User talk:Werdna/Archive 1

Happy Birthday

Wishing Werdna/Archive 1 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy (belated) Birthday, Werdna! Oddly enough, mine was the 29th. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay

User:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion - I couldn't agree more. I will try and mention this essay in a few places - maybe you could post it at WP:VPT (I did notice a developer once disparaging that place as "useless", with hopeless questions, or something, which seems to me to typify the problem you have highlighted). I've posted some specific diffs at User talk:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now mentioned your idea and essay here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Werdnabot

Hi! I'm sure this is a silly question but I'm trying to work how to set your bot up to arcive my talk page. I'm trying to follow these directions, but I'm hung up on |target = ./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} as I'm not sure how to set up where my talk page archives to, as I haven't done it before. Can you explain it to me in baby steps and or just tell me what it would be for my own? Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. It's no longer active, and hasn't been for about a year. I am considering starting it up again, though. — Werdna talk 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. I'd just seen on someone's talk page that it was the bot used and I was curious Travellingcari (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wernabot not working?

I'm not sure the bot is working, I have things on my talk page from November that haven't been archived. Did I do something wrong to the code? --AW (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot is inactive. — Werdna talk 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, well that'll do it. --AW (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:AR report

A tag has been placed on Template:AR report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pics

No idea. I can't remember who took them unfortunately. Witty Lama 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that Werdnabot (talk · contribs) & Werdnabot (irc) (talk · contribs) have not edited in a very long time. Are these bots still active and if not, would you object to them being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Sydney Journal

Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and the other sydneysiders who came to the meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG

Hey, I wanted to let you know, that I've closed your request to join BAG as successful. Welcome, and thanks! SQL ^{Query me!} 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux AfD

An article that you created for a linux distribution has been included in the following AfD debate [1] your participation is welcome.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. Sorry about that.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!

A warm welcome ;) Anthøny 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

My talk page at User talk:John Carter doesn't seem to be archiving lately. Please advise as to what I should do. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Werdnabot

Hi. I've been using Werdnabot to archive my talk page for some time now; but it no longer works, the link on the tag is dead, and I can't find how to update or tweak the bot. Please help! RolandR (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The links in the box are still red. How can I implement them? Is there a guide for use of the bot? RolandR (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the bot has now archived my current page; but in so doing, it appears to have lost, or overwritten, my existing archive! I don't want to lose this -- how can I recover it? RolandR (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The older archive now appears as well. I don't know whether this was a result of an edit by you, or if the bot caught up; thanks in either case. How do I get the index /list feature to work? At present, only one of the many archived sections is listed. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StormBot

You have approved it, but it is not flagged as a bot. Could you please do so or get someone else to? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RyRyBot

I think my bot is ready for trial. Shall it be approved? I will test it on my own userpage with the nobots/bots template.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a request for withdraw. I will ask again in the future, probably for a diff purpose. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot documentation

Is there any documentation in existence for the reincarnated Werdnabot yet? I was hoping to try it out. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Earliest serving living United States president

Regarding your revert of my move . . . I totally agree that my title was not tenable, but the point is, neither is the current title. It simply is unclear to many readers, as evidenced by the talk page and others to whom I have shown the article, that the meaning of this title is opaque. It is, to be frank, a stupid phrase, probably borne out of an interesting adolescent discussion of presidential trivia, but which, when placed into the form of a Wikipedia article, is simply incomprehensible. The virtue of the title that I moved it to is that, as long as it was, it was nonetheless totally clear to what I was referring. That is no longer true. Please consider either moving it back, or else starting an AfD, as this clearly lacks notability. Cheers. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Death

Please note the comments on accepting the spelling and grammer errors, I assumed you were maliciously attempting to falsify facts. Sorry for any misunderstandings. In order to keep the facts straight, once again here are the consistant errors in your edit:

1. Kand is NOT Valor's last name. 2. Christian Death 1334 is trademark infringement and misleading to the public. 3. 1334 is NOT related to the Black Death, as left in your edit, historically incorrect. if you researched it, you would find thet the Black Death was 1347-1350 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valorkaend (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I am more than happy to help with the article. We have to keep our eyes on it -- Valor Kand, lead singer of "Christian Death", is repeatedly attempting to post his own obviously non-neutral take on the Christian Death story, under the user name Valorkaend (I know it's him -- you can see him saying so in one of his edits in the history section). Besides being an account by one of very persons involved, which Wikipedia discourages, it is also mercilessly riddled with spelling, grammar and formatting errors, to the point of being completely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Quick editing

