User talk:Kingpin13/archive/2010

January 2010 (approx. 13 topics)

Reuben Senyos

Oops. Apologies. --Manway (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You and your sodding AIV reports

Is this going to be blue any time soon? –xeno^talk 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to ask the same thing! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome

You're welcome anytime... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did all the information go?

Clever. However, that's not why I'm here. Since some time has passed (around three months since we talked about this last time) in which you have been doing a lot of work, and as xeno notes above, a certain link is still red, I was wondering if you would now like me to nominate you for adminship. decltype (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, of course. I just wanted to be sure that the reason for you not running wasn't the lack of a nominator. While I think you are fully qualified and do not see how you could possibly fail an RfA today, I can surely understand and appreciate your decision to wait. decltype (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know.
Message added 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've finished the article expanding. Now is more than 1600 characters. MW talk contribs 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw

Hello, Kingpin13/archive/2010 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to the Saw film series. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Saw, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of Saw and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! GroundZ3R0 002 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help regarding article assessment page Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to force image thumbnails to update

Can you tell me how to do that please? The images I amended earlier are still showing the old thumbnails, whereas I see that the ones you worked on in the last couple of hours were updated right away - I know it must be a cacheing issue, but don't know how to get the system to update it! :) Many thanks. -- DMS (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link to WP:PURGE - that gave me what I needed. Much appreciated. -- DMS (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Terrillja _talk 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

hi please could you give me some information on what i can do on wikipedia. many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10edwame (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

igloo

Hi Kingpin13, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:

• The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
• igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
• When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
• The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.
• At any time, you can re-review diffs you have already seen by pressing backspace or using the icons to move through the diff history.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! Ale_Jrb^talk 10:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Even though you've added KittyBot to the approved list, when I try to login with AWB it says "KittyBot is not enabled to use this". Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nm, I think I resolved it [4]. NJA (t/c) 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot II

SDPatrolBot II (talk · contribs) is creating a mess out of user talk pages. It stopped, but it would be nice of you (or whoever operated it) to revert it. I'm not even sure that the reports are accurate: for example, Captain R. T. Claridge doesn't appear to have had a speedy tag applied. No such user (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh.. yeah, sorry about that, t'was a stupid mistake by me messing up something with DotNetWikiBot. Anyway, should be fixed, and I think the Captain R. T. Claridge thing may have been caused by the page being moved over something. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. The speedy delete tag was applied to me Captain R.T. Claridge redirect page, because the redirect arose from an erroneous renaming of the Claridge article by another editor. I took care of that, but in the process I didn't notice that the renaming had included putting a space between the R and T. I see from naming conventions that there is no consensus on this one way or another.

But what we now have is something from Alice in Wonderland. A redirect page, where, if you click "what links here", surprise surprise brings up the links that previously went to the Captain R.T. Claridge article. Now why is that? Oh yes, that's right. Links are sensitive to the presence or absence of spaces. These are links that previously went directly to the article without any illusiory redirects. What an incredible surprise in Alice's Wonderland.

This space or no space thing didn't concern me until I realised that it is now the very BASIS for the need for the redirect. That is, the links that have been previously created in other articles, and in various bot archives, now no longer work, because while searches are impervious to the presence or absence of spaces, links are not. The only sane way out of this is to delete the erroenous, redundant, Alice-in-Wonderland redirect, and then rename the Claridge article to take away the spaces. At that point, it's back to square one, with all original links working without the need for a magic, pythonesque, idiotic, redirect.

I have just now, prior to completing this message, in the absence of any genuinely sensible help so far, tried to take care of the matter myself, by renaming the Claridge article to have no spaces between the letters, so that the links work without an Alice-in-Wonderland redirect. But after causing myself some initial confusion (yeah, well it fits with the story don't it), I realise from the exercise, that there are only two ways to take care of the issue. One is to delete the illusory redirect, the other is for me to go to all the relevant pages that have links, and put spaces between the letters. I'll do that if necessary, but that's a silly outcome. Fitting for Alice's Wonderland nonetheless.

I have added another speedy deletion tag in the hope that my own efforts to get some semblance of sanity back into the picture will prevail, beyond causing frustration for some (me included) and laughter for anyone who gets their kicks out of this sort of thing. 122.148.159.170 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC) This is me. I didn't realise my login had dropped out until I checked my user contributions. Seems fitting, given the pythonesque idiocy of it all. Wotnow (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've fixed up the problem now. I wouldn't worry too much about links to redirects. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. The issue has been resolved courtesy of ϢereSpielChequers, including some helpful feedback from WereSpielChequers and  Glenfarclas . I will probably be pulling back from Wikipedia in the near future. Having openly mooted that on some talk pages at the same time as raising my head above the parapet in some contentious areas, I wasn't sure if I was seeing the first stages of article disintegration by stealth. You know, an innocuous looking edit creates the foundation for subsequent disintegration, that sort of thing. So truth be told, that was my chief concern. But I am satisfied that all is well. My stance in life is that I would rather have egg on my face for being wrong about some things, than learn later to my horror that I was right. There is too much of that in the world, and its history. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adult FriendFinder

Hi, thanks for keeping an eye on recent changes and fighting vandalism, but I think you got this one wrong. I was not logged in when I made the edit, but it was certainly constructive - the blue link is to "prostitution", so the text "prostitutes" is more appropriate than "professionals". Could you please undo your good faith reversion? I could do it, but it might look a bit edit war-ish. Springnuts (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - indeed it is at least partly my fault for not logging in first. Springnuts (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010 (approx. 21 topics)

Thanks

Just to drop you a note that your how to create a barnstar thing imspired me to create this, and to thank you for reverting nasty vandalism on my userpage while I was away. Thanks again, Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

:-)

;-) Anna Lincoln 09:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Would you mind if...

...you comment at WT:WPWPA? (That's a new shortcut I made a few minutes ago, by the way.) I've noticed a lack of editors participating. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 11:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

MuffleThud

You all can publish stories about mythology of demons, and dreams of people who may of never existed...but let someone bring the knowledge that they have collected about an individual over the years, and you all delete it because you lack the knowledge about the individual. MuffleTard deleted the page I created before even giving me a chance to explain...This guy has gotten a little power hungry. There is no way that he has unlimited knowledge and can say that my topic was not legitimate just cause he had no knowledge of the individual. I am very upset with the administrator MuffleThud and would like to know who I need to contact to began a legitimate complaint against MuffleThud? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethenite29 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reverts, Kingpin13. MuffledThud (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. --The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my Talk Page, too. (Taivo (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Andrew Byrne article

As you asked, I have userfied it for the author at User:Tb240904/Andrew Byrne (paedophile), though I am not convinced there is an encyclopedia article here, as opposed to a true-ghastly-crimes article. I have pointed him to WP:BLP (particularly), WP:BLP1E, WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS and others, but I am still rather uneasy at the idea of a 16-year-old boy (which this editor is) trying to write this kind of article. Would you keep an eye on it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Kingpin13, I would be interested in testing WikiAlerter. Let me know if this is possible. Thanks!  Dspradau → talk  01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I needed something simple and your edit notice fit the bill. :) Cheers!  Dspradau → talk  13:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Kingpin13/archive,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

'Grats Kingpin! -- Mentifisto 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, hope this fits! ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! May your mop always be dirty with all the work it's doing! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome to WP:100! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! No opposes is a very impressive return! If you need any mopping help, drop me a line, and well done again :) GedUK  11:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell if I had know what a whitewash this was going to be I would have opposed to stop you getting so smug. Well done. Polargeo (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support guys! I have to admit, I was slightly overwhelmed by the amount of support I received, but it was definitely a more enjoyable experience than my last RfA :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to hell. Check your self-respect at the door. Tan | 39 14:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, don't listen to him, it's not that bad. Limbo maybe. Congratulations are in order I think, your RFA certainly became an impressive vote of confidence. Happy admin-ing and if you need any help, feel free to bother me. Regards SoWhy 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats for becoming a sysop! I didn't check that since I was a bit busy with a new article, land use conflict. I know you will be a great admin and help the 'pedia a lot! Again, congrats! Kayau Voting IS evil 05:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 81.38.219.5

Merits more than a 31 hour block considering the nature of his "edits" which are quite beyond the pale (making accusations that a living person is a "mafia boss" etc. and that an editor is a "pedophile" (note the official position about such accusations) warrant a stronger result IMHO than 31 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See, Kingpin? You're being criticized already. Block was fine; there was no past disruption and block length for IPs is rarely calculated using the "nature" of the vandalism. Tan | 39 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

<g> I did not intend a "criticism" as I find Kingpin13 to be a very able editor. I, by the way, find "pedophile" to be a term which has been found in the past to be especially actionable. Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was mainly following the advice of WP:NAS/B in the time choice. Collect, if the account has only be vandalising for a short period (as with this one) there's a larger chance that the user is editing from a dynamic address, or that they are one-timers, in which case a longer block would be pointless. With IP accounts who continue to vandalise, it's obvious they're going to keep coming back, and come from the same address, so a longer block would be sensible for persistent vandalism only accounts. I doubt the user will return after a 31 hour block, and if they do they will be quickly re-blocked for a longer period. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. Tan | 39 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me, there are probably shed loads of indef blocked IP addresses out there which we should be reviewing and probably unblocking. ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs. NW (Talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Thank you for the barnstar. On a different note, would you know of a easy way to work out how many edits a user (my self in this case) has done? --blue520 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Should have remembered my preferences (and it will do just fine), but will have to explore Soxred93's tools, very interesting. Thank you very much for pointing that one out.--blue520 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Kingpin13, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot name blocks

I've noticed a few blocks for username policy due to 'bot' in the name, and you may be interested in this past discussion on the policy page. After considering their lack of contributions histories, and a glance at the names, I think a couple of them could have used some prior discussion before an outright block. This is simply a heads up as a few admins can get snippy with username blocks by arguing we're scaring away new users who aren't likely aware of the policy, and who are unlikely to actually cause anyone real confusion. One that comes to mind is Babybot209, possibly even Relbot1. Anyhow, cheers. NJA (t/c) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

FaleBot

Thankyou :) Fale (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you were unfair.

You went directly to a level 4 warning. The next one should have been a level 2 warning. - Zhang He (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Uosis55

It should be delete User:Uosis55. --Uosis55 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Newfoundland (island)

Not sure what happened there. I think you deleted that exactly as I was moving it. Talk:Newfoundland (atoll) is really the one that should have been deleted. If you could delete the others, that'd be nice too, as I don't want to tag them all for G3. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That ROT13 edit summary turned out to be rather boring, BTW. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

congrat, help

You are the newest admin. Can you help moderate a discussion on your talk page (or elsewhere if you prefer)? How about 8 days maximum to prevent too much time on your part. The purpose of the discussion is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Editor_threatens_to_bring_things_to_ANI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Tag_team_editors_.28Fat.26Happy.2FJohnuniq.29_and_inserting_information_not_supported_by_the_references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556#Seb._please_help

Furthermore, in a show of unilateral restraint, I have declared that I will not edit the related articles for 36 hours and even longer if some others do the same for some time (even a shorter time). At least one of the others refuses to but that is ok, just makes them look obstructionist.

Can you be available for a discussion here? Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I wanted to delete those big letters? It looks like some bug! :) All best! --Tadija (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, it is probably my mistake somehow! :) P.S. You have so much awards! :) :) Can i send you something on e-mail to advice me? Is it a problem? -Tadija (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your reply. I see your point.

While you disagree with bringing it on ANI, someone already threatened me that he would bring it there. So I was trying to make a defendant's statement without waiting to be accused. I'm not sure how to do it differently since the threat was already made to bring it to ANI.

As far as tag teaming, what should be the correct way to do things? In ANI, I see accusations all the time of tag teaming, meat puppetry, etc. To deny that tag teaming ever happens is lying to yourself. However, your point of not mentioning it is well taken and I will try to not mention it.

As far as Bo the dog, if you look at the discussion, you will see that there was no support for it. All the support for it has been reverts without discussion. The discussion that was against the dog was that the references support that it was a gift to the daughters and makes no mention of it being a gift to Barack. Good editors, not tag teamers, who want mention of the dog would search for reliable sources to show that it was a gift to Barack. Furthermore, there was a discussion that the dog was more trivial than other things that weren't being put in to the article. This seems to be a case of more people failing to make an adequate case or participate in a discussion but getting their way. How can this be solved (not the dog specifically, but like if there were an AFD and the vote was keep but the good reasoning was for delete - Here it's even worse because in the AFD case, the keepers are voting and leaving discussion which isn't the case with the dog issue).

Looking at the edits, some editors seem extremely resistant to article improvement. As proof that it is not a matter of being pro- or anti-Obama, all my suggestions for article improvement are Obama neutral. Comments?

To give you the courtesy of reply, I will refrain from any editing on the Obama article for an additional 24-48 hours. Thank you for your thoughts. JB50000 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've decided to extend the Obama holiday for another 24 hours since you seem open to discussion. If everyone were like you, there would be no problem! Having another talk page discussion might be like keep asking until you get a "no". The other people failed to discuss things on the talk page. For an article on article probation, this is misconduct.

But energy is limited and I don't really care about the dog. What I am worried about is that the article is so broken that even a simple issue as the dog is unresolved, how can people jointly edit foreign policy or economic policy? And how can an edit where there the references say the dog is a gift to Malia and Sasha, not to Barack. So this is a question of references. Since admin candidates get asked all kinds of questions in the RFA, how do you address the question of edits that almost are supported by the references, but not quite? Let a sloppy edit go or strive for the best? So the questions are how can weighty issues be edited when simple issues can't and how to address sloppy use of references?

Again, thank you for helping out. Do you want to lean on the other editors a little and speak your mind? JB50000 (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If everyone at the Obama article were like you, I would have no dispute. You have taken your new role of admin very well by acting as a moderator.

The next question is if such a simple question as the dog is so difficult to resolve, how can one go about resolving bigger issues, such as foreign policy or economic policy. Try to change even one sentence and a huge fight. The fight would be so huge if the change involved any negative shortcomings of Obama, which all presidents have.

Are you willing to help out and speak to some of the other editors, if necessary, or to make a comment on the article talk page? If you are successful in solving a problem, you would have earned your promotion many times over. If you accept, I will discuss with you the issue/improvement selected.

As before, I will refrain from editing there for another at least 24 hours to make it easier for you to accept this mission. JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are worth more than others. Some of the editors seem to be very biased and unfair. You seem like a neutral person. You are also an administrator so if you come as a moderator and someone says "fuck you nazi", then they can be blocked. You are also randomly chosen, just the most recent administrator.

Here's an issue that I would like your advice. Here is a good summary of the history (before someone cries that it's not a reliable source, it does explain things better and also see other references at the end of this message). http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/03/obamas-never-be.html Obama's campaign was bragging and calling him professor. Hillary Clinton's campaign thought that was deceptive. Wikipedia should never take sides, like taking Obama's side. On the other hand, you probably shouldn't smear the man by mentioning the whole history of the controversy. If you look at the White House website, Obama no longer claims to be professor. They just say that he taught law, which is a respectable way of putting it.

So using the World War II analogy, you don't just report the Russian version of history even if you quote from the state newspaper and reliable source, Pravda. You report the neutral version. In this case, a fair and neutral way to say it is that Obama taught constitutional law from 1992 to 2000 (or whatever year) as a Lecturer and later a Senior Lecturer. Very factual. No embellishment. No confusion with Professor (as in full professor) and non-specific professor.

