User talk:Tawker/Jan07

Bot

Hello tawker. Can you please program some bots for me on wikireligion. Thanks. Here[1] is the link to it. The bots name I first want you to program is JamesBot. Leave me a message at wikireligion please. --Sir James Paul 02:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danumber1bot

Thank you for approving Danumber1bot. When should it start getting to work? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Borderline/a_Kiwi_temp

I was directed by a admin to create this page in order to have a page where editors can work on a mass Scheduled for Deletion. She (Zeraeph) put them all in in-line mode, hidden from view, so no one can find them to edit. She did this yesterday morning, they all will be deleted. She brooks no disagreement.

See Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Kiwi#Following_things_from_VPT_post [quote]What you want on your article revision is a temporary page, which is usually created as a sub-page. So Borderline Personality Disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is cut out and copied into Borderline Personality Disorder/Kiwi's Temp. Everyone can edit it, talk about it, and such 'offline' from the main pages. - FrankB[/quote]

Thank you for setting your VandalBot from deleting this page, BUT since this will be happening regularly now, it will be named it ---- Borderline/POV_work_page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I dealt with this. joshbuddy, talk 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVandalBot suggestions

Hi! May I make a suggestion within the idea of WP:BITE? Perhaps if there is no talk page instead of doing just a warning, what-about doing a {{Welcome}} with the warning? (or {{welcomeip}} for ips) It might help goodwill a little bit. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Tawker, what do you think? --Cyde Weys 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffa fett - request unblock

Tawker, could you consider unblocking User:Hoffa fett. My request comes in relation to the copyvio matter. The user is pursuing copyright permission and appears to now be consulting information to properly pursue establishing articles with copyrighted material. Take a look at the last section of User talk:Hoffa fett for latest conversation on this matter. Could you let me know if you would be favorably or unfavorably disposed to removing the indefinite block so that the user could pursue proper channels in relation to copyrighted material? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I see you've unblocked. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAG

Hello. I would like to be on the bot approvals group, and since you yourself are in the group, it would be great if you can stop by and either support or oppose my request. Thank you! —Mets501 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawker...

Tawker i just took a break from my busy schedule to say HELLO TAWKER

Squakyduck2.0 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Bots

Hey talker, I noticed your edits on Wikipedia:Bots and although I don't understand them I don't really need to either, I was curious if you could add {{botnav}} though, it'd be a little more helpful for people that stumble their way to that article. Vicarious 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Hooray for my business contact! ★MESSED ROCKER★ 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Werdnabot problem

Just so you know, on January 1, Werdnabot tried to archive five sections of this talk page to your January 2006 archive but failed because that file is protected (this caused Werdnabot to cease operating for the day). I am reverting its edit removing those sections from your talk. I also changed the year to 2007 in your Werdnabot invocation; and left this message to let you know what happened. JRSpriggs 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translators available

Hi,

I just wonder if something prevents you from continuing to use your bot to contact the available translators on this page.

Cheers,

Jmfayard 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AVB

AVB reported User:24.45.225.68 in this edit even though the IP had only made one edit in the last month. I'd thought I'd stop by to tell you since you're the runner of the bot. Happy New Year! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots

Hi Tawker; I was wondering why it is that AVB needs Wikipedia:Bots to function. Would it work if the page was a redirect and below the redirect there was the required content, so the software would still interpret it as a redirect? —Mets501 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism Project

I've heard through the grapevine that since you run the anti-vandal bot that you might be a good person to talk to about getting some stats regarding vandalism. I have recently put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies with the intended goal of studying vandalism on wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Remember 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVB problem

Please check out AVB's talk page. We now have two cases, today alone, where the bot triggered on one edit, but reverted back two edits, and warned the innocent editor from the older edit. And this is just those that have complained. Something is definitely misfiring with the bot. Not quite to the point of hitting the stop button on it, but I am definitely concerned at the situation. - TexasAndroid 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thanks :)

I apologize, but what do you mean by diff checks?

Thanks again -- Where 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AVB is.... not a bot?

Is AntiVandalBot supposed to have a bot flag? Special:Listusers/bot suggest it doesn't have one (which is odd). If it needs a bot flag, I think you have to get a bureaucrat to do it. --h2g2bob 10:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, AVB is not supposed to be flagged as a bot. Bots do not show up on Special:Recentchanges by default and we want to see what AVB is doing. Миша 13 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks --h2g2bob 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something; though I suspect my commons bit will be of more use for you. By the way you owe Cyde an "apology" for an edit conflict ;).--Nilf anion (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism from User talk:204.13.204.98 on 8 January

It was on the Houston Grand Opera page at the bottom. Please do something about this idiot. Vivaverdi 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo for your AntiVandalBot

