, since there you can post a whole bunch of stuff about people you don't like and get away with it (and not have to worry about dudes like me coming along and undoing it) :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers man! :) 220.233.30.154 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your user page

Sorry I edit your user page but I did not think that you would like vandalism on your page. :P Supergodzilla^20|90 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no problem, thanks for doing so. Feel free to revert away the vandals :P --slakr^\ talk / 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking a look at the Template:US mobile phone companies edit. I understand your reasons and agree with them; at the time the request was made the only person actively demanding the current version of the page had disappeared and stopped posting for nearly a week (he'd only been involved for one day.) He returned two days after we made the request and some degree of discussion started. Sorry to waste your time! --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Reverts to User:DavidJ710

Thanks for catching the Vandalism on my Userpage. Keep up the great work!  DavidJ710  talk  19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PatrolLinks script

I've made a few tweaks to the script, to allow the hiding/showing of the links and so that it uses real HTML elements instead of ones I made up. See full description here. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

Please see talk page there before you revert again. You are helping User:Farsiwan22 (sockpuppet of User:Beh-nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxi (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem you were the one who was blocked for sockpuppetry— not him. --slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironic

I find it ironic that a "Slakr" would be beating me to vandalism blocks and warns. Well done! - Philippe | Talk 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In defense of my name, however, I was totally slacking yesterday because of a hangover, so I figured I should make up for it today. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you're from hell Dallas. I'm in just north of hell Tulsa - in fact, it's so bad, that we go to Dallas for fun. Good to see someone from the neighborhood. - Philippe | Talk 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

The intervention against vandalism‎ that I was looking for was for someone to put a warning on his page. I didn't want to have to do it myself. As a non administartor, I do not feel I should have to be targeted by disgruntled vandals.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:AIV is primarily for obvious/persistent vandalism; however, it appeared that that user had not received a single warning, and I didn't know the topic well enough to be comfortable calling it vandalism. You might consider dropping a templated warning (ideally a 1st-level as it assumes good faith) on the user's talk page. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot error

[7]. It's an obvious case where a comment is moved from one section to another by another user. Such a move shouldn't be signed. Signbot shouldn't just look for the user's signature, it should look for any signature. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It won't sign if a comment is moved all in one diff, however you chose to delete and then readd in separate steps, so the bot simply assumes that your signature is either: non-compliant with WP:SIG or you're trying to forge someone else's signature to make it looks like they said something they didn't. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Slakr, while this is not an error of Sinebot itself, as you can see from Talk:Mongolian language, I (G Purevdorj) usually sign my contributions, but recently my signature doesn't become a link anymore and thus SineBot has ceased to realize my signing. Can you tell the reason why my link doesn't get established? G Purevdorj 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Safavids

I hope I'm responding to the correct person. In regards to the Safavids, it would appear racism has reared it's ugly head. The intro simply needs to be clear, concise and direct. As for ethnic orgins, why not place it under the origins heading and simply let the reader(s) decide for themselves.Kansas Bear (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Kansas Bear

bug report

I don't have time to read your FAQ, but this is a bug and should be fixed even if already addressed in the FAQ. CM (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was because you added a comment with a signature of another person without telling the bot to ignore your addition or mentioning anything like "revert," "undo," etc. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot missed something.

See here:

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Why is it so difficult to remain anonymous on Wikipedia?

Several comments there made be an anonymous IP aren't signed. In particular, one of the comments above mine is not signed. Yesterday, I was going to do it manually, but I figured Sinebot would catch it. It didn't, though. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose it qualifies for the high priority list. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot adding my signature

I found it funny how fast your bot added my signature when I forgot, I made a user box for it, feel free to improve it, I'm not a very good programmer

Beware of BotThis user is followed by SineBot

--Pewwer42 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union

If you believe in free speech, don't put me in a gulag over my edits! 72.241.252.97 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech, but I feel that our external links policy is more important for the time being. --slakr^\ talk / 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, warmonger. 72.241.252.97 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

... and peacenick. Don't forget: as a rouge admin I'm both a warmongering hippy jesus freak atheist capitalist communist republican democrat, and I beg everyone to keep my extreme biases in mind from now on. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I did was wrong

Was stayin' in the wilderness too long Keep your eyes on the prize, Hold on Only thing we did was right Was the day we started to fight! Keep your eyes on the prize, Hold on

72.241.252.97 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not strange

Hi, it's not strange that I knew exactly when the links to my website were being deleted because the person that was doing that was warring with me and his deleting the links to my website was part of his strategy against me - next thing I know Wikipedia WAS ACCUSING ME of placing those links there myself - that was how I got to know. Now Wikipedia will not believe me when I say the links were placed in the Wikipedia article by others, respectfully Wfgh66 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the source code for SineBot?

