I'm going to create this user name, and since it's obviously supposed to look like my IP, I thought I'd announce it ahead of time, so no one thinks I'm trying to spoof my own IP (: --71.247.243.17316:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
.[reply]
Ok, you're unblocked. I'd suggest going ahead with the name change since its possible another admin will feel the same way Malo does and block you again. The policy does say that usernames designed to look like an IP are a bad idea. Sorry about the inconvenience. Shell babelfish13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably already know this, but someone is likely to complain about the signature :( I like the new username though! Shell babelfish13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good compromise - I don't think anyone could say you're trying to impersonate an IP address like that. Shell babelfish15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts in dividing the workload at the RD but I have had to rescind my commitments to remove old and create new transclusions at this at time. I think that in lieu of a bot, which we used to have, dividing the workload is the way to go and I'll force the time to add date headers each day. When things get back to normal at here home I'll revisit. I feel very sorry to have let you down. :-( --hydnjotalk00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left a trail of crumbs last night but I don't think that anybody's gonna bite. We may end up with something that makes no sense. Oh well, I'm off to add the new (October 2) date headers. Did you catch my little "page reduction" demo last night? It doesn't seem to have helped, just a lot of "hey, my links are broken". Oh well... --hydnjotalk00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I take that back - VectorPotential is helping out with the archiving part. I think that if the "non-archived" window were reduced to three or four days (which is what my demo did and is what VectorPotential seems to be doing) then the "dozen" desk proposal will wither away. I'd say let's give VectorPotential a big hand of support for his efforts. --hydnjotalk 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: I think that the RD and VectorPotential would both benefit with some acknowledgment from you at this time (you daddy of the RD you). ;-) --hydnjotalk01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of this time stamp you seem to have reduced all of the RD sections to five or so sections. Thanks for that, I'm sure that it took a bite out of your weekend. Some of the chatter at RD talk seems to involve some wishful thinking about bot requests. When that happened before was that it took about three months (from the request date) before we had a date & archive bot and now we are including a transclusion task as well. Since we don't have a "Department of Bots", it's anybody's guess as to when we'll get some help in that way (I surely wish that I knew how to write a "bot" program). Meantime, as my personal time becomes more available, I'll learn from what you're doing (by watching) to transclude and archive on a daily basis (right now, headers are about all I can commit to). Thanks for helping, that means a lot to an RD oldtimer --hydnjotalk 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: I don't think that the RD would benefit from adding more sections. Lord, we have enough problems just isolating the stuff that belongs at the RD instead of being at the HD or the VP or at some talk page. hydnjotalk02:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the point is that you won't have to bother with them. I have no intention of proposing more sections unless we can get a bot to do it automatically, and the talk pages will function the same as they do now: all redirecting towards the same talk page. More info below. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we're not being overly wishful with the bot request, as Hydnjo says. I'm sure you understand that we really have no choice but to be wishful, though I appreciate and can understand efforts to streamline RD as-it-is, especially as the period of botlessness increases while traffic increases further still.