Hi! Out of enthusiasm about your AntiVandalBot, I made a logo for it. I posted it in AntiVandalBot's user talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. If you want, you could modify it in any ways you like & maybe take out the "AntiVandalBot" phrase so that it could be applied to all bots in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

re: escalating warnings left by AntiVandalBot

Good evening. Thanks for the quick response. On the second issue, I'm more than happy to stick with the standard Test1-4 series. That's all I normally use regardless. My question is more one of theoretical possibility. Most of the warning templates have a standardized hidden reference to the template they came from - always in the format . I don't know whether it's possible for the bot to read the page's source code to look for that pattern or not. I wouldn't even consider trying to do that myself but I've seen you code things that I would have said were impossible so I figured that it couldn't hurt to ask.

Is there some other way that we could add a standardized tag to the most common warning templates so that the bot could recognize them and recommend escalation? Could we switch the template reference from a commented-out line to a line printed in the same color as the background or something? Or, thinking about it more, for this scenario we don't really care about the source template - maybe we only white-text the (first level warning) and ask the bot to search for that specific text in the last 5 lines of the user's page before appending the warning...

Again, this would be useful but is not essential. The tool is doing a lot of good work already. I'm just feeling greedy... Balance my greed against the evils of feature-creep. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Peninsular Northern Railroad

AntiVandalBot reverted my edit to Peninsular Northern Railroad (diff) as vandalism, and left me a message to that effect. In actuality, I was attempting to redirect the page per the result of its AfD discussion, but accidentally left out the hash mark. When I went to fix it a few seconds after the initial edit, I hit an edit conflict with AntiVandalBot, which was reverting my edit. Perhaps you could consider adding a slight time delay, maybe 30-45 seconds, to avoid these sorts of situations. Thanks, — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 07:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Ah, where would we be without Tawker? Count me in as a fan, both for AVB and WikipediaWeekly. Glad to have you around. Thanks for your trust. Luna Santin 13:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted

Page is up on Google for months and someone is repeatedly changing same out of spite and sinister/vandalism mindset.

Chir_73 is the admin. that protected same.

My counsel is informed.

My publicist is informed.

Please ban users that violate the rules.

Re-instate the page.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.

www.NystedMusic.com

Lee@NystedMusic.com

www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted

www.isound.com/lee_nysted

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com (by User:Nyslee)

Fixed the addition to your talk page. FYI, with Chir_73 the user meant me, and no, I did not protect the page, just deleted it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 18:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted again

Having deleted this yet again myself, and recieving threats of banning and legal action as a result, I restored it and sent it to AfD in the hope that the creator/subject would accept consensus rather than repeating his threats on the talk page of every administrator involved. If you're deleted and protecting it again, could you please explain this on the AfD? Thanks – Gurch 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, from what I've read the subject wanted the article deleted as vandals were posting false info, hence the delete and salt. -- Tawker 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kendrick7

Dear Tawker, I have unblocked this user per discussion on WP:AN3. Feel free to drop a hammer on my head if you disagree. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Bots

I was wondering why you deleted Wikipedia:Bots, since your summary was only (delete...). Shouldn't it be a redirect to Wikipedia:Bot policy instead, since a number of pages still link to it? Thanks. timrem 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm trying to figure out an AVB login issue, I should set that redirect.... -- Tawker 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WerdnaBot

I noticed that you commented on the Werdna Bot, and I assume you know how to use it, so I was wondering if you could really help me out and tell me if I have it set up right on my talk page, if you don't have the time though I completely understand. Thanks either way, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand

Hi Tawker, could you help me understand this case [2]. Do you feel I erred in the block? The edit history of this account appears pretty problematic. I guess I just want to make sure I don't make the same mistake over again. Best, --Kukini 06:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My bot

should probably have a flag so people's watchlists won't get saturated by bot edits. This was brought up by Larry V. Since my bot made about 600 edits this week, which I guess half the pages Larry is watching, it probably should be flagged so this can be prevented. Can you see what you can do? --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme do some poking -- Tawker 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I have made a request for membership on the bots approval group. I have received only one response by User:Mets501, who suggested I drop the group a line[3] and let you know about my request. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Out of curiosity

Is there some reason that AntiVandalBot is only editing one page? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's broken, and I'm being swamped / stupid trying to fix it :( -- Tawker 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Questions for you

Greetings.

