Likewise, this is a pretty drastic change happening without any clear consensus. WP:SUBST, which is what seems to be being provided as justification, says "Template substitution is a permanent change that removes functionality; it should generally be avoided without a good reason." and certainly doesn't include redirects on the list of templates that should be substituted as far as I can tell. — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are serious problems with the tagging of talk pages with {{TrainsWikiProject}}. This bot is double-tagging many articles, and is adding the Subways=yes flag to any article which is in a child or grandchild category of Category:Rapid transit, which is not always accurate (SEPTA Regional Rail stations fall under this, for instance, and those are commuter rail, not rapid transit.) Tagging seems to have stopped for now; it should not resume until a more sophisticated tagging algorithm has been written. --CComMack (t•c) 13:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second the comment from CComMack. In addition to the double-tagging problem, many of the New York City Subway articles were tagged incorrectly. They should have been tagged {{TrainsWikiProject|NYCS=yes}}, not{{TrainsWikiProject|Subway=yes}}. Perhaps we can use your bot to reverse the damage? In addition, pleaseplease exercise more due diligence before launching such edits in the future. Marc Shepherd14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bot was not incorrectly removing categories, and I have responded to every message that was left on my bots talk page I resond on the users talkpage, the reason that Category:Religion in Sydney does not exist that is why its a red link. Pages should not contain redlink categorys please feel free to do ahead and create it but my bot was only removing redlinks for categories that dont exist. If you have any other issues or comments please feel free to leave a message on my talkpage. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)13:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stop the bot, please? It is trying to rename a category to a name that already exists, and in so doing, has mixed two categories up. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk)18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed several times that some High Schools in Virginia templates are done in HTML and not a school template. Im not sure if that is correct or not can you take a look and see if any need corection. Thanks. John R G07:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot just removed basically all of the Kalashnikov-type rifles from the category "List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design". I suggest that something be done about this little 'glitch'.
I am not having bot problems Category:Satellite navigation(redlink) does not exist. That is the reason for the removal please feel free to create the category and repopulate it. 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Silly bot, you removed all the weapons from "List of weapons influenced by the Kalashnikov design." The list points to the correct weapons, but the weapons dont point back to the list. Beerslurpy04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop whatever you are doing. You are not creating categories, you are creating articles which I and other administrators are deleting because they have no context. Why are you trying to create these categories? Whatever reason there is, please make sure you are actually making categories. Academic Challenger21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this bot replacing "Nobr" template with a much longer syntax?
Hello Beta, Thanks for helping out tagging India-related pages with the banner. Can I request you to use the Plugin (generic project template) that will automatially add class=Stub and needs-infobox parameters please? Regards, Ganeshk(talk)19:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the plugin doesn't automatically add needs-infobox, as it would need to examine the article to do that. Needs-infobox is for use in "manual assessments" mode. --kingboyk21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STOP! There's no need to have all the Indian cinema articles tagged for the India project. We don't need all the films, actors, actresses, etc. tagged. The bot also attacked the chador article, presumably because it had for some reason been categorized as Indian clothing. So far as I can tell, chador is a Persian term, chaderi is the Afghan (Dari) term, and hence might have been used by some Urdu speakers in what is now Pakistan. But I believe that the term commonly used in India is burqa. The chador article had been categorized as Iranian, Persian, Afghan, Pakistani, and Indian. So India gets to claim it? I removed the Indian clothing category, to prevent any more such imperialistic exercises.
When something is categorized as relating to India in some way, that doesn't mean that it automagically falls under the purview of the Indian project. Stop the bot and revert the edits. This is a mess. Zora04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear bot, you are tagging some articles minutely related to India as part of WikiProject India. Please STOP. Thank you. --Ragib04:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it may make sense to use a bot to tag articles in certain hand-selected categories (but then, if the tag is equivalent to the category, what do we need the tag for, in the first place?? just browse by category. These wikiproject templates only make sense as a token that the article has been reviewed, by a human!). To let your bot run wild and tag all articles, recursively in some category's subcategories is an extremely bad idea, and it can cause a lot of damage. dab(ᛏ)07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing the category Architectural glossary from articles and leaving them without a category? Even if they belong in a subcategory of that category it would be better to leave them there and correct them manually than to leave them homeless. -THB18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why are you leaving them without a category? Could you please address the second issue?
Your bot should at least tag them as uncategorized. It would have been easier to recategorize the articles if they were still grouped together. -THB19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of my photos was recently converted that way. Honestly I don't care and would have changed that one if asked, but I'm the only one who can release my copyright into the PD. AndroidCat22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have to say that it jerks my chain that we have to put special code on every page where somebody's bot is not supposed to substitute the templates. Everybody decides to write their own bot to "fix" things and we're ending up with pages with multiple "don't touch me" codes.
This bot just removed the tag from Samuel Foote stating that the article had not been updated in the past three days. This is in error, I had just done some work on the article a few minutes prior. Please see that this is fixed. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue?15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if I could request a slight tweaking of what this bot does for the law enforcement wikiproject. I have no idea if this is the place to make this request, OR if I should do it on the users talk page, or on the bot request page (though the bot already does work for us).