Anyways, the bot request. I have a little bit of a personal problem with modifying the bot request as it is now, because I know that there are a handful of users like hydnjyo (I have refrained, and will refrain from taking a poll of any sort on the future of the reference desk. If it is obvious that there is no concensus and there is considerable resistance towards splitting the desk any further, with due reason, it will come out in the following weeks and us splittitionists will have to start thinking of a compromize, or another solution), and it wouldn't be right to recruit a bot creator unknowingly into what could possibly turn into a battle of two sides. I will rewrite the bot request in my user space, and link to it from the bot request page. I will explain the situation and why there are two options, and at the same time I'm going to pursue the remnants of cryptic bot and see if we can't find someone to help us get that up and running again. Essjay and a few others seem willing, and Cryptic is apparently back to editing. I see you left a message on his talk page; did you recieve any contact? Do you have any other leads that might help us get a hold of the old cryptic bot? freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 03:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it does, at least from the version I took. From what I can see your code is much more concise, and obviously made for easy manual modifications, so I'm going to update mine to reflect some of the changes in your code, at least temporarily, when I get the time. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 11:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea, but I doubt that it'll be possible to do. Basically, although I have internet access (hence I'm typing this message now), I don't have it at home, so am unable to upload the source anywhere (nor can I get it onto the network from which I am connecting to the internet now, for various reasons). Things should be back to normal in the next week or so, if we keep our fingers crossed, and I'll be able to get the bot back up to date at the earliest time possible after that. Sorry for the delays and general inactivity, Martinp2314:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - I've noticed that this problem has been here since the templates were updated at the start of the year, but unfortunately i have no idea how to fix them. Take a look at User:Martinp23/sandbox - when I typed the template call manually, I still got the errors, so I think that there must be a problem somewhere there - any ideas? Martinp2320:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh OK - the template talk page didn't hint that a year parameter was needed :). I expect that the problem happened on all the new monthly headers, but was fixed by someone fairly quickly, sitting for longer on the HD. Thanks for pointing out the obvious - I'll put it into the bot before I re run it. Martinp2320:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - I'll be able to run the bot on just the four desks to bring them up to date. I should be able to do this tomorrow, then the bot will be able to go on the toolserver, which should minimsie downtime :) Martinp2322:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew! I'm going to debug tomorrow to find the problem, but have made one test change to the code which *could* work on the next run. Martinp2301:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I just have done. I'll debug it tomorrow - it is probably changes to page structure which are causing problems, though I can;t be sure. Thanks for your help, Martinp2301:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only just checked the history, to work out what was going on! How would they be done differently to how I'm doing it? And why didn't you drop me a note? (that was me archiving, multitabbing seemed to log me out) Skittle20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I was confused when I saw an IP trying to create an archive page (: would have contacted you if I realized you weren't an IP (: VectorPotentialTalk20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a line to say thanks, i did not know the ethanol metabolism article existed, it was pretty interesting (although a bit advanced in places :s i am only just finishing my GCSEs). The 'effects of alcohol on the body' article was much more use to me, thanks for pointing me that way, Dave18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your first and final warning. What you posted in this thread here was completly and totally unnaceptable. If you persist in damaging, destructive behavior, you will be banned. Hipocrite - «Talk»18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you proposed to merge this new article into "mathematical modeling". I think it would make more sense simply to redirect it to logistic function.
That's fine, I wasn't quite sure what to do with it since it was basically a picture with a small blurb of text, I considered taking it to AfD but decided against it--VectorPotentialTalk00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for your efforts in dealing with vandalism. If you revert a vandal, please make sure to place a warning on their talk page (starting with {{test1}} perhaps and escalating test2, test3, test4). That way, they might stop and, if not, admins can see they've been warned and block them. Without a warning they're less likely to get blocked. Cheers. --kingboyk14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for caring enough to revert some vandalism on my page. It was a small act, but shows big character. ^_^ V-Man - T/C23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry that happened but i have no knowledge of it. Someone must have hacked my account. I'm changing my password and making other changes so that it does not happen again.
... which you suggested in WT:U, has now been incorporated. The documentation now shows how to use either that or "1=" to handle usernames containing equal signs. Thank you for an excellent idea! -- BenTALK/HIST23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the highly fallable nature of this bot, maybe the warning message sent out shouldn't be quite as agressive? ("Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.") 