First question: did you take "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block" are controversial into consideration with regards to me in Dec.?-Cindery 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm--no answer? Here's the next question: why didn't you post a block notice on my talkpage?-Cindery 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cascading protection

I removed the cascading protection from your page as a user pointed out on WP:AN that it was move-protecting trivial templates (or rather just {{wikibreak}}) that did not need to be. If there was a particular reason you wanted/needed the cascading feature, perhaps you should make them known at WP:AN#Cascading_page_protection, but I guessed it was just out of habit. -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Hi Tawker - I noticed that you unblocked Nathanrdotcom recently, but I don't see any contributions from you or others on Wikipedia to justify doing so. My inclination is that the message you left in the block log is insufficient to substantiate the unblocking. I think there is a bit of complexity which is not captured by what can be found on Wikipedia. Have you talked to Doc glasgow about unblocking Nathan's userpage? It may make sense in principle to welcome his former identity back on Wikipedia, but in practice I do not think this is the way to go. I'm ready to reverse your decisions with respect to that user, but I'd really prefer if you reconsider first. --HappyCamper 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm remembering correctly there was a discussion on IRC re it after an unblock request came in on irc. As always, my user page policy on admin actions does apply, do as you wish, personally I see inviting actions under one account are a lot better than 50 trillion socks..... -- Tawker 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. ♥ Fr ed il 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot clone

Hello. I ask permission to create a clone of the Anti-vandal bot to help Wikipedia. Can you give me the scripts to what its run on? Retiono Virginian 15:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Membership Requirements

Tawker, this is up for speedy because it was created by a banned user, Lightbringer, and was removed from the main Freemasonry article for no apparent reason. This section is really central to the main article, and ruins the article if it is split out. The content is not the issue (it's direct c/p from the main article), but rather the reason for the removal from main, and who did it. The tag is back on, so could you please review it again? Thanks. MSJapan 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Membership Requirements

You recently removed a speedy tag from this article. Your stated reason for removing the tag was that it looked like a good article and was well sourced. It is... but that is because it is a central part of the article on Freemasonry. The banned user (see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer) split the material off into an new article without any discussion or consensus. This is actually a POV vandal attack ... the section is key to the Freemasonry article and was split off to hide it. I hope that it is appropriate to revert your removal of the tag so the issue can be looked at again. If it is not, I appologize. Blueboar 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AntiVandalBot not working?

Hi, I was wondering why AntiVandalBot has stopped working in the past few days? The only thing it seems to do is restore Wikipedia:Introduction and nothing else. I've also left this same message on User talk:AntiVandalBot since I didn't know which page you are monitoring. Cheers, Jayden54 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

begging your pardon...

The "bold" part of my !vote was copypasted from earlier on the page, and, hideous as it is, a direct quotation from the admin nominee himself. Tom e r ^talk 08:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10, I don't normally troll Project pages, especially not votes w/ which I fail to concur, but that is possibly the worst rationale I can imagine for a "support", and in fact sounds far better as rationale for a vote in opposition to this candidacy. If WP goes completely over to the darkside, I'd hate to think that it would be a result of your own wimpish !vote in this case. Tomertalk 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Was a copy paste and was in bold? Really? -- Tawker 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the troll now? Tom e r ^talk 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can be sarcastic at times, esp after this Colbert fun again. Anyways, my point stands, you flat out admitted you were trolling the page. Trolling is a bad thing. -- 09:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually didn't admit to trolling the page, I simply said I don't troll WP pages. I think you're conflating your disagreement with me with what you perceive as an admission by me that my motivation is "somewhat less than pure"... Tom e r ^talk 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was not saying "I don't troll pages, so I'm gonna beg license to do so now", what I was instead saying is "I don't troll pages, so you should know better than to think that this is trolling". Tom e r ^talk 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair 'nuff. You might want to double check your wording though "I don't normally troll Project pages" really does read to me as if you are stating that you are trolling this one time. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, though I think it might be best to try and avoid words like "wimpish !vote" in the future, it can be seen as you unintended -- Tawker 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree "wimpish !vote" isn't exactly the kindest wording, but that is, after reviewing the entire RfA, my view of 10 of Trades' vote, an opinion to which I'm entitled, and entitled to comment upon. W/o prejudice, I think what's led to your misunderstanding of my intent w/ what I said has far more to do, if I dare say so, with what you would have meant had you said those words, than with anything I said saying those words. In that light, although I think if this discussion continues further it should definitely be divorced from the RfA at hand, you have some personal-interaction issues to work on. Namely, you seem to have an annoying habit of projecting your own intentions into whatever other people say, and seem incapable of considering that perhaps your initial misinterpretation isn't correct w/o being severely beaten over the head. If you prefer to continue thus, that's your prerogative, but if you're interested in character development, let me know and I'll be happy to help you with your social adjustment. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that's quite possibly the most condescending manner I've seen anyone behave on Wikipedia ever. Rude, beyond the call, and absolutely unacceptable. Good thing I've got Tawker's talk page on my watchlist... — Werdna talk 09:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, you clearly haven't been around long enough to be an admin!

Tom e r ^talk 09:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]