No I'm not using a bot, I'm mostly just added stub tags for articles that on one glance you can tell qualify so it's a pretty quick manual exercise. Crickettragic (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated replacement

Discussion moved to other user's discussion page

G'day

G'day esteemed person who has expressed interest in Sydney based meetups at this page (I hope that's the correct wording for the formal greeting!!). You may have heard that Australia is to have its very own 'chapter' of the Wikimedia Foundation - and further, there's a meeting coming up to discuss / enact the chapter's incorporation (details here). I'm afraid that I don't know too much about the details of what this entails, other than having a private hope that we might get a secret handshake, and maybe cheap coffee at wikimania (this is a poor attempt at humour - I'm sure that the Chapter's do great work, and it's a good thing that Australia is to have one).

If you're interested in meeting up this weekend (the set date is the 20th) - or later, then please do head over here and sign up, or make a comment at the talk page... the drive to create the chapter has largely come from another town in Australia that I'm afraid I haven't actually heard much about.. and anything they can do.... right? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot documentation

Is there any documentation in existence for the reincarnated Werdnabot yet? I was hoping to try it out. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Werdnabot? It seemed to stop functioning in January. Is there a faster, better, cheaper version available? Please advise! I can't get bloody MiszaBot to work! --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot works. See {{Werdnabot}} — Werdna talk 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot doesn't just work, it RULES! Thank you, thank you for bringing it back! Begone MiszaBot, welcome back wonderful Werdnabot! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Assistance is Needed

Please give this thread a quick glance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm. If you could phone the authorities it would be appreciated.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drinks and a wiki chat?

G'day sydneysider - fancy a 'not quite a meetup but a few drinks' sort of thing? - We can chat about the new aussie chapter, the price of eggs and have our very own 2020 Wiki Summit! - or just sink a couple of cold ones and gass bag about the good 'ol days of wiki, when an editor could get some repsect (not a typo)! I've suggested something here so take a look and sign up if you're up for it... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reverts

Hi! I'd like to thank you for your recent attempts to revert vandalism. However, one of your recent reverts (see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horny&diff=208133198&oldid=208132998) didn't quite do the trick, as you reverted to another previous attempt of vandalism. It's good that you are reverting such acts; however, please ensure you look at where you are reverting to in the future! :) Thanks again for your attempts. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Navigation Plus

Hi - Something strange happend, as it appeared that a huge amount of content was deleted. I have reverted your edit anyway, as a radio "tuner" is different to a radio "receiver". A radio receiver can have one, or more integrated tuner circuits, as is clearly shown in the cited reference. (The earlier RNS-D had just one tuner, whereas the later model has two).

Thanks for looking at the article anyway, kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Could you please block this user, who you have already forewarned, because of this edit[2]? Thank you!--Clickclickdecker (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I was merely responding to a question from Kuru. Kuru asked about the relevant site and I just answered question; that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my reversion was a mistake, so I reverted it. — Werdna talk 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reversion are you speaking of? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same one you complained about. — Werdna talk 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your mistake in accusing me of doing something that had nothing to do with me. I don't even know what reversion you're referring to. Please do me the favor of explaining. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I just saw that you made some other error (2 sections above) regarding an incorrect reversion to some vandalism. The writer above is right - you need to be more careful. You have wrongly accused me of vandalism (as you admitted, thank you) but you say above to me "The same one you complained about" - geez. I guess, by "reversion", you mean that you got rid of the accusation somewhere? Please comfort me on this - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Wikicast

Prompted by: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Wikimedia_Radio

Do you have the backups?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling change

Is there anyway you could tell me which edit you're referring to - If it's the Stephen Hawking ones you'll find that 1)they were originally spelt paralysed and were changed against policy and 2) Stephen Hawking = british... If different edit please tell me which oneMcVities (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed referring to the Stephen Hawking edit. Thanks for pointing out that he is British, I didn't realise this (and saw an edit that involved changing English varieties, which is usually annoying. Please consider using the edit summary feature of the MediaWiki software to let other editors know what you're doing, so other editors don't make the same mistake. Thanks, — Werdna talk 10:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This is a message to prove that I can edit pages thanks to Werdna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.42 (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bandwidth test example.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bandwidth test example.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics

Werdna, sorry to revert your edits to Introduction to genetics. I appreciate your efforts. Let's work on it. But first we have to make sure it doesn't get deleted. We'll discuss this on the afd page. Nbauman (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please!