Again, because of your thoughtfulness, much more than some of those other people in that article, I will refrain from editing there for at least 24 hours to give you a chance to reply. Without deciding on the exact wording, you can simply let me know that there is a legimate concern about calling him professor and that it is not anti-Obama (which some falsely accuse me of). What do you think? JB50000 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References:
Good summary of events - http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/03/obamas-never-be.html
Supports the accuracy of the blog but has less detail - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx
Shows that there is confusion between Professor and professor - http://www1.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2005-04-20-voa2-83126002.html
Responsible way of saying things and a RS itself as the White House isn't going to fudge his resume - http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What does the internet community think? The worldwide consensus is different. See http://ask.metafilter.com/81584/Adjunct-Instructor-Lecturer-Professor The internet community realizes there is confusion between professor and Professor and many warn against self inflation.

Then we are taking the one side and that violates NPOV. The blogs are not sources for references. But they do help us understand what is going on. So one side, Obama's campaign, promotes a side and WP swallows it whole. I am neutral and for article improvement so I do not advocate taking the opposite side, but I favor neutral wording that takes no sides and even doesn't mention that there is a controversy. Why is that NPOV worse than taking a POV stance?

Furthermore, the University of Chicago press release does not explain the confusion between Professor and professor. Should that be in the article? (I think not because to have one bad area then try to explain away the bad area is poor writing).

Besides, it is deceptive to say "the community believes" because there is no denying that there are so pretty rude people there and there is quite a bit of aggression that drives many people out. This leaves a number of partisan people and few have the stomach for neutral improvement, like I do. If anyone tries to deny that the atmosphere is not poisonous there, they are in denial and have poor judgement. To admit that it is difficult to fix is one thing, but denial is a bad sign. There are also some people who recognize the professor problem.

Why is it that some insist on putting professor? Is it that they want to yell "he is professor!"? What happened to neutrality?

As always, your thoughtful is nice and I will refrain from commenting on that page in order to make it easier for you. JB50000 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, we should not say "unless we see black and white proof that the university is helping Obama, we have to take the university's side". There is a truly neutral side.

The pro-Obama side wants to say: Obama was a professor, he served as Lecturer and then Senior Lecturer.

The anti-Obama side wants to say: Obama is a Muslim and he was caught stretching the truth when the Hillary campaign nagged him about the Professor issue.

The truly neutral and careful side says: Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago where he was initially a Lecturer from these years and later a Senior Lecturer. (optional: Obama was offered a position as a full time faculty member but declined).

We have the White House, which is a reliable source, being careful in what they say and they don't say professor. We have reliable sources, like the Voice of America, which explains to confused listeners about different faculty rank and professor, Professor. So if you don't want confusion, there is the truly neutral way.

I am surprised that few support the neutral way.

One trouble with the Obama article is that there is no board of professional journalist to copy edit the article. We just have some people, some very rude and unprofessional, and some very biased based on their comments.

So question 1 is do we consider NBC to be a reliable source, in general? They say He is a senior lecturer and has cited that he is a constitutional law professor on the trail. That's something that has caused some criticism and allegations of exaggeration. It's something the Clinton campaign has pushed as well in conference calls with reporters in the past week.

Question 2 is more philosophical: What is the way to neutrality in controversial article, which there are plenty - see the nationalistic conflicts, like Kosovo and Gaza? Or should there be strict rules and related articles must comply? For example, if there's a set of rules and then both Republican and Democratic politicians or presidents' article need to follow that and standardize writing of controversial issues the same way (such as writing education and background the same way)? This would be for US politicians to start. JB50000 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have ended voluntarily not editing any Obama page but I made a few, hopefully, helpful comments. If you think any are very bad or awful, let me know. After this message, I won't write any more until you can look at them (or 24 hours) and the 2 questions above. Thank you for being a moderator. JB50000 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Guildford Cathedral

I had intended to load an article entitled "The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral" but gave the title of "The exterior of Guildford Cathedral". This lead to a suggestion that my article be merged with that already existing on Guildford Cathedral. Realising my mistake I thought I would start again with the correct article title and add a note of explanation. What I am trying to do is add the article earlier entered as "The exterior of Guildford Cathedral" but titled "The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral". Guess I have approached this in a clumsy way "Kingpin 13" but if you can help and allow my new submission to go through I would be most obligedWeglinde (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Guildford Cathedral

Thank you for the explanation. I have contacted User:Blanchardb explaining what had happened and asking permission to remove merger suggestionWeglinde (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010 (approx. 43 topics)

Thanks

Thank you for fixing the image on the "Mendip Hills" article so quickly. I was a little taken aback by it, and couldn't figure out how to get it back to its previous revision. I had to check the date--I think someone is a month ahead :). Matt (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

Look what this person did. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=347043365&oldid=347042962

Ok, he didn't like my comment and removed it. This is near vandalism or vandalism. But since it was about the person and not a suggestion to improve the article, I accept.

However, then he wants to ban me and complained here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement

If anyone is banned, he should be banned. The correct thing to do would be to politely contact me and say that commentary about the subject matter is discouraged and the talk page shouldn't be a forum, rather only proposed edits should be discussed. If told that, I would have removed the talk page stuff. Rather, this person is being uncivil.

To help you in the matter, I will refrain from editing on the Obama pages for 36 hours. This will allow us to discuss things. Thank you for your help. If you actually help in a good way, you will have earned your mop.

It is telling that I am the only one who has been nice to you and stopped editing to allow you to comment. The other aggressive editors keep fighting. JB50000 (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here?

As a administrator I was hoping that you may be able to help me out or point me in the right direction.

What is going on here? (AKA I did not do that, but it changed) With my I addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Mulingar (04:06, 26 February 2010) some how the link in the second line changed from Baron Mulingar to Earl of Carbery. I did not edit that section. How did it occur, did I do it some how unintentionally? Should I fix it or just leave it?

Also with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Mulingar note the identical signature style and edit times for User:Leeadam68 and User:Historyislife, also the edits of User:Irishlibraryguy. I am concerned that there may be socking going on, is it worth taking it to a SPI or am I leaning into bad faith? Thanks.--blue520 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fixing it and will ask a SPI clerk. Have a good day.--blue520 10:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll accept this Barnstar for reverting the edits made to my userpage. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent change to "stack effect"

Hey there!

That stack effect change was me- I was deleting a link that directed to a book purchase page with no information for the user. I'm new to this, though, and I think I might have deleted too much that first time- thank you for switching it back. This time, I fixed it properly so that only the link is gone. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney9651 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again! I was a little stuck on how to sign. Wikipedia is a pretty complicated entity! Barney9651 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quirk in bot programming?

I got a note earlier today from SDPatrolBot II that a page I created had been tagged for spam. User:AutoBody Alliance was created as a spam page; I deleted it and left a note at User talk:AutoBody Alliance; the user later replaced my message with more spam, which was the page in question. Do you know if there would be any way to reprogram the bot so that it catches complete page "rewrites" such as this? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I know nothing of bot programming, so I didn't know that I was asking for something difficult. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Sticky Prod workshop.
Message added 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am being picked on by DD2K. He says that I am the puppetmaster of JB50000. I'm not. I would never edit so poorly like JB50000, this is an insult. Gaydenver (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at KingpinBot's talk page.
Message added 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Power's Brewery Page

I recenlty tried to recreate a page, listed in headline, but it was quickly deleted by you quickly afterwards, why? I had plans to work on it and ad pictures and links to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warntom (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi there, sorry for bothering, but I've been on the AWB request checkpage for almost two days now. I'm just wondering if you could look over it. Thanks! C6541 (T↔C) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi KP13
Thank you for this. Sincerely appreciated!
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Hi Kingpin13/archive/2010 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) PS: Now that there is practically nothing left to argue about, interest seems to be low except for the users who can make templates, and write bots. I can't do either. All I can do is try to motivate, keep things on track, and some general discussion page housekeeping. It looks as if you are going to be playing a key role in programming anything that needs doing automatically. Please stay tuned to the workshop :) --Kudpung (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods bot

Thanks for your note. Sorry, but I am taking a break from the workshop.

But I had already drafted wording (not a whole template) for the article creator. The last time I knew, no one had commented on my draft.

I hadn't done anything for wikiprojects.

Thanks for your help. Maurreen (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

why

why did you deleat my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan14 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds

I am sorry but he has been attacking the past few weeks for absolutely nothing. All tennis fans know how this pages function and he doesn't. as you can see i never complain if it is reasonable, please tell you editor to know what he is doing, because he apparently doesn't. THis is actually the first times that i was diverted when i make a page, and he acused me of not placing a reference when i did not even edit the whole thing, there is a lot people who edited it, so i am not happy. (talk

I am sorry but there is a reference look at the external links that is the reference. (talk)

What I am saying is that if i am not complying with your policies, I am asking you to tell everyone that is editing Tennis tournaments that they are doing it wrong. (talk)

FYI this is how things have been going for all Tennis Article for tournaments can you please check so why just attack me. You should attack everyone that are doind this even your top editors are doing this. Don't defend someone that is unreasonable.

It is because i do not find anything wrong with it. If you guyz find anything wrong with it, isn't it your responsibility to tell everyone that is violating the same offense. (talk)

I am sorry but if you look from 2007 it has but like this, so if former editors did not see anything wrong with how come your friend did. (talk)

It seems to me whatever I say, will not make sense to you, so that is point blank. (talk)

Octane Ok

Hello i created the page for the band Octane Ok. i dont think it should have been deleted, as this band are up and coming and are proving succesful already. with a debut single coming out soon, air play on Kerrang Radio and TV, and touring over the UK and Europe. i believe this is all quite significant. so i do not think the article should have been deleted. pleas re-consider your decision. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed08 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

octane ok

while i do understand your reasoning for deleting the article. i think the band have achieved enough. they have been featured in magazines such as 'Ourzone' and 'Black Velvet' and been mentioned in the Birmingham Mail newspaper. and have been played several times on Kerrang Radio, as well as having approval off radio 1 DJ Fearne Cotton they were also the guest headliners (non competitive) for the global battle of the bands. in which bands from all over the world compete, so that was an honour.

if you do not think this is enough then i will understand, and re-create the article at a later date when the band have more of their inevitable success.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coheed08 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Bible speedy

The page move was broken because it was a move to The Holy Bible (Album), not The Holy Bible (album) as would have been appropriate. More importantly, the move was proposed a long time ago and there was no opposition. You also seem to have messed up with this edit, redirecting a talk page to articlespace. I'd appreciate it if you sorted the fallout out here. And not templating the regulars. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Help scripts

1. When I input the Title's name in Vietnamese (default interwiki.py), the script can't work and I receive this note:

Which page to check: Mù tạt
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Python25\pywikipedia\interwiki.py", line 2389, in <module>
    main()
  File "C:\Python25\pywikipedia\interwiki.py", line 2356, in main
    singlePageTitle = pywikibot.input(u'Which page to check:')
  File "C:\Python25\pywikipedia\wikipedia.py", line 8494, in input
    data = ui.input(question, password)
  File "C:\Python25\pywikipedia\userinterfaces\terminal_interface.py", line 241, in input
    text = unicode(text, config.console_encoding)
TypeError: decoding Unicode is not supported

Could you please help me?

2. I saw that you own the bot which add the WikiProject banners to the talk pages of appropriate pages, I am trying to do that in many WikiProjects in vi.wp. Could you please share me some instructions about this?

Thank you very much!--Tranletuhan (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the approval!--Tranletuhan (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		The Guidance Barnstar may be awarded to users who help others locate valuable resources, information, or assistance. This barnstar is awarded to Kingpin13 for his incredible assistance and patience. Wikipedia truly needs more helpful editors like you! Thank you! Okip 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Can you allow me to take it out for a spin? Thank you.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the edit on my talk page. That was so nice! :) o0pandora0o (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

copy of winuser.h has been deleted.

Hi Kingpin13,

Sorry. I did not mean to infringe any copyrights. Thanks for your collaboration.

Marcelofinki (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Marcelo.

Update on the bot requested at WT:U

Check the thread, Joe says that KittyBot already is doing this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Sir. All I want is to be part of something. And do the best that I can and make a difference and I found it here at Wikipedia. I've been a manager in all areas mostly customer service. I do feel I have good judgment. I will work on my skills here in wikipedia. and no I'm am not put-off because of your decision. No one likes to get an earned privilege taken away, but I understand. And quite honesty if I saw what User:Jeni I would of done the same thing. My Pride I can fix and extending my knowledge I will. Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you be the first to sign my guestbook User:Mlpearc/Guestbook it would be an Honor.

On different note you said something about me putting Category's in question marks, If do you still have that link I'd like to see that. Thanks for your support, and I will be re-applying in the future. when i do hope you can give me a vote of a second chance Thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 10:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at SMasters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wow

Thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Hello, Hope you are doing fine, I passed by your tool WikiAlerter, I downloaded it, and I am ready to start using it, Can you give me permission?? thank you :-). please replay to my talk page MaenK.A._Talk 18:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am fine too, Thank you for the permission, and I ll report any errors or difficulties not explained in your manual, thank you again :-) MaenK.A._Talk 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Glad to help out in the page move vandalism scenario, thanks to you for doing the majority of the work though!! --Taelus (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Krypton hydroxide

Please block his E-mail function. He is a sock of User:ScienceGolfFanatic--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at White Shadows's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Just wanted to say great work on the RCP today :), and would you like me to protect your user page from those vandals? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Im glad Wikipedia is accessible again, i hate to think how much vandalism slipped trough during the downtime(Well, its technically still down, but at least im back). As for the protection, thanks for the offer, but i have a neat small line in my talk page comment dealing with that: "PS: If you are a Vandal who intends to vandalize any of my pages: Please go right ahead! I frankly don't give a damn about it, and it demonstrates that im doing my work well.". Vandalism on my talk page means no vandalism in the article space, and talk page vandalism is really obvious. ^^ Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a sysop of other language project. 219.77.60.192 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking / speedy deletion

Hi, re blanking instead of csd tagging, I was actually in the process of tagging (I blanked first as it was attack page, but patrol oldschool and couldn't remember the csd code) but it was deleted before I hit save.... (You're working at lighting speed today). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Gogo Dogo

No worries - Actually, one other thing maybe worth looking at - there's a user currently creating multiple user pages under the name Gogo Dogo, each with the comment "Created page with 'Hi, hi, hi! I'm a sock puppet of Gogo Dodo! I've changed my IP.-'" There's at least Gogo Dodo 6, Gogo Dodo 5, Gogo Dodo 4. As far as I can tell Gogo Dodo is a legitimate editor, so its probably someone who's been blocked by them. Any idea how to treat that? I'll put a note on Gogo Dodo's page (The original) but am not sure if they're online at the moment. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne

Hi, Kingpin; Dwayne said (in reference to a volunteer group), "I expect a bureaucrat to respond to a request within 24 hours," which I consider to be grossly imperious and impolite at best. WJBscribe (talk · contribs) also considered the comment rude. Useight (talk · contribs) also considered the comment rude. Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) also considered the comment rude.