If this is the right place, I was just wondering if the bot could automatically rate as stub class articles it has banner'd/are already banner'd as articles in the law enforcement wikiproject, which have stub templates. --SGGH12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across a number of articles with stub templates, for example Alexander Robertson, which were not automatically rated by the bot as stub class. Have I explained myself poorly somewhere? I hope things can be fixed as soon as possible, many thanks for your efforts, apologies if I caused a mix up.--SGGH20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that the bot is set just to rate as stub class articles that have a law enforcement stub template? I was hoping that it would rate these articles as stub class that have any form of stub template.Oh, sorry! Glad to hear it wasnt cause something had gone wrong. Kind Regards, SGGH
Hello and thanks for tackling the project to add the {{Architecture}} tags with assessments to stub articles. What is the second parameter "auto=yes" designed to do? We will be adding an importance variable in the template in the near future (as the second parameter…?) --Dogears (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it do to banners, specifically? If the auto=yes parameter is the second, do I need to design the template to accept the third parameter as the importance? It goes fast, thank you. Dogears04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry about it the auto=yes will be ignored, It is used for templates that bots add saying that a bot was the one that tagged the article. 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, great. Is there any way to program the bot to find {{Good}} and {{Featured}} on talk pages and add the appropriate class tag? Am interested in the importance flag, but haven't figured out yet how to write the code for the template (without all the bells and whistles). Any Wiki resources you can recommend for this? When you offered to add importance, did you mean to operate the bot to tag this, or offering to add the code the the {{Architecture}} project banner template? Appreciate the help. Dogears05:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can it do importance= (null)? Otherwise many articles are not NA. One large group of articles are all NA – the years "in architecture" and the related categories. There are hundreds of these pages. Also, can it run through all the articles that include a particular template and insert the flag importance=Top? The templates are {{Archhistory}} and {{Regional-arch}}. P.S. importance is engaged in the template now. —Dogears07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why your bot categorized this article as under the WP:MMO project. Granted, the game in question is a product of the Neopets universe, but it is not (itself) an MMOG and therefore isn't covered by the WP:MMO project's scope.
Sorry to poke my nose into the conversation, but as it's Christmas and I've no idea how often Betacommand checks his bot for new messages, I'll answer for him ^_^ We asked that the bot add the banner to the talk pages of everything in Category:Massively multiplayer online games; Inside that category is the 'Neopets' sub-category, which has a handful of non-MMO articles inside. I'm removing the other unneeded ones now, thanks for bringing this to our attention ^_^ ShakingSpirittalk08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to nominate the re-creation of this page for deletion, but seem to have mucked it up. My apologies, can you fix this so it's 2nd nomination? Pete.Hurd02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing good community service by deleting inappropriate yahoo groups from External Reference sections of lots of articles. But please do check these groups before you delete them. Some are appropriate. The one in Autostereogram is appropriate and is the only internet forum I know of which has active discussion and autostereogram exchange (via email). The group is called "3D Single Image Stereograms (SIRDS)" which is a synonym of Autostereogram (as the article points out). I should know, because I rewrote this article and brought it to Featured Article-dom.
Notice that WP:EL has this exception concerning links to avoid: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject"
I assume that the removal of the Yahoo!Group link was because the Y!G in question was so closed that one had to register at Y! to even read posts (I hadn't actually noticed that; good catch). On that assumption, I've contacted the moderator of the Y!G, and asked her to open the group up so that reading does not require registration. If that would not satisfy you and permit re-addition to the article, without you reverting it, of a link to this Y!G, if/when the Y!G is so modified, please let me know (here, my talk page, or the article talk page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you unprotected my User page (nor why you did so without the courtesy of informing me); within days it was vandalised in a particularly unpleasant way. I'm happy to spend a great deal of my time removing vandalism from articles, but I'd prefer not to waste time (or see others waste their time) removing it from my User page. I've protected it again; please leave it alone this time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of your admin, Doc glasgow , is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.
Please contact me for more information.