Please could you take a look at User talk:West one girl and User talk:Major Bonkers; in each case, I've tried to install Werdnabot (in the first case by simply adding the template, in the second by trying to be clever by tweaking the code), and it's simply not working. Any help gratefully received. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look. It should work with just plain {{werdnabot}}. I'm checking my logs now. By the way, don't subst it. — Werdna talk 09:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it up. It was a minor code error. Should work again for the next run. Thanks for pointing this out to me. — Werdna talk 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - thank you for fixing it! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salting

I thought the creation-protection case-insensitivity was a bug which has now been fixed? Happy‑melon 10:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bug, a feature! I checked on my home wiki, which runs trunk. — Werdna talk 10:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of IP Proxies

Someone mentioned that you were the one who wrote the code for IP-exempt.

I have an idea for something, but before I present it for discussion among the community, I thought I would ask if it's "possible".

Right now there is a concern about IP-exempt being used for anonymity reasons/to bypass proxy blocks.

It's clear that this is something that needs close scrutiny.

So at first I was going to suggest that the exemptions be split. But upon reflection, a block is a block, and so being exempt from a certain kind of block would be no different to the software.

So what I'm wondering is this:

Could a tool called "blockproxy" be created, such that the normal "unblock" and IP-exempt would not affect/bypass it?

To go along with it, of course, would be the tools unblockproxy and IPproxy-exempt.

(Note I really don't care what the tools' names are. Just using these for reference.)

This would make the logs easier to follow, and also possibly place each tool in the hands of those who would need to use it (and less likely to abuse it, as, as others have noted, there have been vandal admins).

Who would get the tools could be discussed once implemented, obviously.

If implemented, all open proxies could then be blocked, and those who might suffer for it (such as those from China) can request IPproxy-exempt. And should the IP no longer be a proxy, it could then be unblocked by use of unblockproxy.

And this is just Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I can see where this might be useful to others using this software, who might have different editing policies. (I can think of quite a few examples, as, I would guess, could you. : )

So, would this be possible? - jc37 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding a timestamp "bump".) - jc37 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The code for blocking proxies already exists in MediaWiki — it just needs a bit of modernisation. The proxyunbannable right is available in place of ipblock-exempt. My favoured implementation would include automatic blocks for tor exit nodes, and a checkbox on Special:Blockip to allow a block to be marked as a proxy block. — Werdna talk 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the information. I think I understand, but let me ask a couple questions for clarification.

So how would these interact with each other?

For example, if proxyunbannable is applied to a user, could they still be rangeIP blocked?

Can the "appearance" of the checkbox be customised to only appear if the user has certain user-rights - such as CheckUser - similar to how certain checkboxes appear in preferences for admins, or how certain extra options appear on Special:SpecialPages?

And if so, can that be done for "unblock" as well?

Would there be a separate "block/unblock proxy" log for transparency?

Thanks again : ) - jc37 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction is the same interaction you get when you try to edit the main page while blocked. Or when you're both blocked and globally blocked. The error message displayed gives all the reasons that you can't edit the page — a proxy block would be just one of them (alternatively, the same behaviour as when you're both blocked and rangeblocked could be implemented). proxyunbannable would prevent only proxy blocks. Yes, the checkbox could only appear if the user had the right permissions. It would probably be done in the regular block log. Note that I can't really give specifics here, as there are a few things I want to implement before I start playing with this proposal, and there would need to be more discussion than a few back and forths between a developer and a user on a user talk page somewhere. Likely, a discussion would need to be had between whoever implemented it (possibly me), and a number of other developers, probably including Tim Starling and Brion Vibber. — Werdna talk 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That pretty much answers my questions. - jc37 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs

I've seen it elsewhere said that just creating a bugzilla entry isn't enough, it's apparently necessary to "bug" (pardon the pun) one or more developers, especially on irc. If that's not personally an option, what then?