I am stunned and concerned that you judge his comment to have been "very civil" – and in the light of the clear opinion that he was rude I highlighted above, I hope you will be willing to withdraw the peremptory and authoritative tone of your instruction, "Do not claim that DwayneFlanders is being rude when they're not"? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that requesting an admin take a look at something is completely appropriate. Saying, however, "I expect admins to respond to all requests within 3hrs," (compensating for the fact that there are over fify times more admins) would be extremely rude, as was Dwayne's request.

This was apparent to me and also to the three editors I quoted above... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 15:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is, I'm glad you wouldn't be insulted; at least four others would, as you can see. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the personal attacks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page, and quickly too. Have a good day, --Taelus (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at KingpinBot's talk page.
Message added 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Beta TESTING

i wish to do beta testing (RIS-Lt.JG CODY 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIS cody (talk • contribs)

My welcome template

Thanks for the tweaks - sometimes you just don't notice little things when you are working on them yourself! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ashorthurry66

sock of SGF. please block e-mail.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't.

I said it should be 'Go fuck yourself, please'. I never said it to them directly. HalfShadow 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for helping keep my userpages clean. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Eriksen

A teacher at Sout Salem highschool, who recently won the "Crystal Apple Award." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whohaven (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rsbot

I disagree with your interpretation, since it's software that runs on a website, but I'll list it for AfD anyway. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would apply to IE if IE only ran on one website. But whatever, it's listed for afd now. Woogee (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 (approx. 24 topics)

Power's brewery

Hello Kingpin, I'm Warntom, i did the power's brewery page a fair while ago and it was deleted and i recently tried to re-do awhile ago but got deleted shortly afterwards, i want to know if theire is anyway i could restart the page without it being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warntom (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:User:Airplaneman/welcomer.js

Thanks for adding the summary! It's great! Except... now the welcome template is not showing up, only the edit summary :). Before, there was no edit summary, but I got {{subst:user:Airplaneman/W}} to show up automatically. Now it's the opposite. I tried rearranging the code (and I also purged the cache of my browser) but it didn't help. May you please drop by and take a look when you have a minute? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It works now. Not sure what was going on earlier. Thanks for your help, Airplaneman ✈ 03:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot task: British Museum-related articles

Hi, I was recommended to ask you about using your bot to tag articles as being related to the British Museum. It's not precisely a WikiProject (yet?) (it's a sort of experimental project that will be helpful for collaboration with galleries, libraries, archives, museums, et cetera) but it uses a WikiProject-style tag, {{BM-related}}.

I need to get all of the articles in the category British Museum tagged, excepting the subcategories British Museum-related articles by importance, British Museum-related articles by quality, and People associated with the British Museum.

I also would like to have all of the ratings, of both quality and importance, from other WikiProject templates copied to the template wherever possible, using the lowest rating applicable in cases of conflict. Ideally, if there's no quality information available from WikiProject template(s), there should also be a stub-check done, which it looks like your bot can do.

Is this currently feasible using your bot, or should I look elsewhere? Feel free to reply here; I watch talk pages upon which I comment. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 18:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well I could technically get my bot to do this. But I'm not really very familiar with the auto-assessment (I've used a stub check before, but never the auto-assess from other tags on the page). I do have some code to do it, so I can try and get it up and running, but personally I think you'd be better off asking Xeno. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods

Hi Kingpin13/archive/2010'! You participated earlier in the sticky prod workshop. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few points of contention.
There are now a few proposals on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --Maurreen (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot

Hi Kingpin, please see that: [5] ‫‫‫cheers, Adler (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Felipe Massa

Hi, I see you blocked a particularly troublesome guy's IP earlier for vandalising Felipe Massa. He's still at it [6] with another IP - he could go on for ever like this... what can be done in such circumstances? There was a case here that I brought to try and deal with it, but he seems hard to stop. Bretonbanquet (talk)

Ah, didn't think of that! Thank God for admins ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been volunteered!

Congratulations! Seriously though, would you be willing to take on the development and maintenance of the BLP PROD notification bot that we discussed? Gigs (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 16

Hi, i am a current member editing this page named The Amazing Race, however, many people, some were IP address who tried to vandalize the page, please allow that page to be placed as semi-protection, Thanks

Evan Weinstein 09:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my question, so what is the best solution to solve this, since that page will see people (esp, the IP users) will be edited almost everyday. Evan Weinstein 09:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, np, a few to note: within a span of 2 days, there were more then 3 spams/vandalism acts, but i shall say the worst 3.

made by user 112.203.11.134 made by user 87.204.120.240 made by user 58.152.99.123 Evan Weinstein 09:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything Evan Weinstein 10:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: CSD Coaching

I cannot answer two of your questions, because those articles were deleted :P You'll see what I'm talking about when you look. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at ThaddeusB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Pages at User:SPPatrolBot/lists/custom/Trial Testing

Hello Kingpin13, this is an update from SPPatrolBot to let you know that new pages have been listed at User:SPPatrolBot/lists/custom/Trial Testing. - (trial edit, report errors to Kingpin13) SPPatrolBot (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you dear. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter 311

Hi Kingpin13. Would it be possible to tweak edit filter 311 to pick up edits like this one and this one as well? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Weird. As you may have already seen, there's been a suggestion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Black_Baboon to modify the filter to simply prevent the addition of the phrase "Black Baboon" by any unregistered editor. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kingpinbot

Hey. I can't get AWB to work, and therefore can't run my bot. Could you get your bot to deliver:

==Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #29==

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 29}}

to the pages listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Member list/Posted in full, and:

==Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #29==

The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 29|29th issue]] of the [[WP:WPTC|WikiProject Tropical cyclones]] newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the [[WP:WPTC/SPAM|mailing list]].

to the pages listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Member list/Link? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Message

Oh, very much so. I can't help disliking the inference that I felt some god-given superiority to do what I liked, though. It was merely an attempt to save a little time that I could then reinvest in actually writing an encyclopedia, time which, sadly, has now be taken up with this. Process (such as BRFA) should be there to accomplish something, not just to be blindly stuck to; there was nothing to be gained here except rubber stamping. Hence why I did it. But I'm sure you know that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No point bothering just yet; the renewed list is likely to be a lot shorter, so possible to do effectively manually. And that's if they all want their talkpages spamming again. And if we go to newsletters, I'll go find someone else's and save myself even more time. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

deny bot

Thanks for your help. In one of your comment to Jarry1250 you wrote, "Personally I don't know why it bothers O18; it takes 30 seconds to read the message and then deny the bot if you're not interested." I would point out that denying a bot that is approved to fix up BLP pages seems bizarre; part of my confusion is that I was simply confused as to why that bot was editing my talk in the first place. Anyways, thanks again. 0¹⁸ (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Military of the European Union

Could you please add it to W:AFD as I don't know how to format it correctly. The Article just needs a merge with the article I mentioned, becuase the EU dosent have a military, only a common defence policy. Its best Wikipedia sticks to actual truth and not things that simply sont exist. Recon.Army (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I cant find it in AFD?? Recon.Army (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot

This edit probably should have been avoided...also [7] and [8] - I didn't check which one was right, but make up your mind Tim Song (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused

• Need a little help here. I came across this and can't conclude if we Need to add this to our .js pages or is this just for bot operators ? If you coould clarify this for me thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mlpearc MESSAGE 14:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for unblocking Thesevenseas while I was off-line. I appreciate your speedy assistance on the issue! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Message

I just wanted to apologise for my wrongdoings and thanks for sorting things out. I feel I need to leave so I shouldn't be any more trouble here. I am giving this barnstar as a small token of appreciation.

		The Original Barnstar
		For looking the project and helping thing run smoothly. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 3' 15" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Farewell, Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 3' 15" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An award

		The Userpage Shield
		For reverting vandalism on my userpage. Thanks! The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

SD Patrolbot II

Hey. Got a note here that the bot tagged my talk page, to inform me that somebody had tagged "Hilda Madsen" for {{db-redirtypo}} - thing is, though, that this redirect was the result of a move. I just never got around to tagging it myself. That said, is it plausible that the bot can check to see if the redirect was the result of a move, or...? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hello Kingpin13, I am here asking to have my AWB reinstated. I have slowed down and learned my lesson. I've been using Huggle on recent change patrol, and I've realized an Editor needs to slow down with these "Hot Rod" programs, there's turns, corners and dips in the roads, You just can't go "pedal to the metal" down the straightaway's. Sorry to use the hot rod analogy but that's how I see it, anyway in case you need a re-fresh Here. You know I actually seen other AWB newbies doing the same thing. Maybe we should develop a learning module that would take an Editor down that road before handing over the keys. I hope I don't need to go back Here but if I do could give a reference to Mr. Rodhullandemu. Thank you Sir for the "slow down, take your time" lesson. Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Sir, I will Mlpearc MESSAGE 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

I think I remember reading somewhere that your bot was approved for WikiProject tagging, otherwise I'll pass it on to another botop (there's a list somewhere, I'm sure).

Could you make sure articles on this list are tagged with {{WikiProject Economics}}. Some are red links and a few will already have been tagged, but I'm sure the bot can cope.

I have no doubt there will be more in future, but we're testing what the bot can do. Inherit classes, please, if you can manage it. And auto-stub. That sort of thing.

Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kingpin, if you are able to do bot based or bot assisted project tagging we would really appreciate your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Project_Tagging - even if its just to tell us what is and isn't possible. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've added a comment, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to follow the conversation, if you come up with any specific questions I'll be happy to attempt to answer them :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Never did much like inheritance anyway. Please go ahead and get it done :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Will get to this, but the kingbotk plugin and awb are breaking at the moment. I'll let you know once it's completed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO

Hey Kingpin, thanks for taking up this page's updates with Kingpinbot. I did have a question, though - there is a log page of the AFD Debates newly eligible for closure (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing), and it apparently has been added to the various AFD categories (including Biographical). We've attempted to adjust the template to eliminate the category if it's applied to that log page, but it showed up again on the 22nd (per [9], listed at 15 March). The page was removed again this morning, since it no longer has the categories (per [10]). It's not a big deal at all, really, but would it be possible to have Kingpinbot not list log pages or this page? If it's non-trivial, no need to fuss with it - but we have had no luck with the template-end of the problem, so I thought you might have an easier means of clearing this up. Thanks again for your help, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 (approx. 13 topics)

WikiProject tagging

Hey Kingpin. How's it going with that? I wouldn't press, but as you may know I have svncommit access to AWB, so if there's something that still needs fixing...? Also, I want to hand you another list of articles, but I'd feel a bit bad piling these requests up on you just at the moment, so if there's anything I can do, just shout. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Buh, sorry for the lack of action on my part, I've been fairly busy recently, and this slipped my mind, I'll try and take another shot at this once I've fixed User:SDPatrolBot II. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, even as we speak I myself have a scary number of reminder emails in my inbox. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh, you know what, I just can't get this to work. When ever I run AWB it says it has an update, I update, and run, and it says I have an update, and we loop, I've tried manually updating and what not. I deleted the AWBUpdater, but then the Plugin doesn't show up properly. It'd probably be quicker for you just to get another bot from the category to do it. I'd recommend xeno's bot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to overwrite manually from a snapshot. Very irritating. But I'll get onto xeno anyway, save the bother. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

The same vandal (83.39.9.248) has also repeatedly violated Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Seems politeness is insufficient for him. Collect (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

user page semi requested

Noting the recurrence of vandalism from IP on my user page - merci. Collect (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Carlaude/Rulers

I sure that most of the items at User:Carlaude/Rulers are not tagged. Last I looked, not even those at the start were tagged. Were you looking here instead? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian

Awesome Wikipedian Kingpin13 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kingpin13's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kingpin13! Keep up this work, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interview request: The newbie experience, revert communication

As I'm concluding the study related to the NICE user script, I'd like to ask you some questions over the phone about your experiences with and ideas about Wikipedia. The questions will be about to how you interact with new editors and the way you communicate when reverting. This chat should take about 45 minutes to an hour. If you are interested or need more details, please let me know. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fear of Change Barnstar

		The Fear of Change Barnstar
		Ha! I love it. For your clever rescuing of the original (and, imo, far superior) logo, I present to you the Fear of Change Barnstar. Why do they bother fixing things that ain't broke? –xenotalk 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Although on the fixing things which ain't broke, I can't exactly speak, as a programmer ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 83.59.242.1.124 at 6RR, responsible for repeated vandalism of article

Hitting Yellow journalism for 6RR! Strong suspicion this is the same person mentioned before (79.151.etc.) multiple accounts clear, as well as exact same pattern of edits. Indef this time? Collect (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, blocking the IP address for edit warring would mean blocking Christian1985 too. Also, probably not a good idea to indef block an IP address which seems to be dynamic (I don't actually recall the previous issue you mention, as my memory is failing :/). I'm afraid I'm not in the mood to handle this at the moment, and don't really have the time. I'd suggest you take it to ANI or EWN - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll keep an eye on it, and give both the editors a final warning for edit warring, so we can discuss this rather than war over it. If either attempt to add/remove the daily mail again, I think a block would be okay. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Or not... Had an edit conflict with Daniel Case, who seems to have decided to take control of things, with a block for the ip. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Christian is not the problem - the problem is a determined IP who has edit-warred repeatedly on this article. Not even a close call IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

From where I stand Christian looks like a determined user who has edit-warred repeatedly on that article. Fair enough if the IP account is a block evading, but if it is, block it for block evasion, not edit warring. And even if it is, the correct response to this kind of thing isn't to just edit war over it (as Christian did) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect tagging

Hi Kingpin. I was doing a quick comb through and found that wiki-project medicine's Dermatology task force has generated a list of redirects tags (approx 1500) that needs to be done. I am aware that you run a bot that does project tagging and was wondering if this task may be added to your bot for a one run. I have in the past done it by hand and can do it if necessary, but thought I would ask. :) The generated list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Unassessed redirects from the thread at the project page here. The template added would be

{{WPMED|class=redirect|importance=|dermatology=yes}}

. Thanks in advance. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight Needed

As you have done before, oversight is needed on all these edits. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Zzuuzz blocked the other ones making these edits as proxies and blocked them for 5 years (Example). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Done, I'll email OS for a full oversighting (think that's right :/, still getting to grips with revdel) </ec> Well, not sure about it being a proxy, I thought we had a bot to deal with that? I'm not particularly savvy with proxies, but feel free to with Zzuuzz, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nm Zzuuzz has dealt with it now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Great work to the both of you :) You guys are knocking these out before they have a chance to cause any problems. Great job! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). It's one of the few advantages of having waaay too many user pages on one's watchlist ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what the hell it was, but thanks for removing it. wiooiw ^(talk) 23:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RF on ANI

Regarding the ANI thread: given the long history of bot violations here, I think that some firmer leadership by BAG would be helpful. There are unapproved bot runs under the user account, unapproved bot runs under the bot account (e.g. [11]), bot runs that go beyond the tasks authorized, routine violation of the WP:AWB rule against making inconsequential edits, and random editing with a bot account (e.g. [12]). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, frankly the Bot Approvals Group is simply there (imo) to approve and disapprove bot tasks. We don't have the final say when it comes to all things bots, such as unapproved bot tasks (there's not really much more one can do as a BAG member except say "you can't do that!", the correct people to be asking for action from are admins or the community). That said, BAG members do in general have a better understanding of the bot policy than your average user/admin, so I feel we are often looked to for help regarding issues like this. I'd suggest you let WP:BON know about the new ANI thread, so we'll probably get some more input from users who are familiar with bot policy. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you could remove approval from the existing tasks until the issues are resolved, in order to bring a bot back in line with best practices. It would not be too difficult to develop a replacement bot for any crucial SmackBot tasks, and we really should have a replacement for the template dating task anyway.