Thanks
Senatorto
Just a question from a curious third-party: How did that work out? (I have no interest in either party, just in how it was handled, what advice given, etc. I aspire to adminship at some point, and like to absorb dispute resolution ideas, especially with regard to policy/guideline disputes.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is called talk page spamming, this most often happens with trolls and this user was not acting in good faith as Senatorto warnings were valid. Admins get complaints from everyone over every thing. I let AN/I handle this situation. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. warnings to/against Senatorto were valid? If so, I grok with at least semi-fullness. But what is AN/I (if I may prevail upon you with more "metanewbie" questions)? I'm well aware of AWB at this point, but not of AN/I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The warnings that were given to Senatorto that he considered threats were not in fact threats but instead valid warnings im regard to his/her behavior. AN/I is WP:AN/I or the administrator's noticeboard/ Incidents. that is where admins post regarding incidents that may require a second opinion. WP:AN is also another good place. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is your bot placing all of the salted pages in the "January 2007" category (instead of applying the month and year of the earliest revision in the page's history)? —David Levy00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not running a bot and I just want to move pages to that cat witch is basicly Jan 2007 and before. I just want to get the pages moved over to that cat untill they can be sorted better manually at a later date. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it is a bot or not, please stop flooding edits with this useless effort. There is already a list of deleted pages by date, and in addition that list has the proper date. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does this serve no practical purpose (and evidently is causing harm), but it appears likely that we're going to delete all of these salted pages in favor of a new system that I've proposed. That you're doing this manually (Why?) means that you're wasting a considerable amount of time. —David Levy01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked directly from Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages, which is the Wikipedia page for this process and which is linked from Template:Deletedpage. In addition, there is a second, toolserver list linked from the top of Template talk:Deletedpage. In the future, please look more deeply into a system before trying to naively fix it, and for a major change such as this that requires mass edits and ultimately a new bot task, the proposal should be brought up on the talk page prior to its introduction, and objections after its partial implementation should be addressed. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Betacommand, the aforementioned list remains broken as a result of your edits. This would not have happened if you'd simply added the pages to the January category. By removing them from Category:Protected deleted pages, you led Tizio's bot to believe that the pages no longer were salted and remove them from the list. When Centrx reverted the {{deletedpage}} template, all of the pages in question were re-added to the original category, leading Tizio's bot to believe that they'd been newly salted. Therefore, while they've been restored to the list, they no longer bear the correct dates.
I suggest that you apologize to Tizio for your error and inquire as to the possibility of programming DumbBOT to somehow repair the damage.
On a related note, have you apologized to anyone for this? It seems as though you simply want silent and moved on to other tasks. —David Levy00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to say sorry as I was just making a changeover that was requested. some admins changed the template and asked me to help convert over as far as I know I was doing the right thing as cats are better than a list. If you have an Issue with what I was doing consult the users who changed the salt template. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. "I was just blindly following instructions" is not a valid defense. I'm not looking for blood, but it would be nice to know that you don't intend to do this sort of thing in the future without first investigating the situation and verifying the appropriateness of such actions.
2. You were asked to program your bot to categorize these pages by month. Instead, you inexplicably began to manually (and pointlessly) dump all of them in the January category. This is something that any sysop could have done (but again, it was entirely pointless). —David Levy00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No bot could do this as the pages are admin protected and I was simi auto doing it under my account. As far as I could tell my actions were appropriate untill you said something. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The idea was for you to run your bot via your sysop account. Otherwise, there was no point in soliciting your involvement.
2. Of course you believed that your actions were appropriate. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. You made an honest mistake, after which you should have apologized to the community and attempted to clean up after yourself. Your decision to simply stop replying and go about your business bothers me more than your original error in judgement. —David Levy04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not stop replying I was waiting to see how the dust would settle so that my next actions would instead of being a further mistake could wait and see how the discussion finished before taking any further actions. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not criticising you for failing to immediately compile a detailed plan of action. I'm criticising you for not even acknowledging that you made a mistake, let alone apologizing. (You simply stopped posting here and moved on to unrelated tasks.) Now that the dust has settled, I'm also criticising you for your continual refusal to accept any responsibility for your actions and your lack of attempts to rectify the problem that they caused. —David Levy04:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that there had been a mistake with transferring the salted pages and I stopped, as I have stated before I suggested that you contact the users who modified {{deletedpage}} and take up the issue with them. I have not refused to take responsibility, I know there was a issue with the new format. I haven't had that much time to dig into fixing this yet, as there is no clear solution. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, you stopped converting the salted pages (and moved on to other tasks) without even acknowledging that an error had been made (let alone providing any indication of how you intended to address this matter).
2. "I do not need to say sorry as I was just making a changeover that was requested." and "If you have an Issue with what I was doing consult the users who changed the salt template." certainly come across as refusals to take responsibility.
I have and Idea we could transfer that list of salted pages to the new format of trancludeing using the old timestamps that were in place before the attempted switch and solve all of the issues. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few different ways that we could go about completing that task. (We could use the old timestamps from the list page, the date of the earliest revision from each salted page's history, or the page's most recent deletion date from the deletion log.)