89.243.75.13500:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy VectorP. I noticed your replaced the discussion on style to the RD after I had archived it. Thats cool if you think it is current, but there appears to be no discussion on it for over two weeks, so I figured it could be archived. Is there a reason it should stay on the page, and if so, for how long? Rockpocket00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed since we never actually reached a conclusion as far as what color scheme we were going to go with, that it should stay until such time as a color consensus was reached. If you'd like I have an alternative to the transclusion, if you'll give me a moment, you'll see what I mean--VectorPotentialTalk01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm all for reaching consensus, but all the regulars have had their say and there is none, I don't think its going to happen. I'd give it a few more weeks then be bold. I'm happy to leave the transclusion format to whatever you choose. Rockpocket01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot18:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the question is still there, under the 19th, and the 19th hasn't been archived yet, there's no reason for it to be archived under the 10th, seeing as how it was asked on a day that hasn't even been archived yet--VectorPotentialTalk17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I award this long overdue barnstar to VectorP for his constant correction of RDB's faults (which are, thankfully, becoming less frequent) and for helping to answer my talk page messages, saving me from the MartinBot complaints :). Seriously, thanks - Martinp2322:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but they were blocked with account creation blocked so I doubt that they'll know to come back in 24 hours when their autoblock expires and create a new (less prohibited?) username--VectorPotentialTalk23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tatshro Satou has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
ATTN: VectorPotential Please see my comment above on SchubertCommunications User talk page about our Thermoplastic Elastomers article. I have copyright permission to post this article on Wikipedia from the author and the editor of the publication is appeared in. This permission was emailed to Wikipedia permissions. I am confused as so how I am violating any policies. Please explain. SchubertCommunications15:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your comments at the Village pump [[1]] were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this is the right place to put this but I've no idea how to change my signature and don't really understand what I'mm supposed to do about it .The "**==" was just a whim and not really important.If you know how to do it you would truley have to walk me through it very slowley because I'm really dumb at that sort of thing.I've asked a regular contributer who I know "in theflesh" and he doesn't know what the problem is.Help.hotclaws**==03:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; my bad. I didn't realize that RefDeskBot serves also to archive the help desk, and so, upon seeing the formatting problem, I didn't bother to consider any issue than the date header (thanks for fixing the underlying error, too, btw). Cheers, Joe23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - thanks for your advice on the stub removal - by the time I went back to the stub, an editor had upgaded it - the first time I have used Wikipedia, obviously! Keoghse05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just wanted to say that you were correct in stating that User:86.133.146.246 broke the formatting of Embryo with their edit, and their spelling does leave much to be desired. You and I probably agree that their edit was not an improvement. However, their edits seem to have been made in the spirit of improving the article, perhaps in an effort to make it simpler or more understandable -- they may not have been aware that this degraded the quality.
As the only edits from that IP are for Embryo, and they were all within a minute or so of each other, the editor may have not been aware that someone was reverting and may have simply thought that their edit "didn't go through". That is why I would like to remind you of WP:BITE and the broader tenet of WP:AGF. Thank you for preserving the quality of the Embryo! Joie de Vivre22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah no problem, the uncle sam emphasis is kind of corny but it's far too late to redact it now :)
Please assume command of the color collaboration.. if we ever come across an alternative style that doesnt suck, update this prefs page with the decided-upon values.
I also would like to inform you that I will cease vandalizing wikipedia and will be more constructive. And once more I apologize you for all the trouble I have caused. --Semiramiscan23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only told a little amount of people(I think) but most of them that I told that wikipedia was not a myspace were people put fan messages like on Hannah Montana.Sorry if I caused any trouble.Unsigned Mooncrest
Sorry, my mistake. From the edit history it looked like the user was just copying templates from one page to another. He added the same material to Microsoft Windows and then immediately removed it. GabrielF18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just saw what it is :-) I had written the post without writing "nowiki", so your table of contents was at the bottom of the page. A.Z.19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago registered, but I never log-in unless I have to do something that requires a "registered account". That almost never happens.
Your solution, however, basically equates to "Ignore what is happening". As I already made my point in someway or fashion, that is what I will do... but I feel the need to point out that it is not a true solution, rather just a way to ignore the changes by reverting to an older template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.179.195 (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Category:Subst'd Templates, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Category:Subst'd Templates|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Hello Vector Potential, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:HD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Everybody except you likes the pictures, you are attempting to avoid being caught by logging in which is a form of sockpuppetry. I have reverted your edits, following consensus in doing so....... Dendodge.TalkHelp16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what grounds do you have to accuse me on incivility? I have warned your IP and you for repetitions of the same offence, following procedure...... Dendodge.TalkHelp16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The process is edit, revert, discuss. Please discuss this on the template talk page before making more changes so that we may maintain a consensus. I think you will find that some of the changes you are making have already been discussed. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's about a compromise? Substitute one in each section. This reduces the number of transclusions. As for the pictures, everyone else likes them so you've kinda been overthrown. I apologice if I appeared uncivil and I'm glad it's all calmed down now.
Yeah I put the protection as indefinite cause I wasn't sure when it would be safe to unprotect. Whenever it is okay, just leave a message on my talk page or at WP:RFUP and it will be unprotected. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Upscaled geologicaltimescale.jpg listed for deletion
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Thank you for uploading File:Wikipedia preferences control panel (screenshot).jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}