I thought about a link on BON but I was not sure about it, and I don't think I can find a way to word it that I would be happy with (I have thought about it for a couple minutes). If you can find a neutral way to phrase it, I would be happy for more bot-aware people to comment on the ANI thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there aren't actually likely to be any problems with the existing (already approved) tasks, so this would seem to be fairly pointless. Anyway, I've created a section at BON. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Use of bot for CfD tagging

No, I did not file a brfa for this one. I considered it a simple AWB type bot task. Now that you mentioned, I will file a brfa for helping out on CFD tasks in the future. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much!

I'm beginning to think that some bored little boys have wandered onto Encyclopedia Dramatica once more; we had a Grawp copycat earlier today as well. Thanks for the assistance. I've blocked that IP and one other for six months. One IP is a proxy and the other has no previous edits. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010 (approx. 10 topics)

please don't delete page gssit kengeri bangalore

It is one of the best emerging engineering colleges in karnataka,i just want that every freshers should know about it for quality education. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav.raj30 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Kingpin13 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The autoconfirmed kicked in.

So please remove the "confirmed" flag please. Thanks! Luigi's igloo (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Permission

I want permissions for WikiAlerter. Kindly review my application.

Ammubhave(talk) Amol Bhave 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Me too Cit helper (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• I also would like to try it. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERM/RW archiving

Kingpinbot needs to be updated to archive WP:PERM/RW, just like WP:PERM/R, WP:PERM/ACC, and WP:PERM/C. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would probably be worthwhile to leave the archiving separate from the other permissions - at least for now. But if KingpinBot could handle it, that would be great. –xeno^talk 14:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be about one line of code or so. Xeno, do you mean let's wait until the trial is over, and see what happens with pending changes? Or just that it should be separate, but still archived? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean it should be archived and preferably automatically, but it should stay segregated so that we can review all the grantings or denials for the reviewer userright together. –xeno^talk 15:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit i made on stevie J's page by peter stuyvesent

He listed Stevie "J as the producer of Eve's Song "Blow Your Mind" The Correct producer for that record is Dr. Dre. You reverted it and i just wanted you to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.22.28 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter permission

Hi, I'm interested in trying your WikiAlerter software. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

my dyk nomination

Hi, Kingpin13, thanks for commenting on my DYK nomination. I've made the changes you suggested. English is not my first language, so, if you find some problems with the grammar, etc, please feel free to fix them, if you have a time. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with a notability debate

Hi, I'm currently having issues with another user who's also a "new pages patroller" on Will Stratton's page. He is trying to nominate the article for deletion because it does not meet notability guidelines, but we have explicitly shown him what notability criteria (1, 11, and 12) the artist meets for musicians. Since you are also a "new pages patroller" and the fact that you weighed in on the article for one of Will Stratton's albums, I would appreciate your input on whether the article should be nominated for deletion or not. It seems to me that the other user has a personal vendetta against the page for some reason and is being overly strict in his application of the Wikipedia guidelines. Since it is solely my word against his at this point, a third party would help the discussion. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmittz (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input on the Will Stratton page. I greatly appreciate it. Best, Schmittz (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar (bionic cat)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 (approx. 3 topics)

Bot

Hi Kingpin13. Just wanted to confirm - is this the right place for these requests? Thanks  7  00:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

May I go on users.css? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!! :-)

Remember me?! :-) The burnstar...?! ;-) Time runs fast... and now i saw you are a administrator!!! Congratulations Bro!! :-D I´am a Reviwer on Pt Wikipedia!! :-) just passing to know how you are. All the best. Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You welcome bro!! Very nice to see you as a admin here!! :-) In europe is very very hot... :-/ My hollidays will be only in October... :-S Bro, i have a doubt... I uploaded a few days 3 images, wich then, it was the soundtrack´s image to illustrate, for the game God of War (video game), God of War II and God of War III... And all of then were removed with the justification: " it was unnecessary " and considered as orphan images... I already read the WP:FU and i sent the case for same admin and no one answer me and the images were already deleted... I think in my opinion, this is a litle bit discouraging for me... I wanted to know how these articles like this one (10 images in fair-use) and this (7 images in fair-use), for exemple, what is the problem with this image i uploaded...?! :-/ Sincerely, i would like to understand more the political on Eng Wikipedia about non-free images... Thanks bro!! Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK!! Asked this because i don´t like this "war edits"... :-/ By the way, i don´t forget when we talked about to translate portuguese to english articles... :-) what article you would like to be translated here?! (it will be my firt one) :-) Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Right bro!! Keep in touch. Nice to talk with you again. :-) All the best!! Regards. Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 02:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 (approx. 9 topics)

WikiAlt Source

The SVN is empty on Sourceforge. I found a few bugs that need fixin' Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the source with me just at the moment, as I am at a friend's house. Maybe you could let me know the problem? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I put a few on the SF tracker, and one gnasty bug I found was if you hit the top of the queue and try to advance, you get an out of range exception, and gives a .Net error. Looks like you just need to add an if statement to the function that advances the queue that only executes the rest if != 0. Sorry, I like code :) Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I had put in the check for reaching the end of the queue. Probably got and int wrong by one, so it actually needs to be if i != 1, rather than 0. If you don't mind, can we converse at sourceforge? Something tells me you wouldn't like this code ;). It's ugly. I guess I could email you it sometime if you really want... :/, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, even poking around it would be fun, at least for me. Plus, my code is ugly too, don't feel bad :) Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 12:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to test out User:Kingpin13/WikiAlerter, but 1) where do I download it? 2) can you add me to the approved users list please? Thanks in advance. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can download the app here. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request Permission

I would like to be added to the list of users for this program.--Yeshiyah (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rolf Jardemark

Thanks for notifying me. I have proposed the article for BLP prod, as it does not have any sources. I will probably nominate it for afd as well, as playing on TV & playing with notable bands does not convey notability. On reflection, the article probably did not qualify for speedy. Quasihuman (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter Request

Hi, I request you to add me at WikiAlerter Users.css. with regards--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter.
Message added 22:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the swift revert

You reverted the vandalism on my userpage before I even managed to hit 'rollback' on my watchlist, thanks! GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). Let's just hope he doesn't come back again... :/ - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR semi-protected my userpage almost as quickly, so hopefully that'll be that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's good, but the anon. seems to be targeting a number of users, but we'll see -shrug- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems Sonia and TFOWR are his main targets, and apparently anyone else who dares to warn him for NPA. He'll get bored soon enough, and in the meantime any vandalism to my userspace will be reverted quickly enough. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... yeah, well he just came back as 78.179.180.144, but it's easy enough to spot in the recent changes (ip only, user space only) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the vandalism revert on my TP. I go to sleep and look what happened.... Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Silent Bob request

Hi, I would like to test WikiAlerter so please I request you to add me at WikiAlerter Users.cssSilent Bob (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Bob, I see you have no deleted edits, which shows that you've never placed a successful speedy deletion tag. I would prefer for you to have some experience in this area before using WikiAlerter, but please do ask again once you've had a shot at manual tagging. If you've got any questions, don't hesitate to ask :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, How many would you suggest would qualify as experience?Silent Bob (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the number of pages tagged, it's more just about demonstrating you understand the CSD policy. Please make sure you read through that page before tagging. Also, you might want to try your hand at manual tagging, rather than using Twinkle, although it's your choice. If you want a number, I'd say around 50 or so, but 50 incorrect taggings are obviously no good :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kingpin, I have a request

Hey Kingpin, I'm back to vandal patrolling for a little while and I was wondering if you could add me to the "reviewer" user group, as I occasionally run into problems trying to undo vandalism on protected pages (because of the relatively new "pending" system). It's not a big deal either way but I figured it would be help, thanks. :)  Fyyer  11:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Already taken care of on /RW. Katerenka (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kat, and sorry for not getting to this myself, been away over the summer a lot, just got back from a festival! :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, though I must admit being a bit disappointed in your choosing to have fun as opposed to being on this site 24/7. Shame on you. ;) Katerenka ^[talk] 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was weak, forgive me ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 (approx. 15 topics)

Request for Review and Assessment - National Waterway 4 (India)

Hi Kingpin,
i along with few of our fellow Wikipedians (Raptor, Sodabottle & bob1960evens) have worked on improving the National Waterways 4 Article to a great extend. You shall also have a look at similar article here. Its already rated as 'C' after which it has undergone a major copy edit exercise as well as expansion. I request you to review the article and provide prominent rating to the article. Also we are pleased to receive your views / feedback for improvement of the article. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I actually don't know anything about this subject, so I wouldn't really be any good at providing a review. But for things unrelated to the subject (layout stuff and what not), the first thing I noticed is you don't have a particularly good collection of in-line citations, in the Traffic section for example. For a re-assessment I suggest you ask WP:WikiProject India - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice / suggestion. I will post it in WP India Assessment. I will start improving the inline citations. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 04:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant?

I had noticed that you reverted my edit but I couldn't care enough to try to fight for it. If you think it is not relevant then that is fine. Though I would still advise to write it somewhere as that kind of information is definitely worth knowing if not merely interesting. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I am well aware of the that. Only this time the page already had a speedy deletion tag, so that's why I reverted the whole thing instead of just changing the tag. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yes. :) DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Crazy Titch

Hello, the Artical "Crazy Titch" suffers from alot of vandalism and I was wondering if you could sort some form of protection to prevent this?
Sorryunlucky (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TechnoFaye

So you indefinitely blocked Faye for violating "multiple policies", without naming them, and at the same time closed the discussion thread so that nobody could respond? Seems fairly capricious to me. I think you have a responsibility, at the very least, to list the exact policies Faye violated and give examples of when she was warned about them previously. Just pointing to a giant thread with no further comments is a dereliction of responsibility.—Chowbok ☠ 00:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The only page you did point to, WP:DE, lists several steps that should be gone through, including warnings and mediation. Finally, it says after an ANI report "[a]n admin should issue a warning or temporary block as appropriate." Nothing about going direct to a permanent ban. This really was a poor decision, handled poorly. —Chowbok ☠ 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing poor about this decision, or the way it was handled. DE is just as good a reason as any. The user was warned several times why their edits violated policy, and even you, Chow, were told which policies her edits violated, just to name a few. The overall consensus was that the pattern of disruption wasn't going to stop. Admins don't need to name specific policies, especially when they were quite clearly outlined on that page. So instead of bad-mouthing an admin for blocking your friend, why don't you just drop it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, was I talking to you? She's not my friend. I don't even know her. Maybe you should just mind your own business instead of butting in here with ridiculous comments like admins don't need to cite policies to ban people.—Chowbok ☠ 05:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, anybody is free to reply to comments on this talkpage, as much as any discussion page. If you want a private chat use email or some other form of communication. As Daedalus969 said, the policies were outlined at the ANI thread, and there was a consensus there that TechnoFaye was violating them, if you can't manage to read through the ANI thread yourself, I can possibly later compile a list of policies, although one of my computers seems to be broken atm, and I've got a bunch of other rl stuff to do today. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know people can jump into conversations if they want, I would just appreciate it if people would stick to the issues I brought up instead of making personal accusations. I think it should be clear that I read through the ANI thread, seeing how I was a participant. It seems to me that you regard banning someone far too casually.—Chowbok ☠ 05:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since you've read through the ANI thread it should be easy to come up with a few policies (say, WP:VAND and WP:NOT to name a few) that there is a consensus that the user has violated. Right, there's no way I should have to put up with comments like that, so (bearing in mind that I've spent almost four days on this subject, and many many hours of my time reading through the previous AN/I thread, Faye's talk page, her contributions, discussions she's been subject of, as well as following the AN/I thread and attempting to gauge the community's opinion on what should be done to resolve this problem) I would like you to either back up your allegation that I take a casual approach to blocking users with some proper evidence, or retract that comment as incorrect/a personal attack - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For someone who cares about making 'personal accusations', you sure make some yourself. Calling King's actions 'poor' and 'handled poorly'. Don't be afraid to take a step back, and look in the mirror before you start attacking people for the very thing you are doing. Are you talking to me? No. Are you unjustly attacking an admin you disagree with? Yes. Do I have a right to comment on it? Yes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My, a little thin-skinned, are we? It's not a "personal attack" when I say that you have acted incorrectly as an admin. Nor is it my job to come up with reasons for your ban of a user. I stand by my comments; you have devoted more time to arguing with me than you have explaining your initial action. I worry about an admin who views questioning of his actions as an "attack". Getting the mop means more scrutiny, not less.—Chowbok ☠ 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Chow, it clearly is, as your idea of 'correct' is just your opinion. As has been stated plenty of times, there was ample reason given in the ANI thread. So instead of continuing to attack King here, why don't you just accept that fact and drop it? I again state, for someone who cares an awful lot about 'accusations', you sure aren't afraid to hold your own tongue. Instead of continuing be a hypocrite, why don't you just stop? First calling his actions poor, when you really haven't been here that long,(Misread, thought edits said '3k'. Not '30k'.) then calling him thin skinned? Look in the mirror already, and either stop with your own insults, and discuss this like an adult, or leave. You clearly aren't going to get your way, so sitting there flinging mud is really only disruptive.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course my idea of "correct" is my opinion. Who else's would it be? I suppose you think your idea of correct is handed down on golden plates from God? The "ample reasons" given in ANI included wholly inappropriate things like Faye's political beliefs and things she wrote in her blog. I'm certain that she would not have been blocked indefinitely had she more acceptable opinions. The fact that Kingpin13 won't actually enumerate Faye's specific, rules-based trangressions, but rather points to the ANI thread as a whole, simply confirms this. This was a capricious, arbitrary blocking based on emotion, not facts, and the fact that Kingpin13 did this in the way that he did, combined with the fact that he takes criticism of his actions as a "personal attack", reflects poorly on him as an admin.