I do believe, however, that people would like to retain the old list, and I don't know what needs to be done to ensure that the bot allows the correct dates to be restored. Also, major changes will need to be made to its programming to prevent it from depopulating (and continue updating) the list when the changeover to the new system occurs. —David Levy15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest would be useing the timestamps on the page, But if we move to the transclustion method all we have to do is place a timestamp at the end of the line and it replaces the salt list. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plan for the new system is to create a series of small lists (divided by month and occasionally by topic) that are convenient for typical users to navigate when they're referred there by the deletion notices. It would be helpful to retain one big list for the benefit of others (primarily sysops). —David Levy15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate your help, but these templates are not appropriate for substitution. Please remove them instead. Thanks! —David Levy16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that. I see that you managed to implement smart substitution of only the required code (and none of the unused code). Excellent! —David Levy16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please send the bot back over the pages from the original run to remove the unused code (using the deleted template for reference)? —David Levy16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you are deleting this out of process? The TfD is not yet over and I see plenty of keep comments there. Also, you are wheelwarring, which is inappropriate. --Majorly(o rly?)16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you deleted Template:Smiley(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with a summary of "TfD". While I think this template should be deleted, the TfD hasn't run it's customary period and I'm not sure it qualifies for WP:CSD. It also doesn't look like this qualifies as WP:SNOW and you didn't claim that either. To show good faith to the template's supporters, perhaps you should have simply waited the week for the discussion. —Dgiestc16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's old. OK, well probably qualifies as "recreation of deleted material". But while the old TfD was extremely lopsided, this one is proving more contentious so it could be interpreted as sort of a back-door WP:DRV. —Dgiestc16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, before the new TfD debate began, I requested that Betacommandbot orphan the template in anticipation of speedy deletion under CSD G4. Had I realized that a new TfD discussion was underway, I would have closed it sooner. —David Levy16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not approved for VP, but the reason for this was not given on tyhe talk page post informing me, it simply went: "Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that Please come back and rerequest in a month please." Im fine with this, but it would help me improve my work if I knew for what reason I was not approved. thanks. --Plattler0118:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through the approval page. I didn't get a message one way on another so I checked the approval page and didn't see my name and then the history were you made the comment APPROVED: next to my name and 2 others. Figured I'd try and log on but the message that came back is "user list corrupt. Notify a moderator." So here ya go. Jask9922:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw that you recently removed external links from the Sugi Tap article that linked to MySpace. One of them didn't need to be there, but the other was a reference that probably shoud have stayed. I believe this by this clause in the external link guidlines: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid". I though I'd bring it up with you before attempting to replace it. -Mtekk14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommandbot just removed lots of spaces from WP:AN for no apparent reason: [2]. This is probably a bug that needs fixing. --ais523 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Please do not modify User_talk pages without express prior agreement from the user in question. Thanks for your attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have to calm down. Really. If you would like redlinked templates and such all over your talk pages, just place {{nobots}} on your talk page. You do not have to get approval from a user to edit their talk page for a simple task like substituting a template. —Mets501 (talk)22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the bot was making many more edits than just adjusting redlinked templates. It's also making lots of whitespace edits, some invisible, some significant. These are unnecessary, make it difficult to see what the bot is really doing, and in some cases are introducing significant errors. See e.g. here, here, here, and here. I would have been upset if such changes had been made to my talk page. I spent a fair amount of time trying to fix up the Science Reference Desk, but it's hopeless. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [edited 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
I have no idea what your bot is doing, but something's wrong with edits like this, so I blocked it. Please fix the whitespace issues and unblock your bot afterwards. Thank you, Kusma(討論)17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issue has been fixed. Next time please read the userpage as all you had to do to stop it was place a note on the talk page, I have a built in safety override to shut it off when it detects new messages. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to see what this user has written here and reply to him? Because first he want to speak with an Admin and second, I really don't know what to answer ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk) on 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A mistake was made in blocking and then deleting sublinks of www.gabrielleray.150m.com in dozens of articles. I don't know anything about 150m.com, which was apparently the target of the block and delete, but www.gabrielleray.150m.com is a website that contains extensive and unique information about early musical theatre and historical persons connected with the theatre. Can we fix this somehow? -- Ssilvers20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Betacommand, I was reading through the admin requests and I see you mentioning XFD counts. What are these things? And I'd also like to know how to find out how many edits a user has made? Sorry for the stupid questions but can you help!? ~ JFBurton20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This bot recategorized TD_Banknorth_Garden from 1995 establishments to political parties established in 1995. Is this because it picked up the DNC info? CSZero21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lasse Gjertsen is a world famous superstar amateur video maker and musician. Yet you deleted a page on him and prevent recreation? Why? Allow page to be created again please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.32.128 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[reply]
...
I would really appreciate a comment. I put effort into getting that page started. It is a widely-used piece of software, it is in fact the #1 internet chess client for Windows. I don't think it is fair to remove the entire page without warning or comment.
I see... What is a good notability threshold? I would consider 10k links for this particular topic quite sufficient. What's the guideline? And how is Wikipedia improved by not having this article? Thanks. Ed.Markovich04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I not be allowed access to vandalproof? I have 400 edits, not 190. Have you seen my contributions against vandalism. I revert like 30 edits of vandalism a day. Seriously. You are not fair. Retiono Virginian16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only mainspace edits. You have 202 now. (Click here) and look under main to see. I run into the same problem. I only have 120. I forgot my previous username and email adress :( that had 560 edits so I have to work up to that. Another thing that you might want to look into after you have 500 edits is the auto wiki browser. So on behalf of us low edit people that's why. RED skunkTALK
Just wanted to thank you for looking at the application even though I was declined. It will be a nice motivation to do some more useful editing (and fighting vandals). -- Icez18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying for VandalProof!(VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that you have 19 mainspace edit. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in general for all of your great work, whether it be blocking inappropriate usernames before I can list them on AIV, unprotecting my userpage when it was supposed to have been but wasn't, or any of your other massive ammounts of admin work. Consider me quite impressed and glad to have you on the project. Happy Mendeleev's Birthday, Dar-Ape04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is now VP is designed so that you can have several things operating at the same time the panel on the right is the part you use to view WP and there is not much that i can change for you. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REALLY, REALLY sorry bout that VP thing. I accidently pressed something I shouldn't have. It's just that this feature is REALLY confusing to me. So you're sayin that I can't have a full screen enabled here? Also, what is going on here? I can't even close the tabs. Power level (Dragon Ball)19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. The thing is, I can't log into VP at home. I can only do it at work at the Realty office. Um, am I only able to use VP at one location at all times? Meaning, does Vandalproof only accept one IP address? Power level (Dragon Ball)
What does it say cant log in as in how? VP can be used in many places Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)
Never mind what I just did, it's still not working. Verify Authorization won't appear for some reason. I did double check if my username and password were spelled correct and they were. Is it possible that:
Someone (an administrator) blocked me from installing it at home...
