User talk:Samuel Pepys

Samuel Pepys

Village pump

It has to be said, the response from certain people towards this exemplifies the very reason why the world is covered from an American or British viewpoint on wikipedia. That they cannot possibly comprehend that there are towns with thousands in in places all around the world that are not "encyclopedic". It disappoints me severely that people have this kind if bias, there is something very wrong if they think an article created by a bot about a places in America with 3 people is accpetable but that which creates an article with hundreds or thousands in the developing world is not. I don't know about you, but if we could have 2 million articles like Agnam-Goly eventually, the sort of places which will be created by the bot I think this encyclopedia would be extremely improved, and this shows that is actually possible. 2 million is actually only proprtion of what exists. For instance India has 28,000 google maps, yet there are actualy 638,000 settlements in India. So even this proportion of settlements is being disregarded . It makes we wonder why people think it is a positive thing to ignore 95% of the world whether they are stubs or not. Some people seem to be under the delusion that every article on wikipedia is currently massively developed. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why many more people hang out at the AN than actual content editors. Mr. Pepys, would you like to help the bald guy and myself with the dabbing of articles so the Bot can create them? Since you are evidently interested in the topic, I would love to help you along with Wikipedia! I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what 'dabbing' is but I'll take a shot at it. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's short for disambiguration. The info is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Samuel Pepys! I am Red Thunder and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! RedThunder 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: blanking

No, I should have payed attention rather than knee-jerking when I saw "Blanked the page". Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rapid-fire unexplained edits

I'm seeing many hundreds of edits from you, almost too rapidly to be considered non-bottish, none of which have intelligible explanations, and including to pages in user-space. That's a lot of impoliteness IMO... DMacks (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah! I mean, I have no idea why you took the time to make this edit. It was a test, son! And I don't care! Which is why I'm leaving it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be your intention, but you are seriously spamming my watchlist. I also do not understand what you're doing in other people's sandbox. I certainly would object to your editing of my sandbox. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes are allowed to be "faulty". I sometimes just copy-paste sections there and leave the "faulty" <ref>s intact so that I can simply copy-paste the sections back to main space when I'm done. Your editing would interfere with that. As I said, some people find your edit behaviour objectionable, so please don't do it unless you're invited, even if your intentions are honorable. – sgeureka ^t•c

And in response to your note on my talk page: Well you'rewelcome! I dunno yet, it depends upon if I can get the article I was testing (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings gets to FA like I want it to. Thanks for asking! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Can you please explain why you are doing these sorts of edits? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had the same in user space i was working on, lol, it made be laugh. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who tagged it for cleanup? These are mediation proposal pages, and really should be left alone, except by the parties in the mediation. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which cleanup category are you working out of? I'll remove the pages from that category. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll leave it alone then. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making a large number of edits to other user's sandbox pages? Should you have a bot flag? -- Mark Chovain 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, if you're doing several edits a minute on a regular base (which seems to be the case), take it up at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval (read WP:BOTS, particularily WP:BOTS#Assisted editing guidelines, first though). I'd be inclined to advise you to be very careful with these kinds of edits in userspace (see: wikipedia:userspace). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict

I was in the middle of editing Behold a Pale Horse....~ WikiDon (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't see you there. I'll check my mirrors next time. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time give me a few minutes please. I won't leave things in that state. WikiDon (talk)

Alright, I think I have the REFs all REFified. The Long Island University PDF and the USC Center on Public Diplomacy are the same document, same author. No bolding on "Cast" listings. ~ DialupWikiDon (talk)

Broken footnotes

Hi, I really appreciate that you're commenting out broken footnotnes, but could you please leave my sandbox as it is ? I know what it refers to and I need to see it, and I will correct it when I put it in mainspace ~~Xil * 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

just a quick thanks from me, for fixing the "Kirkcaldy walkabout" link on the Kirkcaldy page. i am (on my own intitative) slowly, but surely re-building the article, the first time, i doing major work like this. Kilnburn (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the edits to User space