I'm done here, I said my piece, and this seems to bother me more than it does Faye anyway. My point is that banning someone due to feelings rather than facts is the difference between the rule of law and a lynch mob. That's why I'm angered by this; it has nothing to do with my alleged "friendship" with Faye (which does not exist. As I said in ANI, my experience with her, aside from a single compliment, was complaining to an admin about an actual rule she had violated, for which she was blocked). Go ahead and take your whacks at me, I won't respond from here on out--though I mean, you won, you got what you wanted, so why does it bother you so much that a single voice is protesting? (I'm also amused that you attempted to pull rank, only to discover I've been here years longer than you. And, unlike you, my edits are mostly in mainspace.)—Chowbok ☠ 21:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to make sure I never mentioned off-wiki reasons, and I definitely did not block Faye based on her personal opinions. Let’s look at the actual policy violations, which is one of my reasons for blocking her. I mentioned two policies above, NOT and VAND. So in NOT, is the soapbox problem. Faye is entitled to her own opinions, but the problem is when those start to influence her edits to Wikipedia. A user with strong opinions is welcome to express them on other sites, and have them in RL. However, when they use their user page to try and make these opinions known, and also persuade others to share them, when they keep bringing the matter up, even when users try to communicate with her about something else, and when those opinions are expressed in her mainspace edits, then that is soapboxing, and not a good use of Wikipedia. Another problem was using Wikipedia as a social site. There are sites designed to help people find other people to have a relationship/sex with, using Wikipedia for this purpose is unacceptable (Faye even seemed to try to have sex with you). Looking at VAND now, there were numerous diffs provided at the ANI thread, which showed vandalism, now Faye has said that if she is pointed towards policy pages which she has violated, then she will read through them and stay within them in future. Considering both when images when deleted and when her userpage was deleted she immediately restored them, I somehow doubt this is true. Also, when I showed her an edit she made which was vandalism, she said it was a joke. If she had read just the intro of WP:VAND, she would have seen that this was still considered vandalism. Also, at the ANI thread, nobody actually explained how Faye’s edits weren’t just common vandalism. Instead you and Faye both seemed to make up your own reasons why we were blocking her, and defend her against those reasons instead. This is another reason I decided consensus was that these edits were vandalism. I used an indefinite block because as mentioned above, Faye does not show a willingness to conform to Wikipedia policy.
I’m open to criticism, of course. What I’m not open to is these seemingly random comments about my ability to act as an administrator, without proper evidence, and coming from an experienced user such as yourself. Per WP:NPA, accusations such as me being casual with the block button, require proper evidence, which you have failed to provide. Also, the correct response to being accused of making personal attacks, is not to then taunt the user about being “thin-skinned”. Sure, I don’t find the comment particularly offensive, my problem with it is that an accusation like that, coming from an experienced user, may be read by other users who, because they trust users such as yourself, may not actually check the facts, and therefore comments like that, which are not based on fact, undermines the communities confidence in me.
I hope the above message shows you that this block was not at all based on Faye’s personal opinions, and rather the disruption she was causing to the Wikipedia (sorry I haven't been able to reply to your comments here more often, as mentioned I'm currently having computer trouble, and have had to reinstall Windows and wipe my hard drive). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and no, this is my business. Maybe you forgot, but I was involved in the ANI thread as well. Wikipedia is everyone's business, and an unsubstantiated attack on an admin who blocked your buddy is my business as well. Given you have over 30k edits, you should know that saying such is against the rules. Let's see here, you jump in and start defending Faye after she expresses a desire to have sex with you, where you had not previously contributed in other ANI threads(at least during the discussion of this user). So ya, it looks a little odd when you jump to the defense of someone you've been in communication with, and tell an admin they've not thought something out when they clearly have put much time and effort into doing so. When you say that no-one has shown you any policies she has broken, when a quick skim of the ANI thread shows just that. Are my accusations of your 'buddyness' unsubstantiated, like yours of 'casualness' to King's? Hardly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinpin13 might have acted more quickly than some would like, but as Daedalus969 said above the end result would have been the same. She violated too many of the rules that make up expected decorum, & showed neither remorse nor even awareness that people found her behavior objectionable. The only place where I might differ from Kingpin & Daedalus is that TechnoFaye could be reinstated as an editor if she gets appropriate professional help. But even that will require a few years, at minimum, to her habitual misbehavior enough for the ban to be dropped. -- llywrch (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks, settle down, please note it is an indefinite ban, not an infinite one. I'm going to see if I can work with her but I agree right now she needs to be blocked for the multiple policy violations. As the father of an Autistic/Aspies boy I think I have the patience and knowledge required to try to work with her and I will try. --WGFinley (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that, WGFinley. If what she's posted online can be trusted -- a qualification everyone with online experience will make -- she has more issues than simply her autism/Asperger's Syndrome. Just remember the goal is for her to successfully interact with other people -- nothing more -- & even that will take a while to accomplish. (Which is why I mention her need for professional help; no matter how gifted someone is, only so much can be done thru online communications.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI. If things go according to plan, there are going to be ten thousand articles in a category that people are going to want to watch for notice removals. Perhaps you can help. I've also pointed PleaseStand at this. Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm.. If you add all the tagged pages to a category, or you use a specific template for this task (which it looks like you're going to). Then it would be fairly easy to keep track of which pages were originally transcluding the template/in the category, and which ones are no longer (e.g. have had the template removed or been deleted). This would be possible even just using AWB's list builder. SDPatrolBot only patrols speedy deletion at the moment (which aren't meant to be removed by the creator). Since you only have one creator in this case (who is blocked) and these aren't speedy deletion templates, that shouldn't be a problem. So the way which this bot works (checking every page continuously) would not really be suited for this task. But it should, as mentioned, be child's-play to keep a list of the articles, and which ones are no longer tagged, even manually. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • AWB can keep track of a template that's in 10,000's of articles? I guess that's possible but it wouldn't have occurred to me that it scales that well (I've never used AWB). 75.57.241.73 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • AWB would normally be limited to having a certain number of pages in the list, but a bot account get's that limit increased by quite a bit. But come to think of it, I'm not actually sure what the limits are, so I'll have a look around WP:AWB. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• See new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI#Categories and User:The-Pope/DDCCI list. Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Where has the RFPERM archive bot been???

On KingpinBot's user page, it says the last run of the RFP archiver was August 23. However, the last run of the UAA clearer was yesterday, so the bot is still running. I don't see anything that would shut off the archiving task. What's going on? Admins are manually archiving the Rollback/AWB requests now. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sorry. The problem is there's some code changes that I made a while ago, due to a slight change in the usage of {{Requests for permissions}} among other things (whereas the UAA task hasn't changed), and then my computer's hard-drive got wiped, and I've lost those changes, I'll try to re-do them soon. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Query

Query at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Dup_category_cleanup_bot_requested. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look up the word "cum" - it doesn't mean what you think it does.

You recently "reverted" a correction I had made to the bio of Beryl Vertue.

The original read "a secretary come girl Friday", which I corrected to "a secretary-cum-girl Friday."

Perhaps you would like to look up the definition of "cum" on "yourdictionary.com" before you assume I was being cute or making an error. The word, in fact, IS "ABC-cum-XYZ", not "ABC come XYZ."

I was correcting an error, which you reverted it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.183.17 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Please add me so I can use wiki-alerter. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well.. You don't seem to do a whole lot of CSD-tagging, but since the program doesn't exactly let you do anything you couldn't manually, I guess there's not a problem, so I'll add you to the approved list. Just make sure you read through WP:CSD properly before tagging any pages. If you have any problems let me know. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done it before but I have been working on a bot so I haven't lately. It is more for new page patrol. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, np, good luck with it :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote bot

Hi. You may remember the hatnote bot incident of a couple of weeks ago. I've revised the script to pipe the links, and made a few test edits listed here. Do you think this version of the script would be more acceptable than the old one? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more acceptable yes, certainly I like it more :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Sorry, Typed one thing, meant another thing. :) thanks.--intelati^(Call) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thanks again for the work you did on File:Trinity Episcopal Church.JPG. I can't remember now whether I know the wires were in the picture when I took it, or missed it until I got home, but after I uploaded it, I realized how distracting they were. I went ahead and used it in a relevant article anyway, but wondered if I should go back and reshoot. I needed to revisit the article several times for various reasons, and every time it seemed to look at little worse. It now looks great. I see you lightened it a bit, which is good, as I was there at the wrong time relative to the sun, so the original is a bit shaded. SPhilbrickT 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

excuse me

I'm interested in your WikiAlerter software. Alacante45 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to see you're interested. If you were looking to get approval, then I might suggest that you try to gain a bit more experience with CSD-tagging first. WikiAlerter is designed to be used by users who are already very familiar with the CSD, and isn't a good choice if you're looking for something to help you learn it. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Category cleanup bot

Is this Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 4 now working??? Because the category still seems to contain lots of already-blocked-users. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, umm, haven't been managing to run this daily. The program is currently on my netbook, I'll move it across to my desktop and set it up under Windows Scheduled Tasks shortly. Also, you may find "importScriptURI('http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');" useful, if you're using it a lot (at times it will be clogged up by 24 hours worth of blocking at the least, even with the bot running regularly). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that script do exactly? -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I've got the right one, it should put a strike through blocked users, so you can clearly see which ones are blocked and which ones aren't, it won't actually remove them, so you'd still have to browse through the category pages, but it would stop you from checking already blocked users. Also, if you have pop-ups it's pretty easy to quickly see if a user is blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is fantastic. Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 (approx. 22 topics)

SmackBot talk page stop

That is a good point, but I think it's useful to allow people to stop the bot, it makes it less threatening as well as being a practical help occasionally - even though some still get past all the warnings and stop it in order to say "thanks". I did (reluctantly) semi-protect the page, and nuisance stops were reduced dramatically. One un-necessary (but accidental or good faith) stop every few days I can live with. Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes just for my personal stuff. I would need to sort out tool-server if there was significant demand, and Femto is supposed to be tiny. I use SB to edit its own talk precisely so I don't stop myself again, and its sig is set to mine (more or less) - as you say technically I shouldn't, but I doubt any one minds. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Heh. I use IE for SB, Safari for the others and Firefox for me. Except IE doesn't run on my "main" PC any more. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you so much mjbmr ^Talk 11:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

wikialerter approval request

hi, i've been doing a fair amount of new page patrolling lately and happened across your tool. i believe i have sufficient experience with CSDs (although i am still admittedly learning about their application), but i will be careful with that feature for the time being. my primary interest in wikialerter is for the tagging and stub sorting functionality, i would really appreciate a tool to speed up the addition of stub tags and the process of new page patrolling in general. currently i find i often must go manually look up stub categories if i cannot find them using hotcat. also the maintenance template functionality may be superior to twinkle. let me know, cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've added you to the approved list. Please let me know if you run into any problems, or have any questions. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks WookieInHeat (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

initial impressions: well this tool is definetly more robust than hotcat in the stub tagging functionality. hotcat can find a stub category for you (sometimes, and only if you know what the first word of the stub category you're looking for is going to be) but cannot add the actual template to the page, this must be done manually. wikialerter OTOH shows far more results than hotcat just merely by typing in a keyword and is able to add the template automatically (a major bonus). one minor imporvement to this feature could be the ability to add more than one stub tag, but that is not a big deal as you can just add your first stub template and reload the page to add a second stub template. one thing i did notice about wikialerter is that it takes considerably longer to load pages than say firefox or chrome, and the page is completely frozen until it has loaded in its entirety; again, not a huge deal. my final comment, and the one i would rate as most important, is about the programs ability to open web pages in an external browser. currently you must right click a link to the page you want to open, open its properties window and manually copy and paste the address to your web browser. would it be possible to add a button that simply opens the current page in a new tab in your default browser? this would be convenient as i often not only tag pages but also afterwards go in and wikify, cleanup, correct formatting, etc. and prefer to do this in firefox; mostly because of the previously mentioned delay in loading pages in wikialerter, but also because i have further plugins in firefox (such as WOT) that help in identifying reliable sources and other such tasks. just my two cents, don't feel obligated to do any of this stuff. like i said, i am already quite pleased with wikialerters functionality compared to other scripts. thanks for, and congrats on, creating a rather useful tool. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wookie, thanks for the feedback :). I've been planing to do some tinkering with the program for a while, since there's a couple of other issues which need fixes. I'll take a look at adding your suggestions when I get to it. The open in default external browser should be simple, the hardest part will be figuring out where to put the button/designing it ;). The multiple stub tags is a bit more difficult, I was thinking maybe some character (e.g. "|") used between separate tags in the textbox. But then getting the auto-complete to still work would be a pain. So I'll have a look at sorting something out for that. As to the speed, I use the built in browser (with .NET) so it's difficult for me to fix that. Of course, the program is just a load of stuff thrown together in my spare time. If I ever get around to it I might try making it more efficient (which would probably involve re-writing it pretty much from scratch, so would take a lot of time and effort - not likely to happen any time soon! ;D). Thanks again :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

no problem. don't worry about the multiple stub tags if it is a pain, it's not worth your time since there is an easy workaround. and the browsing lag too, not really an issue; just used to being spoiled with quad core-broadband speeds. the external browser button would be much appreciated though. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, new update at sourceforge. I've added the external browser button (although to access it you need to use the drop down (overflow) list on the far right of the toolbar. This allows you to enter a url and open it in the external browser without actually browsing to it in WikiAlerter, and also of course, allows you to go to the current page, by just not changing the text in the urlbox. I've also added a way to add multiple stub-tags at a time. Although it's slightly clumsy. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

excellent, thanks a lot. just downloaded and updated, new functions work like a charm. i'll keep you updated with any issues. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fab :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For taking the time to tag several hundred categories I was too lazy to do, I would like to award Kingpin13 the Tireless Contributor Barnstar! Thank you for taking care of the task, much appreciated. — ξxplicit 08:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem :). Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Laskowski

okay this is ridiculous the page i made was an actual person. He is real and suicidal and you calling him unimportant isn't helping things. If Simon Cowell is important enough to have a wikipedia page i don't see why any other normal human being isnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffnat (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kingpin!

Thanks for your kind thoughts, and I do appreciate the warning. However, you're probably not familiar with my history with kingping. He has been quite the nuisance, and given his non constructive approach to my previous communication I've felt that I need to strengthen my language. Do you think I've gone too far?

Thanks ever so much,

Kirsty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.203.2 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In response

My reasoning is quite simple. He, or she, currently ignores what I am saying. Somewhat more forceful language is more likely to be listened to (and I should stress here that I am not being gratuitously offensive, of course).

I wish it were not so but it's human psychology.

XXX

Kirsty

P.S. There is no need for dispute resolution at this time, I would rather settle things like adults. I just need his or her attention first :)

Hehe!

How careless of me, just noticed I gave your name, when of course I was talking about TT.