Please share it with the rest of the world along with setup instructions, so it would be an intergral part of MediaWiki. -Lwc4life (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

you thinking you are god of wikipedia

i am EDITING, just as you keep doing.

just because you don't agree with my edits as to what is relevant in this article doesn't mean you can call my editing "censorship" or "vandalism"

i AM jay brannan and i hate when my sexuality is sewn to my very name as if it were on my birth certificate, particularly when it is completely unrelated to the ensuing paragraph

block me. go for it. i'll change my IP address and come back again and again until Wikipedia finally gives people who are the subjects of articles the option to have their name and information REMOVED by request. i don't want complete strangers who will never even meet me deciding how i should be portrayed in what people see as an "encyclopedia entry" about my life.

thanks bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.234.178 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 08:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again slakr, I thought I would help you with your problem with the Jay Brannan page. After some digging It would appear that Jay Brannan does not want to be mention on wikipedia as mention in his blog [8] which is claimed to be his on his personal website [9] and his myspace site [10] so you might want to look into that. Also his blog mentions his photo being copyrighted.... happy to help --Pewwer42  Talk  11:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (see sine bot? I remembered ;)

Hmm, yet he posts stuff about his boyfriend on his home page? I mean, it sucks, yes, that he's gay and now he wants to hide it, but once someone's outed himself in reliable secondary sources, you're kind of screwed, and if you're notable enough to get on Wikipedia, then there's not much I can do (nor do I even care to), since it seems editors long before I got involved thought the removal was against consensus. If Brittany Spears hopped on here and wanted us to remove everything potentially bad for her career from her page, we'd respectfully decline. Of course, I don't care what goes on at this dude's page, just so long as everyone sticks with our policies. As for the copyvio, simply tag it as such, and it will be taken care of. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was a point at which I would have said that afd might have gotten the page yanked if the author so wanted to (due to notability concerns), but as a result of his actions, it looks like another editor has added even more valid citations about his sexuality and media coverage of it. The picture might still be fair game, though. --slakr^\ talk / 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

... which reminds me: we have an excellent article on the Streisand effect. :P --slakr^\ talk / 11:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I just though I would mention it to you but as to the tagging, I'm not sure how to do that so If you could do that or tell me how, that would be great. that is an excellent article. scientifically mad--Pewwer42  Talk  11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't my specialty, especially since they tend to deal with "fair use" and such, but I think that {{copyvio}} works on them. You'd just stick {{copyvio|url=wherever it came from}} on the image page. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your AN/I post (re: suicide threat)

If you haven't read WP:SUICIDE yet, you might want to.

If you see a suicide threat for an account, contact a checkuser and point them to the essay if there are any questions. Then proceed to the next step.

If you see one from an account, do a whois on it, contact the ISP, and inform them of the note. Ask the ISP to either release the information to you or to call emergency services themselves.

Emergency services have told us before that they do not consider these calls a waste of time, and they will investigate if it's brought to their attention.

I've personally found the best solution for passing along the diff URL is to use a service like tinyurl.com, so the information can be sent in the least amount of space, and make sure that whoever you talk to has contact information for you in case there's a problem regarding this later.

Thanks for your help! :) (Kylu) 207.145.133.34 (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note update

Don't Worry, It is extremely unlikely that this was a genuine suicide note:

"i am going to kill myself. i have to i am nothing anymore and i wish i was never fucking born. I have a shitload of pills and it will be ok soon. Tell Shonna I Love Her And that I'm Sorry."

The following observations lead me to conclude that this is a hoax:

• "I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
• Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
• This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
• The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
• Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.

Compare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.

• The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.

However, This does not discount the possibility that this person may be someone on the brink. These observations would likely be seen in someone who is not yet ready to take their life, which means that we may be able to do some good here

Hope this helps. --BETA 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Juno

• See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kagome 85. :) JuJube (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty conclusive when the dude lied about his ISP to request an unblock on an autoblock on his account and subsequently edited the exact same article that his account did. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Thoughts?

Hello again, o slakr of many works.....
I had a question for you (you seem to be a knowledgeable wikipedian thats why I keep bugging you, is that ok?) I recently came across an article on Mad Scientists and was wondering about making an article on the company Mad Science. I wrote a note on the Mad scientist page mentioning the idea but there was little response. Mad Science is a nation wide company so I thought it deserved something. Now I want to be completely honest with you, I do work for Mad Science (Under the name Dr. Osmosis... yah its cool) but they did not ask me to make the article, I came up with the idea on my own(mostly because It would be an article I could actually write) please tell me your thought and ideas, Thank you very much --Pewwer42  Talk  03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't personally know of the company, but you might check out our notability requirements to see if it meets them.  :) --slakr^\ talk / 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)