Can you please not make edits to my user space as you did at User:Bellhalla/SS_Kroonland? Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I appreciate what you are doing, but I actually prefer the errored references, because it lets me know (when I have the time) which ones I need to correct. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you say my sandbox page was in a Cleanup category. Which category? It's never been in a category, and you've commented bits of it out. I third the suggestion that you leave userspace alone. I strongly suggest you apply for bot status if you're making this many seemingly automatic edits. -- Mark Chovain 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting Never you say? --Samuel Pepys (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, User:Gadget850/Cite errors is a deliberate list of cite errors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do edit my user page in such instances. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[1][reply]

Note: Per WP:UserSpace "Your" in this context means associated with you, not belonging to you. Pages in user space still do belong to the community --Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that's why I appreciate having it edited with the bum links. It was just too much to search for them myself. I appreciate your commenting them out. --Blechnic (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??

What's this all about? [2] Please don't edit my sandbox. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine ref correction

Good catch! I neglected to actually check whether that ref was used elsewhere when I updated the bioavailability data...Best, St3vo (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my userspace alone

Although I appreciate the effort you are going to in fixing up reference formatting and keeping the size of the maintenance category down, I would equally appreciate it if you did not do so to User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking. The reference is 'broken' because when this piece of text is complete, it will be pasted directly into HMS Ark Royal (91) and will integrate with the reference layout currently there. If I duplicate the full reference coding in the userspace, it will add unnecessarily add to the final article size, and may introduce an error to the referencing. On the flip side, if I leave it hidden, I know I'm going to forget about it, with the associated text then appearing to be unreferenced and unreliable.

I can fully appreciate the need to maintain and repair references in the mainspace, and commend you on your efforts there. However, please understand that there is a method to my madness in including a broken ref, and it is intended for the greater good of Wikipedia.

Thanks. -- saberwyn 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many others have already said...

Leave people's sandboxes alone. It's not helping those who are using them, and even more so, you've been asked repeatedly to stop. So please do so. Thanks. -Bbik^★ 08:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and even more so, Pages in user space still do belong to the community --Samuel Pepys (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And even more so, since you're going to try and turn that on me, you're more than welcome to make useful edits. But don't go screwing with people's in-progress methods, especially when they are in userspace, which has already been explained to you as being more accepting of imperfections, for a variety of reasons. -Bbik^★ 08:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And even more so, its not about you its about cleanup categories, which has already been explained to you as a prudent method of improving wikipedia. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have started a thread about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Samuel_Pepys_and_fixing_broken_refs_in_sandboxes. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Mate

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Samuel Pepys (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't really understand the message. Per WP:ANI I was asked to fix mainspace articles and not userspace. I complied with the request and now I am blocked.

Decline reason:

You seem to be running an unauthorised bot to fix refs with the code from User:LemmeyBOT, indef blocked, and whose owner User:Lemmey is also blocked. — Step hen 01:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An infinite blocking seems like a long time as I have complied with each request made so far. The code is freeware and is approved according to the proper channels. The bots block seems to be more connected to the owners edits and not its programming. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are running an unapproved bot? Did you just take LemmeyBOT code and use it under your account? Even if it's previously approved code, you need approval for the new bot account. --Step hen 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will chalk this one up to an ill worded policy. If we're licensing the users of bots, and not the bots it should be called the bot user policy/approvals group and not the bot policy/approvals group. I hope this misunderstanding hasn't disrupted the project too much. Lastly, it seems that I have exhausted all reasonable measures of mediation here. I'll be back later, after my infinite block expires (I wonder if Wikipedia is planning some kind of nuclear powered spacecraft to live up to its SLA on that. The sun going supernova might disrupt terrestrial servers.) TTFN --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the account that has to have the bot flag set if it's making bot edits. But at the end of the day, the block was preventative, so if you are now educated per the policy, and will get the requisite permissions, and cease use of the bot in the meantime, than an unblock is in order. I'll check with the blocking admin to ensure there are no other issues. --Step hen 05:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop editing User:Theeuro/sandbox/€2 commemorative coins common. It is my user page and should not be touched without prior consent from me as a common courtesy. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above comment, is there any reason why you have been editing my user subpage User:Amatulic/drafts? That bunch of text has already been incorporated into the Zinfandel article. If you want to fix something, fix it there, not on my user subpage. Generally you shouldn't be touching user pages without invitation. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]