My computer is too old for the new Vandalproof version...
Or something else...
In any case, Verify Authorization isn't being "clickable" after I put my username, password and press Log-in to WP (which doesn't appear to work. Can you check out if I was blocked or something? Thanks. Power level (Dragon Ball)01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: I can't log in no matter how many times I click that button. But let me tell you something interesting that I've noticed: it seems to be able to work in the office (where I work on my computer) just fine only because my IP address shows up briefly on the username of the box. Then, it dissapears. From there, I can put in my username, password, login and verify. Here at home, my IP doesn't show up briefly. What could be the case here? Perhaps, can you approve me again and then let me know that I was approved? Should I sign up again at the sign up list or what? Also, do you have to know my home IP address for it to work here at my house? Power level (Dragon Ball)03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, how do I revert an unconstructive edit using Vandalproof? I've done too many mistakes trying to figure it out. And yes, I have read the rules and such, but still don't get it. Power level (Dragon Ball)18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your IP has nothing to do with it and please dont sign up again. If you can get IRC please come to [5] which is #vandalproof on the the freenode servers I am always available there along with others to help in a more direct method. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Beta (by the way, your link is broken). Anyways, I called the Comcast Internet company, and it turned out that my ZoneAlarm firewall was messed up. Yeah, the Comcast guy told me how to fix my firewall. Sorry about before. Now I can finally edit with VP at home too. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience I've caused you. Cheers! Power level (Dragon Ball)00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. One last thing: HOW DO I REVERT AN UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDIT USING VP? I haven't figured that out yet and that's the last thing I haven't learned from any source. That's the last thing I wanna know and then I'll NEVER bother you again (I'm only asking you that question here 'cause your link is broken)... Power level (Dragon Ball)02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page for Toronto was marked incorrectly with the {{Lake project}} tag by your bot, User:BetacommandBot. I'm guessing this is due to the frequent mention of lakes in the article, including the fact that Toronto is a Great Lakes city. Compare, say, putting United States in the Oceans WikiProject because it's a country next to the Pacific Ocean (or Atlantic). Just thought I'd let you know. --Geopgeop10:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally sent this to User:Prodego, who suggested I appeal to you: I am disappointed to be rejected again for VandalProof. The first rejection said only that I didn't have enough edits. Now I do: I've done more general editing and I've reverted a lot of vandalism using popups, which is faster than doing it by hand, but not by much. Reverting edits this way for another month is not what I was hoping for... The "new user" restriction should be more detailed in the registration step instructions. John Cardinal00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would like to ask how I can construct or get an anti-vandal software - in case I become a victim in the future. Thanks. - Qasamaan
Uhm.. developing a brand new antivandal tool isn't so easy, and it's also unneccessary. There are many anti-vandal tools here at Wikipedia, see the CVU. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)C on 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the *.50megs.com domain has been mass spammed recently on wikipedia by spambots and I am removing that whole domain because of that. Might i ask if you operate that website? Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, 50megs.com is simply a site that offers free hosting. No, I don't operate neither the 50megs itself nor the afvdb.50megs.com or any other site hosted there. But I do consider links to afvdb.50megs.com useful addition to some articles. Bukvoed18:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You never answered this question of mine I posted back then...