Sorry about that; I have a visual memory so wasn't thinking. Of course I have no quarrel with you whatsoever :)

Peace and good weekend,

Kirsty

XXX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.203.2 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for that! I find PAs like that quite funny – especially when I speedy-nominated that article over a year ago... matt (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). Yeah, have to admit I was slightly surprised when I saw the age of the account :D - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the bot approval, Kingpin! --Bsherr (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On it! --Bsherr (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikialert

If it's mac-compatible, I wish to be approved for wikialert. --I dream of horses @ 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well Katerenka tried back in late 2009 to get it to work on a Mac, although I know that in the end she used a Windows, so presumably that didn't work out. You can experiment with it on the Mac if you want, I've added you to the approved list. I'm sceptical as to if it will work. But no harm in trying - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm....maybe once I'm more awake, I'll try. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

wikialerter logo

don't know how attached you are to the current logo. i created this spiffy new one... ok not that spiffy, just less pixely. let me know what you think and i can impose it on the current title bar, make an .ico file, etc. if you wish. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, some aspects I like more, but personally I quite like the currently logo. I think the exclamation mark has more "character", and also like the white foreground more. Although I agree that the current one is a bit too "pixely", as you put it ;). I might try and soften if up a little bit. By the way, there's a higher quality image of the logo here. Also, there would be a couple of other problems with changing the logo, because it is used in the program. For example, in the "mark as patrolled" button (where the exclamation mark becomes a tick), and in the "alert box", which is partly why the background is a gradient from red to blue (blue = low priority, red-blue = medium, red = high) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ah i see, wasn't aware of its integration with the program or the higher res version. mainly just made it as a topicon for my user page, the "character" of the existing exclamation mark made it look jagged when displayed at such a small size. regardless, i just threw the logo together with a couple other images and applied a filter to it (i'm no graphic artist by any means), wasn't a laborious event. not particularly fussed whether it's used for the program or not, especially if you prefer the other logo. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

come to think of it, i didn't know about the higher res version when i was making the topicon, i ripped the version i used off the programs page. switched to the higher res file you provided and it looks much better now. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregg Avedon

I Resolve --G DEULOFLEU ™ 11:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. All right, although I'm not sure about the IMDb's status as a reliable source.. I believe there's been some controversy over it in the past. If you could find some other sources that'd be better - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Sorry about that. When I get going, it's really hard to stop CSD-ing the new pages. Something like 60% of the pages I choose to CSD end up being deleted, so I figure I must be doing something right. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I will do my best to scale back my CSD-ing of articles. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some articles don't need 20 seconds. For example, Kid Nesor. But yeah, I'll slow down. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Maybe I do need to read up on my CSD criteria. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Message on botpage

I left a message for the Kingpinbot .. but you can answer it here as well if you want. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :). I've replied on the bot's talk page - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

"Continues to run even his approved bot against bot policy." Um.. how so? Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Lack of communication, as I pointed out a bit below that message - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How much communication of you want? I posted well over 16k to the last ANI and have contributed to literally thousands of talk page threads - I guess I could find out how many - including posting nearly a megabyte to discussion pages since the previous ANI on 28th of September. I have no reason to think you are reading my talk page, my BRFAs, my comments at Village Pump, noticeboards, template talk pages etc etc, but if you are and still think that I am lacking in communication, you will have to be a little more specific. Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Well to use a recent example, going off on a wikibreak like that didn't really help matters for yourself. I accept that this must be pretty stressful for you, and so it's much easier to just take a break when it's taken to ANI. However, it doesn't really promote communication with the rest of the community. Also users have said that when reporting possible problems etc. with SmackBot they are ignored, and archived without being resolved. While this may have improved since you started using Femto Bot, I still think you too often archive threads before they're actually resolved, I didn't feel you adequately addressed my concerns in Today here for example. Hope that's specific enough, but I should note that I don't see these examples as one offs. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, well consider the previous ANI, my name dragged through the mud to the extent that contributors to this ANI are convinced that I am the "bad boy of Wikipedia" despite never having interacted with me - the discussion stayed on ANI for maybe 10 says under, I think, three titles - people would have got the impression I was reported three times. Nothing was achieved, I attempted to negotiate an agreement but there was no significant response (I had already made an offer on my talk page which was ignored as I remember). Despite the lack of response the form of the agreement which I had not agreed to is being quoted to me as "the condition for my unblock" which is ludicrous since I was unblocked primarily to discuss at ANI. All the effort I put into ANI has been wasted, except to be pasted on a "bad boy" page set up by MSG, whereas had I followed Ed Fitzgerald's advice and made one clear statement and then leave it, or Llyrwych's advice to walk away form the project altogether, the thread would have been shorter and lasted maybe 48 hours. I have approached a good number of the contributors to the thread, and, excepting my talk page campers, most are just along for the ride. "All these editors can't be wrong." I have been working on this ANI pretty much for the last 15 hours - I got in around 6 and it's now 9 am. In my opinion, for this reason, ANI places unreasonable demands on an editor if it spills to more than a few editors and clear evidence supported incidents. Maybe it should be more like ArbCom - if you comment on an ANI you become party to it. Rich Farmbrough, 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

I agree the previous AN/I achieved basically nothing, and was poorly organised so it was impossible for anyone to properly keep track of what was going on there or to actually build any sort of consensus. However, (for reference) the so quoted conditions for your unblock are listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rich_Farmbrough#Conditions_that_would_satisfy_X.21.2C_Kingpin13.2C_MSGJ.2C_and_others. I also note that the condition you seem to accept for your unblock was to discuss at ANI, but immediately after the unblock you continued making the problematic edits instead. But the conditions quoted are mostly things you should be doing any way, regardless of if you agree to them or not. Firstly you did agree to points 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 4. 2.0 is required by bot policy, so you're expected to comply to that anyway. And 3.1 is expected by bot policy as well. As for 3.0, not exactly a problem imo. Yes, ANI doesn't seem to be resolving this issue very well, looking at this and previous threads. You can see that I, and others, supported a RfC/U, and this has also been supported at previous threads (also by me and others, if you do a quick search through your subpage). OIn the subject of your ANI subpage, I think it's quite useful for things such as searching for previous comments on a RfC/U, but it's a shame that it means you're now considered a disruptive editor purely because you've had multiple ANI threads about you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope nope nope. Firstly I didn't like to 1 or 2.1. Secondly I didn't agree to anything. I sat down at the table to negotiate and everyone else walked away. Maybe they were bored, maybe they felt that the fact that I was prepared to negotiate signified goodwill that had been claimed to be absent. Regardless they walked away.Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

They only walked away because they thought you had agreed to the editing restrictions given to you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

They did? Who told you that? Rich Farmbrough, 05:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I thought you did agree to 1, as you considered it redundant to 2.4, which you did agree to. Sorry for getting 2.1 muddled up, but regardless this is again required by bot policy. Every user there agreed with these conditions., and you agreed to some of them. Seems like we can safely say you should be editing according to, at the very least, the ones you agreed to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI more

"as well as possible wheel warring at Template:BLP_unsourced (if we see editing fully protected pages as administrative action that is). " While I rarely revert anyone sans a clear error or vandalism, I believe that User:Fram is the admin who did the revision of my edits here. He reverted 15 edits to 15 templates without informing or discussing with me. That would make hiim the wheel warrior, yet he takes me to ANI? It's the wiki-way I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Fram reverted your original action (frowned upon, but considering the circumstances..) and you then reverted Fram's reversion, which is what wheel warring is: "Reinstating a reverted action". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't revert Fram. Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Umm, you added the Find sources template, Fram removed it, you re-added it...? Although I did just notice now that this was partly because it was outside the template, rather than with in it. So maybe no concern of wheel warring (unless we also consider administrative rollback as an admin action, since you were edit warring with CBM using it. Either wya it's still unacceptable to use rollback to edit war like that, as I noted to you User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct#Today. I note you choose to ignore that, but I hope you took that comment in, and will not be using rollback for anything other than it's listed uses in the future). Either way, both of these incidents show a trend from you which is to ignore discussion, and then use faster (i.e. bot/semi-automated) editing, or the admin tools to make the changes, meaning it's difficult for other users to object. You shouldn't have been making that kind of change to the template in the first place (without discussing), especially when there was already a consensus to not add that findsources template. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you want to consider rollbacks, look at my first ANI where one admin used bot-rollback, and another an unapproved bot task to undo. It's not a big deal, but there's really no point looking for technical rule breaches. And my comment to Fram in the edit summary "BRD the D is there for a reason" was to encourage him to discuss with me after he reverted me. I really don't mind being reverted in most cases as long as people come and talk about it if it's not a simple error. Apart from anything else there is a good chance that I will make the same edit again days, weeks, months or even years later - maybe thinking "funny sure I fixed that, must have not pressed save" or maybe just seeing the same issue ab initio. Anyway Fram reverted 15 template edits and then seems to have taken the view that it is BR ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh yes, it was discussed on Village pump, for Unreferenced, the change made and reverted by PBS. Again .. BR well DBR... silence..... had Philip come to my talk page and said "Hey Rich, I reverted you on Unref, we had an RFC about it a year or so ago and decided against" I would not have added it to BLP. Oh just another factoid, I have somewhat over 12,000 edit to user talk pages, this ties in with the 3,000 or so threads on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 08:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Maybe they shouldn't have used rollback or an unapproved bot to revert the edits of an unapproved bot (or whatever it was reverting). But that's not really the issue here, what is, is your misuse of the admin tools. Simply saying ~"other admins have abused the tools, so who cares if I have" isn't helpful. However, don't think that I'm picking on you, I also warned CBM about his use of rollback to revert your edits to those templates, since it was clearly disruptive of him to use rollback in this case (also disruptive of you to then respond with rollback: i.e. you were both at fault, but it's no good just blaming it on eachother). As for BRD, it's hypocritical for you to edit war, while telling the other user to discuss. Maybe it's also hypocritical of them to do the same thing, but as mentioned just before you can't just blame them, when you're both acting in the same manner. And since you were the one making a change to the template, you were the one who should have discussed. Although yes, it would have been more polite for Fram to leave you a note about the revert. If when you try to use a template in the mainspace it say "do not use the template in the mainspace", you should realise that means there's a high chance it's been discussed before and that there is a decision to not have it in the mainspace. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw your note to CBM. I don't mind if it's rollback, unless it undoes more than the edit it was supposed to. Thing is if you want a "drains up" it takes time, and seems defensive, I can't even remember which edit with CBM we were talking about, but I do seem to remember I missed something in the diff which would have meant I would have simply edited in a change that he was not objecting too. AS far as the main-space template was concerned, I had had a discussion on VP about Unref, discovered the warning and created a mechanism to suppress it when it was done deliberately. Someone removed the suppression mechanism - again no feedback about it. Again no big deal, just "would have been nice". But I do not like getting a trout in the ear - not from my wiki-stalkers - but from people who have been around long enough to know me better. And the point is - even if rolling back CBM is technically wheeling, your original comment was simply wrong, which is fine, you didn't have all the facts - but it was also one in along list of wrong statements, by various editors, each of which takes ages to tease apart, given that they might not be on Wp for a while (some of them might be blocked - that happened at the last ANI - I had no idea who were the trolly types - I don't frequent the drama spots) - and the combined effect of these - 18 or more - individually forgivable - mistakes, assumptions, generalisations is community consensus - that's just crazy. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

I think this is the revert I discussed with CBM, and obviously this the one I mentioned to you. So what you’re saying is you found that there was a warning mechanism on findsources, so simply made a get-around, it got reverted, you added the template to the Unref despite this, it got reverted. You then re-added it. Sure the people reverting may not have discussed with you, but that was really your responsibility. If you did create a VP thread then that’s good, but you still need to explain (and then possibly (certainly in this case) be corrected by) individual editors who revert the actual edits, and presumably aren’t aware of the VP thread (just like you weren’t aware of the previous discussion about this). As an aside, if you could link to the VP thread you started about this that would be useful. My original comment was simply that the reverting could have been considered wheeling, and wasn’t particularly relevant to what I was actually trying to say, and also I never said that it was definitely wheeling, so apologies for the vague “accusation” (if it could be called that), and thanks for showing that it wasn’t wheeling. I can now take a more definite stance on this, and admit that the editing which took place on the fully protected unref template wasn’t wheeling, and it was probably foolish of me to suggest it could be. The thing is, some of the statement s made be editors are indeed wrong, including statements made by me, and including statements made by you (I should note that one of the problems other editors have is you often appear to refuse to admit that you could be wrong, which is irritating when you are. Other editors might do the same thing, which isn’t an excuse. I know that personally, I always try to make sure that if it’s pointed out to me that something I said was incorrect, then I try to accept that, and not be stubborn in the belief that I was right). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re the user-space thing you misinterpreted the timeline anyway - there was no "adding despite this" - but as you say that's NOT what any of the ANI is about. And thank you fro retracting that statement. It is precisely to avoid that "I am right and you are all wrong " image that I have tried to address - I am told - 18 of these statements individually rather than on ANI - so far no one has backed their statement up. I see now that it is too late. The majority of ANI goers will assume that all the crap was correct - and will look askance at my actions in future. And - if you look on the ANI thread you will see me redacting something I said which was wrong. You will also see me catching flack for doing it - not for being wrong, but for redacting it in a clear way which expressed that I had made an error and changed my post. Well it's a shame but in a way it's a big <meh> I will carry on building an encyclopaedia, one way or another. Rich Farmbrough, 03:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

"so far no one has backed their statement up." I backed it up, you simply didn't respond. –xeno^talk 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

With speculation. Then archived the thread ... ANI time! Rich Farmbrough, 05:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Apparently xeno responded to your comment within 4 minutes (although he did refactor it for about ten minutes after that, and then made a minor edit to it later that evening) and you then didn't reply for 1 day and 2 hours, so the thread was automatically archived. Also I note that SmackBot actually is still making cosmetic changes (well, last I checked - yesterday) just not purely cosmetic changes (which you are making on your main account). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Thing" s

I remember one day when HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made over 100 blocks from The Thing alone. Imagine what records he could make by himself. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 00:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

When did adminship become about setting records and racing to make the most blocks? It should be about things such as making informed, wise decisions and judging community consensus, definitely not competing on numbers of actions.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I guess the point I was trying to make is that the Thing would free up that time, so Mitchell could review articles, assist in SPI investigations... --Talktome^(Intelati) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity;

Are you okay with someone completely destroying the structure of your comments? I know I'm not, it make it rather hard for me to read.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think this is just out of curiosity... However, I don't have a massive problem with Rich cutting the comment up like that, the main issue for me is that it makes it harder to reply to, and may make it harder for other users reading through the thread to follow. I'd probably prefer it if he didn't do that, but I don't care if he does. It's really, really not something you, or Rich, should edit war over.. You should have discussed the issue first. I'm sure you could have come up with a compromise which suits both of you (for example, colour code the different parts of my comment, and then Rich could colour code the corresponding parts of his comment..) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Puffin's talk page.
Message added 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikialerter

Hi. I would like to test the beta version of your Wikialerter tool please. I have CSDing pages a lot lately, and am quite intersted. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I've added you to the approved list, like I say it's not meant to be an in-depth scrutiny, however, I see a few mistakes from you, so just make sure you review WP:CSD, and when in doubt, it's often best not to tag, or to leave for a while and see where it goes. Other than that, all looks good, please let me know if you have any problems. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One problem, when you try and CSD tag a page it doesn't do it and it decides to crash after that. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 07:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. I don't get that problem, and your tagging seems to be going through? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's working now. Just wait till it stops again. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's still quite painful to use it though. Very sluggish. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh, well I've been considering writing a "lite" version, for those who aren't bothered about having all the functionality, and would prefer a quick 'n' easy new page patroller designed just for tagging pages. Haven't got around to writing it yet though, and it would be quite a task because it would basically mean starting from scratch. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 (approx. 9 topics)

AWB

Thanks for cleaning up AWB's user/bots lists. Just a note: Since a long tie ago even if normal editors have their name under bot list, they don't get AWB's bot status. AWB's bot status requires both the username to be on the list and bot account. Editors with their name in the bot list just get normal editor status. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh, clever :). Thanks for letting me know that, didn't realise. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Are you sure about that? Just tried it out and I get the bot tab, and one of the users I removed seems to have managed to use the bot functions recently. Is it to do with the admin status? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that I reported the problem and Reedy told me that we fixed that. I 'll check it. Meanwhile, remove all non-bots from the bot list, please. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_14#AWB_doesn.27t_recognize_bot_status_from_CheckPage proves that we fixed the bug. Probably API changes in MediaWiki changed the behaviour and we probably changed something after version 5.0. (I am just guessing what could have happened). I 'll talk to Reedy. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, fyi, the unflagged users on that list appear to be (according to a program I wrote, haven't checked all of these: also some may be global bots):

six of which are blocked. At least one (that I recognise) is still at BRfA and was approved for a trial. But a large number of these seem to be bots from years ago, back when we were less likely to grant the bot flag (even for bots) because (afaik) there wasn't an option to not hide bots in recent changes. I'm not going to remove all of these, as a few could be legit, which also leads me to wonder if we do want to block non-bots. The most common problem would be with trial bots. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great job. I 'll ask Reedy for his opinion. In the past I was the opinion that we have to remove from the list all indefinitely blocked editors that haven't been unblocked for a long time. I think that cleaning the list is of high-importance since it minimises the possibility of massive vandalism, etc. xeno in the past has proposed an AWB status as part of API code. there are many things we can do. Feel free to cleanup the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could help by removing all user accounts indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (i.e. never coming back)? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