I ask because I've had a "bug" in limbo for some time (11499 - essentially having the namespace filters drop-down boxes in various places (watchlist/contributions/whatlinkshere/etc.) to include an option for "only all odd namespaces" (all talk) and "only all even namespaces"), and am wondering if that was my mistake : )

What would you suggest? - jc37 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive prod

You appear to have neglected to include a deletion reason with your prod on Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive. Could you fix that? Thanks. Klausness (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod from the article, since you haven't added a deletion reason. Klausness (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I didn't get to this before you did. I'm not going to re-add the prod tag yet, but I'm keeping an eye on it (it originally came as a copyvio of a press release by the company. — Werdna talk 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe I should have waited a bit longer. It does appear that this may be non-notable, though I'm not quite sure. I see that someone's just deleted the maintenance templates, but I've restored them (though with Refimprove changed to Citecheck), since they seem appropriate. Klausness (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:STBotI

You seemed to have approved this bot for some of its functions [3] [4]. I was wondering if you could come and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_again. In particular, for images uploaded long ago with fair use rationales, this bot should;

not mark them for automatic deletion if the fair use rationale exists but isn't in the bot owners preferred format.
not make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
not leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
not have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid' [5].

--Duk 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;-)

Glad to see that your RFA is off to a good start. Good luck, FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, just a few more days until you're an admin!! ;-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machine readable rationales

The link you gave me require that fair-use media be machine readable as fair use - this is accomplished with our fair use copyright tags. It does not say that the rationale for that media has to be machine readable. As a member of the BAG group who approves fair use bot applications, it's unacceptable that you don't understand this. I'll wait to hear your reply before taking this to ANI. --Duk 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STBotl

Hi Werdna, it seems my breath is no longer being wasted and the conversation is moving forward. Let me repeat that the reason I'm bothering you is that I saw your name at the approval checkmark for STBotl, and the bot's owner was uncooperative. I don't know the hierarchy or workings of the Bot Approval Group, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, let me know, please.

First, here are some quotes from WP:B;

In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users.
Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.

So here are just a few small things (to start) that STBotl could do better:

STBotI failed to identify a fair use rationale here. That is a mistake. Compare it with this image, also a written rationale instead of the template rationale, where the bot succeeded. The bot should have left the same set of templates on both examples, but it didn't. Please note clearly, I'm not saying that the rationale in the first example is sufficient, it isn't, it lacks an article link, even though the copyright tag has a rationale and article link. I'm merely saying that the bot missed the rationale all together and that is a mistake. Also, regarding the prior section on your user page, please note that this bot does seem able to identify non-templated rationales (usually).
STBotI at this image
a) bloated tags: Between the edit summaries and the image page and user talk tags, the editor has to read over 3,000 characters - that's 500 words - to uncover a single small WP:NFCC#10c link. That's more that twice the size allowed for Wikimedia board candidate statements! [6] Even experienced users will have trouble deciphering that they merely need to add an article link to the rationale. Fewer words, more clarity, let the actual problem, WP:NFCC#10c, stand out and be visible.

b) misleading edit summaries.Instead of "This image has no valid rationale", which will trip up and slow down most users, the edit summary could read something like "This fair use rational needs an article link to be valid".

c) poorly written tags: the template on the user page in particular should have a section heading that clearly identifies the problem instead of mindlessly shouting "Disputed". How about something like "An image you uploaded needs its rationale updated"

Please note that in addition to cooperative bot owner behavior, the Bot Policy places a high emphasis on accurate edit summaries and good communication. STBotl currently fails all three of these requirements. --Duk 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. — Werdna talk 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Werdna for following up on this. I had no intention of generating drama and am sorry that was the case. I hope bot owners will keep this episode in mind when they interface with us 'stupid' 'idiots' and perhaps things will go a little smoother next time. Still hoping you can address the machine readable thing loud and clear, but everyones probably clear on it regardless.

