User talk:Pseudomonas/Archives/2010

StuPID ROBAOT!

why do u keep on delting my name when i put it on the births of january seventh! im just as important as the other people on that list.u stupid robot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.138.49 (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment has been noted. Pseudomonas_(talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot messages me but I didn't do anything.

It's been years since I edited anything on Wikipedia, and I've never added any date-specific anything, much less a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.190.178 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably someone else who was (way back in April) using the IP address you're using now. Don't worry about it, just ignore the message. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I am sorry Pseudomonas, I didn't entirely understand the subtleties of making edits in the Wiki. My intention was not to spam, but truly educate. I saw several cases in which the external links were pointing to commercial web sites and I was trying to mimic the same behavior. There are guidelines about what to add, the interpretation by the individual and the implementation by the Wiki are both gray.

Yes, my intentions for linking to the site were not totally altruistic, I am really passionate about writing on Indian herbs and other articles related to India and wanted people to read it. There was also the hesitation of putting a lot of new material in wikipedia, there is a fear about editing content that a lot of people will read. I am new to this art of internet writing. I could have added the medicinal benefits of turmeric and ashwagandha right into the wiki article, but I was worried about it not being "pure medicine".

I apologize for any aggravation I may have caused you, policing other people's work is never easy. I sincerely hope you will re-instate my links in the Indian worship sections like Raksha Bandhan, Shiva Ratri, List of Hindu Festivals and Republic Day.

Best Regards, Dg harini (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to know why djclass birthday was deleted?

Everyone knows who that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.94.113 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia page at djclass = no entry on date pages. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit by PseudoBot

PseudoBot shouldn't be reverting my edit like this. I'm only trying to clean up some formatting. Graham87 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta for the revert. Graham87 06:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still trying to work out what it thought was wrong. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

sarah jane hilliard

The case is very important, you can't delete it --Di Natale Massimo (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the form the page was, I don't believe it was an acceptable thing to have on Wikipedia. You can add {{hangon}} to the page and explain things on the talk page. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I used that template but page was removed. Is this the "free encyclopedia"? --Di Natale Massimo (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain my thinking. Even though I can see the case is quite possibly newsworthy enough to justify an article, one that says "X is a criminal. X did terrible things and deserves to be punished", isn't something that Wikipedia can host, even if it's true. The article needs to be in a neutral, reasoned, calm tone (dare I say it, more calm than the Daily Mail). The article that I nominated for deletion didn't live up to these criteria, and really didn't read like an encyclopedia article at all. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, if Pseudomonas doesn't mind my adding a comment, "free encyclopedia" does not mean that anyone is free to put anything in it: we have standards and policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

opinion

i posted something you removed it saying it was vandalism and it was my opinion and as of the freedom of speech act i should be allowed to express my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.93.138 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is about the government not censoring you. Wikipedia is privately run, and is entitled to have its own standards. In this case the problem was that you were making allegations without providing any sources for them. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Acrostics

In the “Acrostic” article, I had added relevant information about the world's longest string of acrostics, but had it removed as though it were an advertisement. If you will notice, I did not give any information that would even let anyone know how to acquire the book. However, for those who know of it, and do a Google search to find information about it, or for those who search for the author’s name, I wanted them to be led to your website. Therefore, to help Wiki search rankings, I embedded the author’s alternate name in invisible code.

The 605 page string of acrostics occurs in the Book, Billy’s Back: Memoirs of Billy Shears (ISBN 978-0-9842925-0-9). The acrostic is decoded in the booklet, Billy’s Back: Acrostical Decoding (ISBN 978-0-9842925-1-6). I had previously contributed the material that is fully relevant to the article, but had neglected to provide the sources. Last night, I added the sources and the embedded alternate author name (“Tom” rather than “Thomas”) so it could be found by search engines.