More extended content

User Reason Expiry State A Link to the Past (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Grawp sleepers. infinity  Removed Adrian Lamo (block log) user renamed infinity AdultSwim (block log) Emailuser function abuse infinity  Removed AFUSCO (block log) User renamed, block requested infinity Az29 (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Sock of John254 infinity  Removed Beh-nam (block log) banned for repeated edit warring and proxying for a banned user after multiple warnings infinity BhaiSaab (block log) User obviously has no intention of honoring the ban--therefore, he can't play at all infinity Boricuaeddie (block log) Re-blocking with creation disabled. infinity Bsrboy (block log) (restoring block -- had unblocked to remove email block only) abusive sockpuppetry on other Wikimedia projects infinity  Removed Budgiekiller (block log) : grawp infinity  Removed Canis Lupus (block log) Block evasion: User:Betacommand violating indefinite block infinity Cherry1000 (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthvm infinity  Removed Cool3 (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Do not unblock without ArbCom consent infinity  Removed Crzrussian (block log) Per user request. Abandoning account. infinity Cumulus Clouds (block log) This deceased user's account has been locked to protect his reputation infinity CWii (block log) Disruptive editing infinity CyberAnth (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CyberAnth infinity  Removed D climacus (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: (User:EddieSegoura) infinity  Removed Dalf (block log) Editor is deceased. Ar deis Dé go raibh a anam dílis. infinity Date delinker (block log) Delinking dates against injunction issued January 13: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking infinity Daven200520 (block log) Disruptive editing: per discussion on ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=377513295#TOV_by_Daven200520.3F infinity DiverseMentality (block log) banned user taking over renamed account. infinity DXRAW (block log) has transferred to new account infinity Fastilysock (block log) Retired infinity GangstaEB (block log) vandal infinity George.Saliba (block log) impostor infinity Giggs for Temporary (block log) alternate account being used for bad-hand vandalism infinity Gnfgb2 (block log) Abusing sock puppet accounts infinity  Removed HexaChord (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:HexaChord_and_his.2Fher_sockpuppets infinity  Removed Iloveminun (block log) User has changed name to User:Minun infinity Java7837 (block log) Abusing multiple accounts infinity  Removed Javert (block log) User request: account no longer in use infinity Jbamb (block log) Already blocked under another account infinity Joturner (block log) user request; changed names infinity KellyAna (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:KellyAna(2nd),User:Irishlass0128(2nd) infinity  Removed Kilgamesh (block log) User:JarlaxleArtemis infinity Kramden4700 (block log) sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg used to mislead AfD etc. infinity  Removed Lakers (block log) Sock of User:Artaxiad infinity  Removed Letsdrinktea (block log) checkuser-confirmed sock: Lambmeat infinity  Removed Lincalinca (block log) Security measure, contact me and User talk:Rm w a vu infinity Littleteddy (block log) abusing multiple accounts, see talk page infinity  Removed LukeTheSpook (block log) Same/testing infinity Maork (block log) Abusing multiple accounts infinity  Removed Melsaran (block log) Block as suspected sockpuppet. Please refer unblock/redress requests to ArbCom. infinity  Removed Mrtvi Nhad (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mario1987 infinity  Removed Parker007 (block log) {{sockpuppetcheckuser|Endgame1}} infinity  Removed Pce3@ij.net (block log) Exhausted community patience. See talk page. infinity Pegasus1138 (block log) admitted sockpuppet engaged in devious activity infinity  Removed Pilotboi (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Grawp sleepers. infinity  Removed Proofreader77 (block log) Disruptive editing: ongoing soapboxing/wikilawyering on talk page infinity Riana dzasta (block log) prevent impersonation infinity Rktect (block log) Disruptive editing: Consistent failure to follow core policy, especially WP:NOR, despite repeated warnings and counselling infinity Robertvan1 (block log) Compromised account infinity Rtphokie (block log) abuse infinity Salad Days (block log) Using sockpuppets abusively (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cocoabot) infinity  Removed Sami50421 (block log) Confirmed sock puppet of Gabi Hernandez (investigation) infinity  Removed Sceptre (AWB) (block log) Operator is currently on indefinite block infinity Secisek (block log) Disruptive editing infinity Smbarnzy (block log) Abandoned account; blocked per user request infinity South Bay (block log) Abusing multiple accounts infinity  Removed Squirepants101 (block log) compromised infinity TableManners (block log) {{sockpuppet|Kdbuffalo|confirmed}} infinity  Removed Telex (block log) per user request infinity Tellyaddict (block log) harassing users via email infinity Tennis expert (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel. Raising to indefinite after reviewing the activity of both sockpuppet accounts infinity  Removed The Haunted Angel (block log) editor is moving on, and requesting their old account blocked to prevent any socking concerns infinity Thekohser (block log) continued violations of provisional unblock conditions, see [13] infinity TheoloJ (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nibbo 2 infinity  Removed Theserialcomma (block log) Personal attacks or harassment: hounding, assuming bad faith, baiting 2010-11-16T08:15:12Z Thesublime514 (block log) abuse infinity Tim Q. Wells (block log) retired account infinity Tim Song (block log) Old account infinity Tim Song II (block log) Old account infinity Tisane (block log) Block evasion: Do not unblock without ArbCom consent. infinity  Removed Veesicle (block log) Abusing sock puppet accounts infinity  Removed Werdna648 (block log) abuse infinity Wikidemo (block log) Abusing multiple accounts: User:QuirkyAndSuch infinity  Removed Zerida (block log) longterm deception and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd infinity  Removed

There's a list of users on the check page who's most recent block log entry was a block. Some may have expired, and the program seems to struggle with specialchars. I'll try and work my way through the list if I have the time :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NPA policy

As I told you before, comments on your actions as an administrator are hardly personal attacks. WP:NPA doesn't mean editors are immune to criticism. Admins should especially not expect to be shielded from criticism. Allow me to quote from the NPA page: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks". My comment uses civil language and says nothing about your personal character. Do you really believe that your actions as an admin should never be questioned?—Chowbok ☠ 02:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.... where to begin? You really don't seem to understand the difference between criticism of someone's person and their actions, despite my repeated attempts to explain the difference to you. Why else would you quote "accusations about personal behavior"? This isn't an accusation about your personal behavior, it's about your behavior as an admin. That's an important distinction that you simply refuse to grasp. Talk about "IDIDNTHEARTHAT". When you say my comment "isn't criticising me, it's simply insulting me", you further demonstrate your inability to tell the difference. I refer to an administrative action you took, I say that I disagree with it, and I explain why I disagree with it. That's what criticism is. And I don't "keep complaining about the issue", I've made one comment and left it at that. I didn't plan on bringing it up again. Finally, your evident impatience that I disagree with you and don't simply do what you ask demonstrates an extremely poor attitude for an admin. You can't stand that I disagree with you or that I have the impertinence to bring it up, and that I don't simply cave to your demands. If you really can't stand criticism to this extent, you have the wrong job, I'm afraid.—Chowbok ☠ 11:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to link to a rebuttal or to any other page of your choosing after my comments; that seems perfectly reasonable. If that's acceptable to you, let me know where I should link.—Chowbok ☠ 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential trouble brewing

• Hello King, could I ask you to come take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32? This AfD is fast degenerating into a general melee due to the persistent unruly comments, edits and remarks passed by some newly registered users and IP editors. Worst part of it is that these people, who kept popping out from nowhere, are not even regular members of the aviation task force. Could you temp semi-protect this article because I for one am very afraid of another consensus/vote fraud by these new users. Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Remember that it is not only members of the aviation task force who get to voice their opinion on this matter, and Wikipedia allows anonymous and new users to edit, and take part in consensus building. So the worst part is not in fact that they "are not even regular members of the aviation task force". In general, simply tag such editor's comments with {{spa}}, and the closing administrator will take that into account. You also seem to be misinterpreting some of the comments, for example, Advanstra's response to your !vote was not "fighting", so your response to that wasn't constructive. Some of the comments on the AfD are indeed inappropriate, such as this and your comment I just mentioned. However, I don't think that justifies a semi protection at this time. I've put an notice on the page reminding users to remain civil and cool. I'll try and keep an eye on it and warn any users who seem to continue to be getting a bit heated/making personal attacks/not assuming good faith etc. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

test

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

BRFA AusTerrapinBotEdits

G'day Kingpin, I've replied to your query at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AusTerrapinBotEdits. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganeshbot

Hi Kingpin, you had closed my bot request related to creating gastropod species articles. I wanted to ask you whether it is a good idea to request for approval for creating the genus articles alone. These will be much smaller in number to manage. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk, thanks for asking. What kind of numbers are we talking about here? Remember the project already has a very large workload from the previous unapproved run. Also, what kind of content are we talking? If these are all genus articles, then will they be larger then the majority of the articles created in the bot's last run? I think before the project considers any future runs there are a number of issues it is important for them to demonstrate they have dealt with. Some of these aren't necessarily related to the number of articles created. Let me make a quick (har har) list:

• Communication with the community
  • The project needs to indicate or demonstrate that they are willing to discuss issues. Even if that means repeatedly addressing the same issues. Last time the response a lot of the time seemed to be "we've discussed this already and don't need to do so again". Which left editors who weren't familiar with the previous discussions not actually having their questions answered. Also a lot of the time there was no evidence presented for previous discussions - it wouldn't be so much of an issue if the users were actually pointed towards a FAQ or previous conversations.
  • The project needs to understand that the views of the entire community needs to be taken into consideration, and not just those of the project members. Last time around the project seemed to believe that the only valid opinions were those of users familiar with the topic.
  • As I mentioned before, the project needs to accept that it may have to compromise. Proposing to just create genus articles would help that aim.
• Pre-checking runs
  • Nobody wants to see the bot creating a bunch of articles and then a few days later running through them all to correct a mistake. Although I was largely impressed by the way the project set up it's pre-checking of articles last time, it apparently wasn't enough to stop these errors slipping through. There's no hurry, and the majority of the project members seem to be eager to prove that they can run this bot efficiently. So I would suggest a high number of reviewers (in terms of the number of project members and community members willing to help out), and a large time-span for reviewing each individual run.
• Article content
  • Users will be opposed to bot created stubs, especially on this kind of topic, and especially when a large number of articles have largely identical content (if it's just the name which changes, many users will argue a list would be a better solution). I don't have any real suggestions on resolving this, but the project needs to convince others that these are useful articles. To do this they need better arguments then simply ~"imagine if we could have a page on every single gastropod species" or ~"it gives a place for images to go" (which is what Commons is for, we don't create pages just because we have images for them).
  • As mentioned earlier, the stub problem might be resolved if these are about genus articles (although I don't fully understand the difference. If I'm correct (and it's highly likely I'm not) each genus has a large number of species within it?) However, you then run into a problem of having more complicated articles, which are harder to automate. Which means you need more reviewing from editors (see above and below).
• Reviewing and updating
  • Last time I could find no real process for reviewing the bots edits after the fact, and more importantly, updating articles. Since it's seems these articles require a lot of updating (as I understand it, due to the source not being static), it's very important the project has a way to keep track of all of these bot-created articles. I would suggest a project subpage where the bot can list in a sortable-table the articles created, maybe a general category, and the date it was last created. The project members and community could then update the date for the last time reviewed whenever they check and - if needed - update the article. This way they can see which articles need checking. But don't feel this particular method is a must have for me, anything which works works.

Sorry for the long comment, but hopefully it contains sound advice. It's not all that relevant to you specifically, but more the project, feel free to copy and paste it to them or whatever. However, there is one thing I should mention for you especially to consider. Users are likely to remember that this bot was approved to create a relatively small amount of articles, and it went on to create thousands without approval. Approval to continue to create those unapproved articles was denied. But now here you are requesting again to create a small number (you haven't said exactly what) of articles. Obviously some are going to be suspicious that should this be approved, we'll have the same issue of further creations without approval under the (accidental) guise of being approved under the previous request. I personally feel his is a case of lesson-learnt. But it's something you (as an experienced bot operator who should have know that the bot was running without approval) need to bear in mind, as some users may bring that up. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I will use the above input in the next bot proposal. I will make sure to include a human-review element in the next bot proposal. That was one of the breakers in the last one. Thanks again. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiAlerter

Hi Kingpin, is this ever going to be ported to Mac? If not, what similar tools can be used on Mac? --Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, unlikely to be ported, as I have no way of testing it on an Apple, and no real experience of cross-platform programming. Of course, it's a .NET application, which means there should be ways to get it to run on the Mac OS. But you need a CLR to convert the CIL code to the native Mac code... apparently ;). Anyway, I'm not very savvy with this cross-platform stuff, having basically just used Windows machines for everything. You might want to ask Tim Song about Kissle, but this again is a .NET application. I can't think of any other working new page patrol tools (except obviously Twinkle and Huggle, which you might want to consider instead (I believe there is a Mac compatible version of Huggle), Huggle is obviously better designed for recent changes, but it is possible to use it for new page patrol). Unfortunately, most Wikipedia tools seem to be from years ago, and are now broken and no longer maintained (I actually only seriously started developing WikiAlerter after NPWatcher died). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about BAG approval

I've posted a question for you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking; could you please take a look at it wen you have a moment? Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Kingpin, I have answered your q as best I can in a simple q and A situation. I hope your main points have been answered, let me know if you want additional clarification. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 (approx. 16 topics)

Open tag trick for blanking

That doesn't seem to be working with transclusion, only with subst. Am I doing it wrong? Gigs (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I kinda just presumed that would work, obviously there's the option of substing the template. However, I'm pretty sure there is a way of blanking all content after a template (like I said, I vaguely recall one of the copyright templates doing this). Can't remember how it was done now though. If you do want to find out, I'm sure someone at WP:VPT would know. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone has done it now with an open ended div set to not display. That works. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol @ naivety

You call it vandalism? I call it truth. You claim it's vandalism but it's mere expression of an opinion that you don't agree with, for whatever the reason. Ever wonder why in American history books 1776 was seen as a rise against tyranny, but the British books show it as mere unruly rebellion? Differential opinion.

Now, he's posting all these personal appeals, and making all these new board positions but that's just a ploy to put out his "google killer" so he can buy a goddamn Wikijet and blow spunk on a select list of conservative news anchors.

NPP backlog

Hi Kingpin. There just aren't enough people working on the bottom of the NPP list. These articles are being released, unpatrolled and untagged after 30 days. All the articles at this level have serious defects. A couple of suggestions for doing something about the 30-day New Page Patrol backlog are under informal discussion. Before this gets more involved and passes perhaps to RfC, could you let me know if it would be possible to create a bot that:

1. Tags an article that has not been patrolled for 30 days.
2. Puts it onto a category 'Articles unpatrolled for 30 days'
3. Sends a template message to the creator's talk page.

Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes. All of these are technically possible. However, such a bot would either have to run constantly, or would have to run (for example) daily, tagging every article a day early (there are also other ways this bot could work, for example running every thirty days, and recording all the pages in the list, while tagging all the pages recorded in the last run, which don't have anything in their patrol logs (this would be more resource intensive). I'm not quite sure how the back of the new page list works, if every page is cleared from it separately, and as soon as it's older than thirty days. Or if pages are only cleared say, every 24 hours, and at that point the pages are removed en masse. Things like this could effect how the bot would work. But either way it should still be technically possible for a bot to do the task. Of course, this is similar to the Template:New unreviewed article, used by the article creation wizard. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some empirical research over the last couple of months by slogging away at thousands in the backlog. Very few (in fact an insignificant number), of the new pages are wearing a 'New Page' banner. The main problem with new pages is that they are almost all from SPA or very new (and/or very young) users who never bother to read any rules or recommendations at all. I don't know either how the articles drop off at the end of the 30 days, but have a feeling it happens en masse at midnight for all of them. We would need to find out from whoever programmed whatever makes it work. The bot would need to run on a daily basis but it wouldn't be intensive - there are only 100 - 300 pages a day that disappear. I say 'only', but it's an awful lot to leave dangerously unpatrolled. Anyway, you've answered my question for the time being and I can build on that. Thanks for your help, and I'll let you know when we have a venue for a discussion where you can chime in.--Kudpung (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The fat man

's humor is wearing a bit thin on me. [14] I've made some suggestions at your comparison page. Anthony (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. The question with TFMWNCB is does he get a "vote" on his own block? Personally I feel it's not necessary or correct to include him on the list (just as candidates don't get to !vote in their own RfAs), however, if you feel strongly about it, feel free to add him yourself. I've asked Secret to clarify. So that leaves jpgordon (according to you, supporting the block) and Rocksanddirt (according to you, opposing the block). JPgordon's only comment is "Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding", and Rocksanddirt's "the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors." I clearly don't think either indicate a stance on the block (hence them not being in my summary). Again, feel free to add them yourself (this isn't something I feel worth having massive debates about ;D) or indicate that you don't feel they have expressed an opinion on the block (and hence they are not included in the combination list). Or ask them to clarify. (P.S. I've also added Giftiger wunsch, who only commented earlier this morning). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree with every word. Nice collaborating with you.  :) Anthony (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. You know the people on that board a lot better than me, I suspect. When it comes to establishing a consensus I respect, I'm more interested in the person behind the vote. I suspect some of these are shallow fools, and others are sages. Can you tell me, Is there actual controversy on the legitimacy of this block between the intelligent, wise, experienced commentators? Are there commentators on both sides of the issue that you respect for their intelligence and good intent? Anthony (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly I respect each !voter, as a member of the community. There are indeed !voters on both sides, who I in particular recognise as having made (in general) sensible decisions in the past. For example, Gwen Gale, SlimVirgin, Dycedarg, Silver seren, Sandstein, Fastily, Jayron and Rd232. Just to name a few, almost at random. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Then, I'll hold my position that this is a block that doesn't have consensus. Where do you stand with regard to that? Anthony (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Divided :P. Overall though, I think there is a good argument in claiming a consensus for the block. The rationales provided by supporters of the block are in general (from what I've seen) stronger, with a lot of the opposition being on the basis of ~"he's just having a bit of fun/it's a joke" - which is kind of the point. Most trolls are just having a bit of fun, doesn't make them any less disruptive. Added to this of course, is that the support for the block is nearly double the opposition. Oh, one other note, specifically for you: Don't let the "consensus" make your decision, you make the consensus :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll reread the arguments. Where do you stand on the question of what to do if there were (hypothetically) no consensus favoring block or unblock? Newyorkbrad's question. Anthony (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously in general default to the status quo. Also obviously, this case is slightly more complex. I for one consider the previous unblock by Gimmetrow to have been against consensus at that time, as was displayed by the comments on The Fat Man's talk page, and the multiple declined unblock requests. So personally I feel that the status quo ought to have been that TFM had remained blocked the other month. I also think that the consensus at the time of Eagles' block was to block, but I do think that block came a bit early (which then, as someone else said, "muddies the waters", as we now have people opposed to the block simply because it came too early, which isn't helping to decide which action will actually best prevent disruption). Really it depends on how the community (or rather, the people !voting) are treating this; people will !vote differently, depending on how they think their opinion will be weighed. So if they think that no consensus will default to unblocking, they are less likely to strongly oppose a block, and vice versa. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an obvious default to the status quo? It seems obvious to me that, if there is no consensus for a block, you unblock the blocked editor. I wouldn't default to whatever the last admin action happened to be. Am I missing something? Anthony (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The status quo being whatever prior consensus was, or if a consensus has never been reached on the subject before, then unblocking. If a blocked editor requests review, and there is no consensus to unblock, they stay blocked. If an editor request a block on a currently unblocked editor, and there is no consensus to block, they remain unblocked. The confusion here (for me) is because it's not clear if the discussion is reviewing a current block (which it could be said it appears to be set up as: a review of a block, with people !voting "unblock", rather than "don't block"), or if it's a review for a proposed block (if it's a continuation of the thread started by Eagles, due to a lack of discussion on that thread). All very complicated ;). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm thinking. Anthony (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus?

I thought I'd split this off from the What if there's no consensus discussion. I've just reread the arguments of the editors you named above, and have copied them below. They seem to be genuinely divided as to whether his behaviour is disruptive. I really see an absence of consensus. What do you think? I'm not addressing the weight of the arguments, just whether there is consensus among them regarding whether he should be blocked. Anthony (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Gwen Gale Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC) How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale SlimVirgin Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. Dycedarg Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him. Silverseren Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. Sandstein Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block. Fastily Support Per above. Unfortunately Jayron Part of the problem is that behavior and reputation is cumulative. If every incident was taken in pure isolation, its likely that no one would think that any one of the hundreds of disruptive events done by TFM would be, of its own accord, grounds for blocking. In situations where we must judge a user on the totality of his contributions, positive and negative, there is going to be a difference of opinion as to how much is "enough". There is no bright line limit of the number of trollish, disruptive events are required before a user is blocked, and there is no bright line of the ratio of positive contributions to disruptions that the community believes "forgives" a person of their problems. Instead, there are going to be differing opinions, which is fine. Reasonable people may analyze the same situation and reach differing conclusions. That's why, in cases like this (see my comments below) where a user is being blocked for a pattern of small behaviors rather than a single, grossly disruptive event like vandalism or edit warring or abject racist screed or something like that, the discussion must be allowed to run its natural course before a decision is reached. Since this is one where reasonable people may possibly disagree, it is appropriate to see if enough do before proceeding, rather than shooting from the hip and seeing after the fact what people thought of it. Rd232 Yes, but editors get banned when there is a community view that they are a net detriment to the project. Sometimes a trivial incident might cause the community to re-examine the situation, and determine that a previous decision to give an editor another chance was simply wrong. Any given discussion always has an element of randomness. We have to be careful not to keep having the same discussion over and over until by random chance the editor is booted out, but it isn't illegitimate per se to revisit a prior decision when it wasn't clear cut.

Well I did purposely choose an equal number of editors, so I'm not surprised that they seem evenly split on this. In addition these users are just picked out randomly by me (there are more users that I recognised and respect, I was just giving a small sample. And when judging consensus, it doesn't really matter which users I recognise), we do still have to consider everybody's views. However, reading through the arguments, I will say I see the arguments of those supporting an unblock seem slightly flawed (obviously this is imo, and really we need an uninvolved administrator willing to read through everything - not just the ANI thread). But for example, a lot of people seem to think this block is for comments at WR, which isn't the case. How Eagles stumbled upon this situation is not important, and the block discussion is clearly centred around comments made on-wiki. As well as this Silverseren says about him being provoked by Mike R., when he actually restored that comment after it was removed by an administrator (obviously it was hard for Silverseren to know this). There's a number of other arguments used by the opposition which lead me to believe their arguments are not as strong (for example, I disagree with SlimVirgin on this, as I made clear at ANI) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(Good morning) Possibly... But you are slipping back into analysis of the merits of the arguments. You have your view on that, and other respected editors have theirs. I was hoping you'd address the question of (what seems to me to be) an obvious lack of consensus among them on the merits of the block. Do you see a lack of consensus on that point? (It's so pleasant having this conversation without random editors piling on.)

I've left an update at ANI. Anthony (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well in general, where there appears to be a similar size opposition and support, I actually would use the strength of the arguments to help decide consensus. You've said you instead look at the users supporting those arguments, so this shows a slightly different approach between us. Personally I feel mine is better (obviously). However, to answer one of your questions above, overall I actually see a consensus for this block. There's a much larger support than opposition, purely numbers-wise, the arguments are stronger (which I've already discussed above) and the arguments for blocking are more in-line with policy than those arguing against the block. As I've already mentioned, I purposely chose the same number of editors from both sides of the argument, so that there seems to be no consensus between those editors is not surprising, but overall there seems to me to be a consensus forming for the block (this is, as mentioned, my personal opinion). If (and I'm not saying there is) there was no consensus, I think a case like this would warrant further, more structured, discussion, such as a RfC/U. If there was no consensus and the closing admin decided that should default to unblocking (and again, I'm not saying it should), I would, considering the circumstances, wait until The Fat Man caused further disruption (which I've almost no doubt he will), simply because a lot of the users there seem to think it's worth giving him another chance (which is, of course, what they said last time, and what they'll always say ;D) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

[15] I've enjoyed this. Thanks. Perhaps we'll take it up again at another time on another pretext. Anthony (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI Anthony (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Karlson Bot

"Denied by ArbCom"? what was that all about? Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

The bot task itself wasn't specifically denied by ArbCom, rather Peter and his bot were both blocked. If you want more on that, you'll have to contact Avraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah I wondered if it was something like that. Shame we have to turn away free labour that we need. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Tis the season

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Empire of Brazil

Kingpin, I was wondering if you could be kind and remove the frames and add a translucid background to these images ([16] and [17])? I would really appreciate if you could do that for me. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough. Done (see File:Recife 1851 03.png and File:Paço imperial 1850.png), hope that's okay :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you do the same with this one [18]? --Lecen (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, File:Golden law 1888 Brazilian senate.png - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Kingpin13, thanks for thesteadfast and assiduous work with pictures! It is very much appreciated. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, my friend! You deserve it! --Lecen (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's very nice thank you :). It's good to be appreciated. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting WikiAlerter Permissions

I've got a fair bit of experience with Huggle and just noticed the backlog on new pages. Thought I might be able to assist here as well. If you could give me permissions to use the program, I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much!--Gnowor^T_C 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Gnowor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some images I wish you could make a few editions

Hello, Kingpin! I was wondering if you could retouch some pictures for me. In case you accept doing it, know that you need no hurry to get them done. They are:

• 
  Translucid background, please
• 
  Translucid background
• 
  Translucid background and straighten photo (it's a little twisted to the left)
• 
  Remove words at the top and at the corner. If possible, but is not vital, make the background translucid
• 
  Remove the yellowish tone around the letters
• 
  Correct the northwestern borders. You'll notice that there is a horizontal border. It's incorrect. It should be like in these maps: [1], [2] and [3]

I'd really appreaciate if you could do that for me. Thank you very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Should all be possible, except maybe the map one. What's wrong with simply using this? It appears to be exactly the same except for the problem with the north-west border. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I did this picture in the paint so that could understand exactly what I meant. Its not a ".svg" image. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, my software is literally ancient, so it doesn't support svg (although it does support some vector formats). So what you want is either someone to load the svg image and adjust it accordingly (should be a fairly simple job with vector) or to convert your correction to a vector format (again, an easy job with modern tools, which provide automated conversion). Also, about File:Gabinete conciliação 1853.jpg, removing the words is simple enough, although I had to clone the cross at the top of the image from the older upload (it's hidden by the text in the newer one). However, removing the background in this one was a bit more difficult... but fairly pleased with the result. So, all done except the map, if not uploaded over than the fils can be located at the original name but with a png extension as oppose to jpg - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Forget the map, then. I believe I can ask the editor who uploaded it for the first time to do it. Thanks, Kingpin, you're helping a lot. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kingpin, not trying to be a dick, but when you'll finish the other pictures (except for the map)? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I said they're already done :). But the jpeg image format doesn't support transparency, so they are located at their png equivalents. For example, the corrected File:Construction site in Recife 1862.jpg is located at File:Construction site in Recife 1862.png. Or you can check my upload log at commons. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ow, I didn't see that. They look great! Would you mind that, once I'm finished with Empire of Brazil article, if I place a special thanks to you when I nominate the article to featured status? --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I would be honoured :). Good luck with getting featured status. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

List of page creators

Hi Kingpin, as part of a clean-up drive for 2011, I need a list of creators o all school articles (not universities). This would be all pages whose talk pages have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools banner on them. I was wondering if you could do this for me and park it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/creators. It might be an idea to filter out the ones that have been indef blocked. If you're pressed for time, perhaps you can tell me how to do it myself. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably better off asking for a database report, try WP:DBR, or User:MZMcBride who would know more about that than me. If that doesn't work out, feel free to ask me again and I could technically get the list to you (but a database query would be a better approach) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks KP. I'll try those. --Kudpung (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Kingpin13, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Lerdthenerd rollback

I told him he could look for other opinions. Could you take another look at him? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless he still needs to mention that you declined it already. Also, not particularly impressed with some edit summaries, so still a no from me - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

make life so much easier

..uh in some ways... SmackBot's learning module seems to have successfully mastered most of the old SB specfic stuff but there's masses of tweaks (unreferenced => unreferenced stub if it's a stub, for example). And other problems like the bot's edits showing as non-bot. Which I had thought was vaguely related to "assert" but it seems no. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 08:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, these days even if the account is flagged as a bot, it's not compulsory to mark each individual edit as a bot edit. If you're using the Wikipedia API directly simply set &bot=1 when using action=edit. If you're using a perl library than you're better off asking them directly (I haven't used perl much myself), although you could have a go at fooling it by giving the page title as Name&bot=1 (e.g. Andor&bot=1) when saving (but I don't guarantee that would work). Assert is to check the account is logged in. If you need any further assistance I'm happy to be of any help I can. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well it's a hash and seems to apss everything striaght through so I just set bot => '1', I suppose. The documentation is sadly lacking, but it does work. Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Okay, see if that works I guess. If you know how to do HTTP requests/responses in perl you might be better off with that and using the Wikipedia API directly. If not then stick with what ever you're doing now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

“ And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. ” — (Alma 7:10)

The Thing ^T/_C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WikiAlerter

I have experience with Huggle, lets try this new tool out. Always in the mood to try something new. And, I always see CSD tags placed on articles in Huggle. So, lets try it. Thanks! I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 04:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at User:Flightx52.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kingpin13. You have new messages at Flightx52's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NPP 30-day list

Hi Kingpin. We're making progress on this. Could you please chime in at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog. What is needed is a bot to run every 24 hrs, tag the pages with an invisible cat, and put a daily report on a destination page: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/30-day list. I'm sure that it's not going o be astechnically simple as I envisage, because I believe each page gets pushed off at exactly 72 hours. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)