Oh yeah. One last thing: HOW DO I REVERT AN UNCONSTRUCTIVE EDIT USING VP? I haven't figured that out yet and that's the last thing I haven't learned from any source. That's the last thing I wanna know and then I'll NEVER bother you again (I'm only asking you that question here 'cause your link is broken)... Power level (Dragon Ball)22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betacommand. I have just undone your deletion of this image as an "unused copyrighted image", as it is both used (at Ta Keo) and licensed under a free licence (CC by SA 2.0). JPD (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beta! Sorry, I reverted this - a genuinely used and useful source from which the information above it was drawn. You removed it (without an edit summary). If you have reasons to remove it, please do so again but please leave a summary or a clue as to why. Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - a review of similar edits you've made of late reveals you're vanquishing .50megs.com from Wikipedia. Whilst you're undoubtedly doing that for good reasons... please stop. Some of these links are genuine reliable sources; you're not leaving edit summaries; and it's creating work for genuine respected editors who have to put the sources back in. Thanks again. 〈REDVEЯS〉20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit, removing a .50megs.com reference, accidentally blew away a second web reference as well. I didn't know whether or not this was bot-automated, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it was a programming error. Choess06:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know the reasons for your bot. I'm giving the reason for the status of my bot. You don't know the status of my bot better than I know it. (SEWilco05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
[reply]
Could you please reply on the bot request page, to my comment? thank you. --Parker007 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:I added importance mid, i.e. {{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=stub|importance=mid}} until we at the project actually assess the importance; We don't want it to loook like its in the unassessed row. Please. Sorry for adding another variable. --Parker00710:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Betacommand. I noticed that Category:Shared IP was removed from User talk:194.242.148.252 by BetacommandBot due to a CfD on August 27, 2006. However, the CfD outcome was to change the name to Category:Shared IP addresses (or merge with it, the CfD is not clear). I believe that the robot has done the same thing to similar articles, as I have noticed that talk pages with the shared IP template are often not in an appropriate category for that template. Why was the category removed instead of changed? Does the robot not have that ability? If it does not, then perhaps renamings and merges should be done with a different robot and this one used for just removal. Please respond on my talk page or put a notice on it about your response here. I am engaged in so many conversations on so many pages that there is a good chance that I will forget to check back in a reasonable amount of time. Thank you very much, Kjkolb14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot changed the Alyson Hannigan and Amber Benson articles to a Buffy category that doesn't exist. Consequently I reverted the edits. If there has been a decision/vote to change the name of, or move, the category, I'd really like to know about it. -Duribald19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the link leads to a decision to change "actors" to "cast members". This is technically speaking not what the robot is doing. Furthermore this is not an actor category, it's cast AND CREW category. As the name implies quite a few of the people on the page are not actors, but writers, producers, choreographers and so on. Thirdly, as I said, a cateogry should be created before one attempts to put people in it. This is a bit funny considering your red link commentary above. ;-) - Duribald23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't wanna make a big deal of it, even though the category doesn't really fall under the decision you referred to. I guess I'm just gonna have to take all of the non-actors out of the category completely. *sigh* -Duribald01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment people are proposing an unblock because Is he back? isn't rude or inflamatory. Which I'm guessing has nothing to do with the reason for your block.
A few of your other username blocks in the last batch are also being question. Would be great if you can swing by and clear up the confusion. Cheers, WjBscribe00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning behind blocking User:Bbbbbbbbbbbbb? Any comment would have been helpful. Perhaps "better would be '13bees'." Or "conflicts with User:Bb" (the only other user name of 'b's I've found so far) While this user name is not easily distinguishable (assuming others are created) it certainly is distinctive. Shenme00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the move protection on my talk page? I'm grateful for the userpage reverts, but the page was moved recently is an childish manner. Protecting it helps defer the problem. Thanks, Yanksox03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user asked why Template:Logo was redirected to Template:Insignia. I confess, I'm a bit perplexed too. Currently, the text at Template:Insignia is the same as it previously was at Template:Logo, except that where it says "logo," it should seem to say "insignia." Furthermore, were you aware that Template:Insignia was deleted as a result of Januay TFD? Finally, I don't want to sound like I'm stepping on your toes as an administrator, and I confess I do not know at all what the technical difference between a logo and an insignia is. Could you enlighten me and the other user at Template talk:Insignia? --Iamunknown03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wong Fu Productions has definitely become popular and well-known to the point that they deserve a page. It won't be some random page made by a handful of people that like WFP - they have enough fans all over the country. I've seen their movie, and it's definitely good enough to be submitted to film festivals. They're touring all around the country, screening their movie at places like M.I.T. and Google.
I see no reason why this page should be protected from re-creation. I think many fans would appreciate having the page back. (2/7/2007)
Several of your username blocks have been overturned, 8 in just a few days. They are all documented at the end of WP:RFCNA. A 9th one, blocked just today is being challenged now. May I suggest that in less than clear cut cases you submit names to WP:RFCN before blocking? Some of these users being blocked are potentially good contributors, particular, Guest9999 has been useful and non-disruptive since (and before) his username block has been overturned(That user was blocked by someone else, my mistake). I am a little worried some users will not come back at all. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)13:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that it would also be helpful to indicate specifically why the username is not acceptable? The reason isn't apparent in a number of these cases, except that some of the blocked names tend to include non-alphabetic characters like punctuation (which isn't a WP:U infraction). Please don't leave the user (or WP:RFCN) guessing. For one thing, it gives the user no idea what to do differently.
I join HighInBC in urging you to consider using WP:RFCN for borderline cases. Even before going there, a note on the user's talk page (to discuss a questionable, not blatant, username) might be a welcome courtesy and much less biting than a block.
Since you're clearly very busy, perhaps these templates would save you some typing time:
{{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} - to discuss a questionable name with the user
{{subst:UsernameAllowed}} - to notify a user that his name was allowed
{{subst:ArticleConcern|article name|nature of concern}} - to discuss a problem article with its author/contributor
{{subst:ArticleDiscussion|article name}} - to notify an editor of an RFC on the article
{{subst:ArticleResult|article name|outcome of RFC}} - to notify a user how the RFC turned out
{{subst:ConductConcern|nature of concern}} - to discuss a user's conduct with that user
{{subst:ConductDiscussion}} - to notify a user of an RFC on his conduct
{{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RFC}} - to notify a user how the RFC turned out
You can click on the bluelinks to see the template texts and instructions.