I will not block this bot again due to our history and will do my very best to avoid it. Thanks again. --Duk 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the successful RFA Werdna. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved Andrew! Have fun! :) Al Tally ^talk 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - it was a pleasure to nom you! If you need any help, let me know :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yayyyy finally :D naerii - talk 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, Werdna. :) Here's your new T-shirt to go along with your new tools. Good luck! Acalamari 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all those who contributed. I was overwhelmed with the support (186, just shy of WP:200), and I am glad to have received feedback from those who opposed or who remained neutral. — Werdna talk 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am late... but still... Congratulations on getting the mop -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deservedly so. And very pleased for ya! Best! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lauterbach Datentechnik

I'm curious as to why you converted this article from a speedy delete per CSD A7 to a PROD. The article itself practically disclaims notability - "The company itself is still somewhat of a family workshop, with the two brothers Lothar and Stephan Lauterbach as its directors." It seems to be a clear A7 speedy delete case. Just wanted to understand your criteria for converting an article like this. Thanks. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$65 million US, and a thirty-year history seems reasonably notable to me. I wasn't entirely comfortable deleting it speedily, so I figured a prod would get the job done just as well, if a little later. — Werdna talk 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Effervescenth30

Good block either way, but I believe this is actually the same user as Wrosew. The following users and IPs have been making the same vandalism edits in the last few days:

And now we have Effervescenth30 (talk · contribs).

I'm not sure if I should do anything with this information, but I thought I would tell someone. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:WP:RFPP

Hey Werdna, congrats on the adminship! I just wanted to let you know that when you complete requests at WP:RFPP, you need to use the {{RFPP}} template and all of its derivatives (click the link to see what I am talking about), not {{Protected}}. Take a look at what it looked like compared to the fulfilled requests [7]. If you have any questions about your new tools or any other processes, feel free to ask. Good luck with the new tools! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit, the reason we use {{RFPP}} is twofold, one the bot that archives the requests needs it present to move the request. If there is no template, the request will just sit there until it is manually removed. Also, these templates allow for other admins to quickly see and understand what other admins have done. See I dont know if your comment was a

Note: or a

Declined, and whether I should process the request or not. If it was just a comment, then just write {{RFPP|n}} Your comments, same thing with a decline, just do {{RFPP|d}}. This really helps out. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yo

Hi, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE Battle of Media, was a great mistake, and I remade another article, which is the accurate one. So it was a great mix up, and if your an administrater or not, ask someone or yourself to delete this article, I GREATLY APPRECIATED, so thank you, goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 3

Ryan Postlethwaite would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ryan Postlethwaite to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 3. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Werdnabot (possible) issues

Hi! I see you have revived your archiving bot. However, I'd like to point out that from whatever observations of it I made so far I can already draw two conclusions that are possible issues:

User talk:Brews ohare/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1 - need I say more? :-P {{werdnabot}} probably shouldn't be parsed when it's actually part of a thread's content...
User talk:John Carter‎ gets archived to User talk:Warlordjohncarter/Archive May 2008 - if the bot indiscriminately moves threads to wherever it's told to, a subtle from of vandalism would be to mess up the configuration on many pages (just to mix things up or to bombard one user with megabytes of spam).

Could you look into it? Regards, Миша 13 21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot blocked

I don't know if you're aware of problem with Werdnabot's last edits. You may have stopped it already, in which case I apologise for the unnecessary block - but I wasn't sure when it was next tasked to run. Do unblock it yourself once fixed. WjBscribe 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the broken archives (see Special:DeletedContributions/Werdnabot). Seems Brews ohare added the {{werdnabot}} template to their talk page below the first section break, causing Werdnabot to archive it along with the rest of the content, which then caused it to archive the archive page, and so on. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA question

I ran a group of edits under User:ShepBot that seems to have evoked a little controversy. As per the message on {{unsigned}} I was running template substitution on it. The original BRFA listed template substitution; I then went back and stated I would only use templates listed on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User talk templates. Since there are such a huge number of edits to be made with just this template does a new BRFA need to be put in? Thanks for your help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy..sorry for bugging you. But do I need to file a new BRFA? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand

I know you blocked Beta for 24 hors for edit warring on bots. One of his first actions on returning was to do this revert [8], essentially exactly what he got blocked for. I reverted it, which in retrospect was probably not a good idea. Any thoughts? AKAF (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late for the party congrats

It's about time you got adminship :-) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page deletion

