User talk:The wub/archive26

Archives

2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D

vandalisdm[edit]

please block this ip address, it is shared and other people wont stop vadalizing, it is irritating to use this website and suddenly get a message about someone elses vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.152.200 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone blocked it already for a month. If you want, you can create an account. It's quick, easy, and you don't need to give any personal information. Then you won't be bothered by messages aimed at other people any longer, and get some other benefits too. the wub "?!" 09:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and cheers and that[edit]

Thanks for your praise of my work on Emmeline Pankhurst. I checked out your blog and must give you thanks for the Phil Collins/Prodigy mashup. Glorious – although I feel a bit odd for liking a PC song, even if it is mashed with Liam and the crew. Your Strong Bad redux was also nice – one of these days I'll post the remix I did of the Geddup Noise. Meantime, maybe you're into Daft Punk? Cheers. Scartol • Tok 02:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can't claim credit for Phil Collins vs The Prodigy though, just found it on a website which I can't remember now. Someday I'll get round to completing some of my half-finished mashups that are lying around. I enjoyed your Daft Punk remix, and really liked "I, Neo" - I'd forgotten how cool that end fight scene is, even if the rest of the movie was pretty disappointing. the wub "?!" 09:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For your kind words about old Stiffy. Much appreciated. Stronach (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Archiving"?[edit]

In your bot's edit summary for this edit, it says that it was archiving closed debates. It wasn't; it was just deleting them. Did the archiving part of the operation go wrong, or does "archive" have some meaning that's new to me? -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you've been manually archiving that page using a different format. The bot only lists old debates in the archived, as on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive for example, rather than transcluding them. So I guess it got confused. Although I thought I had put a safeguard against this kind of thing in, but clearly it doesn't work too well! Sorry for not spotting this before, and I'll remove Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography from the bot's workload. the wub "?!" 09:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, don't rush off!

Perhaps part of the problem is that this "Deletion sorting" area started off as an enterprise of the (near dormant) "WP History of photography" but that it then became photography in general and thus untied from any project.

I think that the format now used for the photography deletion archive is helpful, but it's only helpful until the number of these old AfD increases a lot, or until there are contentious (verbose, interminable) AfDs, whereupon a series of archives would be necessary (yawn). By contrast, the format of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity/archive seems a lot better. And if that way the whole business is automatable, so much the better; because few people seem concerned about any archiving of photo-related AfDs, and when I'm away I'm not sure that anyone else will attend to this little chore.

If it would be easy for you to create an archive (but where?) that your bot can use, and then restart the automation, I'd be very grateful. Presumably archiving would work by chucking new information at the foot of the file, which could consist of anything, e.g. similar entries manually converted by me from the debates that are now transcluded but that no longer would be. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll hopefully sort it later today. I'm a muppet, I spent ages thinking how to convert it to the standard format before I realised I can just put the transclusions back on the "current" page and let the bot do its thing! the wub "?!" 10:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion archive numbers?[edit]

Hey wub, this is something that's been nagging at me for a long time now... what are the numbers in parenthesis in the deletion archive entries? Some sort of timestamp/editcount? —Dino guy 1000 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I hadn't realised I never explained that anywhere! It's the size of the discussion page in bytes. I thought it would be a nice thing to have to show up particularly contentious debates. It should be more useful once I get some sortable tables working. the wub "?!" 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK Signpost story[edit]

Thanks for the help. Somehow the template got lost when someone edited the newsroom page; I've added it to the bottom there. Ral315 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polling templates[edit]

Hi The wub. I saw your name at TfD polling templates. Here is some [1], [2], [3], and [4]. -- Suntag ☼ 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wubbot, wherefore art thou?[edit]

Wubbot, wherefore art thou? Your friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators miss you. Send a postcard if you like. Best wishes, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback request[edit]

Hi. Could you give me rollback? I like fighting vandals (I find it meditative). It would really increase my vandal fighting efficiency. Thanks --Bucephalus (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK v2.0[edit]

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education[edit]

Hi, The wubbot has failed to remove University of Limerick Law Society for some months now. TerriersFan (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed it, sorry for the delay. the wub "?!" 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited![edit]

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Hola[edit]

i am asome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.200.182 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our apologies[edit]

Dear The wub, We are sincerely sorry for the recent vandalism to various wikipedia articles. I have a little, brother, age 11, that got onto our computer while we were away. He started to change wikipedia articles, and by the time we got home, we had several messages from you and other admins. Our family offers you the sincerest of apologies and we hope that the wikipedia community can forgive this accident.

-Krisguy343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisguy343 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's good of you to apologise. I hope you (and maybe even your brother) will start to enjoy making constructive contributions here. the wub "?!" 23:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

Regarding this question, isn't that what the sandbox is for, more or less? --otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 15:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's for testing with nonsense or whatever, but that's ALL he's doing (apart from some article vandalism a while back). the wub "?!" 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with warnings about attacks in the sandbox, but if he restricts himself to nonsense edits there, does it really matter? I'd rather he work out his fun and then see if he can be refactored into a useful editor. I think much of his anger has to do with being targeted for sandbox edits due to recent quirks in Huggle, and asking him to refrain from doing what the sandbox is intended for seems a bit harsh.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I don't care, I've wasted enough time on him. He's deservedly blocked for 12 hours now, hopefully that will get his attention. the wub "?!" 15:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't say that he didn't deserve it.--otherl left^{No, really, other way . . .} 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahumbleriot[edit]

Someone that replaces "family" with "hooker" needs a sterner warning. He's obviously adding defamatory material. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters[edit]

Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have replied there. the wub "?!" 13:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info -- there was no notation in the edit history. So is there any way to notify the original creator? Cgingold (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About User:Liihbdbhdshdfshdshd[edit]

I think our new friend has set up this account purely for vandalism. He/she has had enough friendly warnings now. I see you're keeping an eye on it. I don't see diplomacy going any further. Do you know how to get someone blocked? Evlekis (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, clearly here just for vandalism. I blocked him myself. the wub "?!" 11:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair shout to you. Thanks. Evlekis (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]