When you "subst:" these templates, they automagically include your signature (so you needn't add the four tildes). Subst'ing also makes the message text (rather than just the template tag) visible in edit mode so the user can reply point by point.
Filling in the "reason for objection" or "nature of concern" lets you specify just exactly what the problem is, in more detail than just "See WP:U", for instance "I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word 'xxxx' in the 'yyyy' language." With the "article" template, you must also enter the article name.
Hi! I noticed you deleted the user talk pages for Alrite Darling U Gd?, Dani casale* and I Love my Cat!!! today. Since it's only been two days since these users' RFCN discussions were closed as allow, maybe the talk pages should be kept a bit longer in case they haven't logged in and seen the messages pertaining to the name review? Also, as far as I can remember those talk pages also contained welcome messages, which might be a good thing to leave there. If you agree, maybe you could undelete those talk pages? Is he back?21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding these template requests...I look forward to helping flesh out the infoboxes. However, it seems the bot has been putting requests on the talk pages instead of in the articles. Is this intentional? Thanks. DogcatcherDrew17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As a result of a WP:RFCN discussion, I have unblocked My foot is caught in the shoe washer (talk·contribs). When I did so, I left {{welcome}} on his/her talk page and noticed that there were two deleted revisions of the talk page. From looking at Special:Undelete/User talk:My foot is caught in the shoe washer, it looks like you deleted this talk page not long after blocking the user and shortly after he/she asked to be unblocked. Except in cases of obviously trolling/attack names/pages or checkuser blocks, I don't know that it is really appropriate for the blocking admin to dispose of the unblock request - it should be handled by a second pair of eyes. I just wanted to point this out ... I think you do a great job with 99% of the usernames that you block and you take a huge chunk of the workload ... but I wanted to point out this particular deletion because I don't think it's a great idea. Thanks. --BigDT02:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admin. You are one of the admins that deleted one of the around 70 images that became unlinked due to a change in an Infobox. This resulted in many of these images to become orphaned and subsequently deleted because they are not Free images. It took a while before the less experienced authors understood there was a problem and informed more experienced authors to look into the problem. Because these images would not be deleted if the template change had gone without problems, I ask they be undeleted. kindly -- 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If I put my name on the "waiting for approval" list and get removed without notification, should I be expecting an explanation or should I just put my username back on the list? --Davidkazuhiro03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You approved my VP application today, however, when I try to log into VP, it informs me that I am not on the Approved Users list. Do I need to wait for a few days for the system to update? Spilla04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know as well, it's saying I'm not on the list. I've read the FAQs and there appears to be no fix for it, but thanks for approving me anyway, I hopw it'll start working soon! :D Sorry for wasting your time :P --RazorICE06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry to bother you again, but if you have the time, would you mind re-adding me to the VP approved list? I read somewhere that said I should ask a moderator to re-add me for it. In case VP never decides to work for me, I guess I can find something else. Thanks a lot anyway. :) --RazorICE07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that you or your bot has converted them to png. That's fine, perhaps you should leave a more informative message. The current one is at best misleading, and at first sight is just plain wrong. Greglocock12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BetacommandBot placing talk page templates on the article page
This otherwise great bot is placing {{infoboxneeded|infobox U.S. County}} on county article pages, rather than the article talk pages, where I assume they belong. Hopefully, it can be fixed before too much damage is done. Thanks! Stevie is the man!Talk • Work15:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User above has been adding similar messages in several places and has vandalised 2 pages thusfar (been warned) but that is by the by and this isn't the place for that. Sorry, just writing to ask for help with VandalProof (if I have the right place). Apparently I'm not on the list despite being told I am on the list.AlanD21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have also been put on the list but VP says I haven't. (I posted to the VP discussion board, someone there recommended I talk to you and I noticed another user seems to have the same problem). Mallanox00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, looking over your log of blocks, it looks like you're leaving the "account creation disabled" box checked when you issue username blocks and tell the users to choose a different name. That "account creation blocked" means they can't choose a different name. This should only happen when the original username is so blatantly wrong that it must be deliberate ("User:F**k You Man" or some such), so you're essentially doing a vandalism block.
As WP:U#Blocking says, "Admins should not block usernames that may have been chosen in good faith. We do not want to scare off good contributors. [...] For inappropriate usernames that may have simply been created by someone without knowledge of this policy, blocks on the username should be indefinite and should typically not use the Account Creation Disabled blocking feature, so the user can create another appropriate username, as we invite the user to do if they have not vandalised."