Why would you delete my user page? I can advertise myself, advertise my own album or write anything I want on my user page. Why do you care that I'm trying to spread my music around? Leave my personal stuff alone. Now I lost all the work and typing I put into creating a wiki for myself and album. You ruined that time for me because you would not leave well enough alone. There are thousands of stupid articles on wikipedia that should be deleted and YOU DELETE MY USER PAGE?!?!??!?! 17 years old and not wise enough to live and let live. Find a better time-waster for yourself that wasting other peoples time by destroying their work. Cosprings (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you may not use your userspace for whatever you like. There's a page which details this here. You, of course, are welcome to have the contents of the page sent to you so your work isn't destroyed. If you would like me to do this for you, please let me know. — Werdna talk 10:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on werdna bot

The template doesn't seem to answer my question (and coincidentally, should I use the new {{werdna}} instead?), so I'm asking here directly, would this work(I know the !month works cause I took it off Tawker's page, not sure the !year one does)?
{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} 
Thanks

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This syntax for Werdnabot code is deprecated. Please use the {{Werdnabot}} template, which is what is parsed by Werdnabot, now. — Werdna talk 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter extension

Hello Werdna! How are you? I think Abuse Filter extension is an interesting proposal. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Regarding your comment here[9], I think you are being unfair and I'm more than a little taken aback. Obviously the comment was addressed to the editor I reported as well, but the two of us are in no way doing the same thing. I thought AN/I is the place to report and deal with WP:NPA violations like being accused of lying, douchebaggery, etc. I have tried to address this on the editor's talk page, which obviously did not work. I do a lot of editing the encyclopedia, and I have found from experience that if you ignore this kind of verbal abuse it tends to continue. So my report is not frivolous, nor is it about ego building. Nevertheless, if you believe that no administrative action is warranted at this time and that I should just have a thick skin about things said by other people on their own talk page, I certainly respect that. Not every problem needs to be reported, and not every report merits action. I just thought, from one of my own early transgressions here as a newbie, that we are not supposed to call each other names, not even on our own talk page - I called someone a "bully" on my talk page and was told that is not okay, something I take to heart. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an essay on my views on the subject. Basically, I feel that, sometimes, it is more productive to ignore a personal attack and leave it be on your talk page, than to fight endlessly with somebody else who's trying to keep it there. It might not be fair, but you're better off quietly poking an administrator than to make a big song and dance of warning the user that they'll be blocked, and reporting it on WP:AN/I and causing a drama-fest. We should avoid drama wherever possible, and that means not fanning the flames. I called the dispute petty and frivolous, because it seemed to be. It had no basis in improving the encyclopedia, and seemed to exist solely to protect your ego from damage, and to build his up. Certainly, Editors matter, but I don't view the continuance of that dispute as a worthwhile use of time. — Werdna talk 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I appreciate the perspective. Would you mind a link to the essay - it's not the Editors matter one, is it? (the WP:IPA is a style guide) The original issue I warned the editor over was revert warring on a presidential campaign page, but you're right that as long as the fuss is on user talk pages it's steps removed from building the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that your characterization was unfair. I think the continued officious warning on my talk page were designed for someones ego, and I don't think he was looking out for my number one. He should have left me alone plain and simple. Sorry to junk up your page with this, but seriously , how many fronts does he want to wage this on. I would support your proposal to ban direct contact or mention of the other. Perhaps you could recommend a third party person who has the time to sort this out from the very beginning and wont be influenced by ingratiating behavior?Die4Dixie (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. — Werdna talk 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tks. Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for speedy archival — Werdna talk 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gograj school bagar

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gograj school bagar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Livitup (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmation of username usurp requests

— Werdna talk 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

98E

Oh my God, are you really going to make me fill out a SSP for an obvious case, for a user who has been blocked probably on 1000 different accounts? I should have just applied for adminship so I don't have to deal with this nonsense. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 98E. I just asked Spartan if Patstuart was his Commons account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haymail (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV is for that, administrator intervention against vandalism. I saw a talk page comment which was absolutely not vandalism. — Werdna talk 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to being more than a trite annoyed over this situation: it wasn't a non-obvious sock that needed a full SSP and that was edit warring: it was a sock which has harassed me and others many times and which many admins will recognize off the bat. I don't know how long you spent as a non-admin, but it is mightily annoying to have to sit around and wait for administrators to block an obvious sock that will continue to troll your contributions for the next hour until someone gets around to it. I even had to log out and post on ANI to get a response. I do believe that WP:IAR was created for situations like this: I have often reported similar people to AIV and seen them blocked. I don't understand why it was necessary to remove the username, but I will let it pass. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam isn't vandalism?