The Acrostic article already gives several fine examples of acrostics, but none on the enormous scale as writing practically a whole book (605 pages of it) as a string of acrostics. Although I may be biased in thinking that the content is brilliant, I do not address that issue in the article. I am completely objective in explaining the magnitude of the work, and of how to decode it, just as the article tells us how to decode lesser works. My contribution to the article is entirely relevant and verifiable. It is a new world record that far surpasses the closest rivals by an extraordinarily long margin. If you read it and find it too hard to believe, that is understandable. It is rather unbelievable. But that is the way of world records. If you wish to verify it, I can email a free e-copy to you.

AmericanPoet (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything to indicate that the book is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Indeed, I can't find anything about the book, either searching by name or by ISBN, not even on a publisher's website - only material that you yourself placed on Wikipedia (and a couple of its mirrors). Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP

This IP, that I am posting from (90.219.166.55) is dynamic. Any changes made in the past are not made my myself and I imagine replying to this would result in another person getting the message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.166.55 (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Cambridge, 27 March

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot

Any chance of expanding PseudoBot's activities to include removing new event entries from the date articles that have no links? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Afraid not, certainly not until it's agreed policy that unlinked events are forbidden. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't push the issue, but it is no different policy-wise than removing births and deaths without valid links. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot

hi, robot annoys me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.118.237 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot on strike?

Looks like the PseudoBot stopped working shortly after 15:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC). Could you turn the crank please? Favonian (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor thing is overworked again and stopped shortly after 13:30, April 11, 2010 (UTC). Favonian (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Machine it was running on was restarted. I've started the bot up again - thanks! Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

False positive and block

The bot shouldn't have made this revert. I've blocked the bot, as it's the only way that I could stop it reverting my edits. It'd be good if (a) the problem was fixed and (b) it didn't revert edits by rollbackers/administrators. Graham87 05:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Naturally use {{unblock}} to get it unblocked if I'm not around. Graham87 05:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be reverting for any user whose account is more that four days old. I'll see what's up. Occasionally I've had problems when there are small changes to MediaWiki and my bot framework hasn't caught up, also the formats on the date pages vary with time, so its regular expressions are probably due an overhaul. I've stopped the bot; I'd like an unblock so I can run it once I think I've sorted out the problem and verify it works. Been on holiday for a few days hence late reply. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my apologies for putting you to this trouble in the first place! Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I've just come back from a holiday as well. I've unblocked the bot. Mistakes like this happen. :-) Graham87 10:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they do, and blocking was entirely sensible. I'll probably not have time to do the repairs for a while, so maybe I'll put a notice on the bot's page. Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead again

PseudoBot stopped shortly after 04:54, April 14, 2010 (UTC). We miss it. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been blocked, there are clearly some issues that need sorting. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Have I Told You Lately that I Love You?

Life is sad without Pseudobot. Can't wait for its return. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Aww. I'm flattered, and will do my best, but might be a few weeks until I have the time to get it fixed. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll hold down the fort. But my clicky finger is getting sore :-). -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly

It would be great if you could comment here if it is still open for comment. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Chako Paul City - help please.

Hi I followed the instructions:

Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Chako Paul City. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

Would you be so kind as to complete the afd process that I as an IP user am unable to do please? I may have misunderstood the instructions as I have not done it before. 92.25.89.184 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better for you to create an account and do it yourself, since you know why you think the page should be deleted. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) --- which I recorded on the talk page as per the instructions. 92.25.89.184 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi, I got a message from Pseudobot about editing the March 28th page to add a person called 'Laura Gee'; I am sure I did not edit this page or add that entry in, I think there has been a mistake here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.111.32 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PseudoBot not running anymore?

Hi - It looks like PseudoBot hasn't made any edits since April. Are you intending to start it up again? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to be the next to queue up, requesting the bot be turned on again. Way too many jokers adding rubbish to the pages. TIA. Qwrk (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot user page

I wouldn't describe PseudoBot as an anti-vandal bot as good faith is always assumed when reverting. mechamind90 04:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey there, could you comment on my post here? It's concerning your edit to the Shiv (weapon) article. Thanks, œ^™ 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)