I didn't try counting how many blocks need to be revisited to enable account creation, but it looks like a lot. Will you be able to fix this on your own? -- Ben16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a suggestion, but would you mind using a more descriptive block message when blocking possible sleeper cell accounts? This would spare the community a great deal of time deliberating on some of these issues. (jarbarf)16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betacommand: I noticed the output from what appears to be a pretty nice tool for correlating input from various users. Is this tool public and usable by non-admins? Thanks in advance. pbryan06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion in Village Pump here is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
“
while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
”
Please instruct your bot to tag all articles in the Category:Company_stubs and the within sub categories with the template: {{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=stub|importance=}} @ maximum Speed. Would much appreciate. Thanks. Don't you feel the need for speed? :) --Parker00719:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is it also reports those to me in IRC I cant host two of the tools and I want one that has everything to report in IRC. you guys want the reasoning behind my blocks so here it is. you need to make a decision on what you want then. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a.) I have not personally complained about your blocks. b.) there is a difference between blatant block on sight names and ones that are questionable. I guess what i was suggesting is ones that need blocked on sight, i.e., has fuck, shit, or othe rprofainity in it, should probably be blocked on site and not need a WP:RFCN. It was just a friendly suggestion though! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im getting tired of being bitched at for no reason. thus I am reporting VERY block to make sure the bitching stops, and to have a solid case. and so that a unfounded RFC is not filed. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about getting frustrated. It is amazing how quick people will turn here. However, the situation isent black and white. There are clear cut names that should go streaight to WP:AIV, in my humble opinion! Personally, I feel that the questionable ones, the ones that should go to WP:RFCN, wont be able to be picked up automatically very well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Please don't escalate matters unnecessarily. I have removed your block - would we block users doing clear vandalism without a warning? An indef block on an admin in good standing without first discussing the manner isn't on. Thanks/wangi22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tired of being bitched at" is not an acceptable reason to make a WP:POINT violation. I asked you nicely not to have the bot report to the WP:RFCN userpage, because it is clogging it up with unneccssary reports. I understand you are upset, but doing this for revenge is not acceptable. Because I couldn't get a response, I have blocked you for running that bot in violation of WP:POINT. pschemp | talk21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a POINT violation. I turned off the reporting when you asked. I discovered a typo in the code and fixed and restarted the tool but i inadvertently forgot to turn reporting back off. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um yes, as indef means "no time period specified" not "forever". He's blocked until he agrees to stop running that bot reporting. pschemp | talk21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict^4) Please don't escalate matters unnecessarily. I have removed your block - would we block users doing clear vandalism without a warning? An indef block on an admin in good standing without first discussing the manner isn't on. Thanks/wangi22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already discussed this him on IRC. It isn't premature. He knew already. And you should discuss removing it with me first too. It works both ways. I find your actions extrememly rude. pschemp | talk22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Premature block, which has now been reversed by someone else. Absent a true emergency, disputes between administrators should be taken to a noticeboard before blocking. That said, Betacommand, the bot-reporting is a bit over-the-top. I think it's readily apparent that no explanation is needed for blocking a vulgar or offensive name, which couldn't reasonably belong to a good-faith contributor, but that when "qwerty5999" is blocked an explanation would be useful. Please take this entire situation to ANI for further discussion if someone hasn't already. Newyorkbrad22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beta, I have a few minor concerns regarding your block log. [7] shows that you blocked 6 editors in the course of 1 minute. Some of these editors did not appear to be vandalistic and were not given warnings or notices that they were blocked. I guess I am a little concerned about these blocks and wanted to express my concern to you before possibly taking it elsewhere, if my concerns are not addressed. Thanks, -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obow2003 (2 scanned) means that User:Obow2003 has made a total of two edits. one to Talk:Conservatism in the United States and the other to Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1 all of that users edits were to pages involved with Rjensen's editing behavior. Jozil made a total of six edits, 4 of those were to the same pages as Rjensen. and both socks voted the same way on Talk:Conservatism in the United States. Also looking into the edits and links that are provided shows a similar pattern that all of the accounts are operated by the same user. The tool doesn't find socks it just compares the editing of two editors. how the data is interpreted says whether or not the users are sock puppets or not. just look into the editing behavior of both and you can see the facts. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I've noticed that there is a backlog of users awaiting access to VandalProof. Do you actually check that page? If you haven't, I suggest that you do and remove names as necessary. The list is getting a little full. >.> Nol888(Talk)18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be a bit busy for a while Beta, and I won't be moderating actively. I am trying to get some features added that will help moderating (or get it removed) though. You might want to contact some inactive mods. Sorry, Prodegotalk18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in this [9] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf.
Benjiwolf loses his edit war on Glyphosate while he is banned but this [10] edit on the page by 83.79.168.184 is edit summarised "we have to be honest about what happened to this page, it can stay like this, yet needs a tag for accuracy sake". How does newbie 83.79.168.184 know the history of the glyphosate page.
There is a good chance that 83.78.134.122 is also Benjiwolf.
I apologize for the misunderstanding; Wikipedia does have this ability to spread false information. I was suspicious and wanted to make sure because your edits were not cited. Feel free to add information from the biography, as long as it is written in a neutral point of view. Please reference it as well, whether from Dinosaur Fight Records, the Big Hassle page, and/or his MySpace. I will go ahead and do this, and you can change it back if there is a more primary source that I have missed. -Pomte16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