[10] We appear to be reading different policy on this matter. From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Removal_how-to: "... Persistent spammers: if an active spammer continues adding links after a {{subst:uw-spam4}} warning, report this user to the administrators at the intervention against vandalism page. ..."
And from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Tag_.27em_to_stop_.27em: "... If a violation occurs after the fourth warning, you should report the offending user at the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. ..."
The IP address in question has been warned with the Huggle equivalent of uw-spam4 for placing a commercial link in a variety of articles and I reported them on Administrator intervention against vandalism. So is there any reason why you removed my report and gave the edit summary "Not vandalism" without blocking the spam bot? ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe those additions as vandalism-like spamming. It looked, to me, like a good-faith attempt to add external links. The fact that all warnings came from you didn't help, either. I think the application of some clue would be better there, rather than straight blocking. — Werdna talk 12:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not good faith. They were warned a month ago for the same thing, they continued to do it. I warned them multiple times and they continued to do it. I fail to see how being the only one (or simply the fastest to revert) on RC patrol who noticed they were spamming the link into multiple articles works in their favour. ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Luxlogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxlogo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordha

Why does it not satisfy speedy deletion criteria? --gppande «talk» 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not nonsense. The criterion you suggested deletion under is for patent nonsense — I was able to make sense of the article. — Werdna talk 01:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve my tagging?

I notice that you have converted a few of my speedy noms into prods. I have been spending the last couple of days patrolling new page creation, and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on what I'm doing right and wrong. Thanks, S. Dean Jameson 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing I noticed is that you seem to overuse {{db-nocontext}}. That tag is only for articles where there's not enough information to tell what it's about. So, for instance, Real man magazine, while it is short, does include the fact that it's a magazine, and who it's run by, and even a link to the website. — Werdna • talk 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a better candidate for {{db-spam}}, then? I'm trying to learn how best to tag to make the deleting administrator's job easier. S. Dean Jameson 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look especially spammy to me. I'd stick with a prod for that one. It's certainly non-notable. — Werdna • talk 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there no criteria for a speedy on a non-notable publication? S. Dean Jameson 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. WP:CSD#Non-criteria. — Werdna • talk 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I wasn't aware of that. I'm still kind of learning the ropes, so thanks for your help. S. Dean Jameson 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ParentLocker

Why did you remove the spam speedy from the above article? It seems pretty clear that this is an advertising gimmick. S. Dean Jameson 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that any article which includes a criticism section is, prima facie, not an advertisement. — Werdna • talk 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article which includes an WP:OR criticism section that uses a Wikipedia article as a source and makes no attempt to establish WP:N or WP:V? ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an article about a non-notable subject. CSD G11 targets the style of articles, not necessarily the subject. If an article is written like an advertisement, then it is deletable under CSD G11, but if it's about a non-notable subject, then it is deletable under CSD A7, or under other parts of the deletion process. — Werdna • talk 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me update my username?

Hello Werdna; someone suggested that you might be able to run a bot to update all the places where my old email address (I mistakenly used my e-mail address as my username and got spambot harvested) is located and update it with my new username? Everywhere that "saint at saint dot org" appears needs to be updated to "stbodie" Many many many thanks! Stbodie (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna on it.wiki

The username Werdna on it.wiki is now available for your global account. Ciao, Ary29 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Thanks, Werdna! Muchly appreciated. Equazcion tried to fix it for me back in May but it only worked once and then stopped again, so I appreciate the man himself dropping by to fix it for me! :) It's nice to see your name popping up on my watchlist again and congratulations on your RFA. I didn't even know that you were up again, so congrats and all the best with adminship. :) Cheers, Sarah 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be awesome if you were able to get along to a WMA meetup and also if you were to get more involved with WMA in general. Recently we consulted with the City of Melbourne and I think there will be other opportunities to work with other groups in the community and it would be excellent to have someone like you on board, Andrew. By the way, I would have asked you to help me with the bot and I did actually consider it but when I looked at your contribs you hadn't been making many edits and most of those you did make seemed to be related to developer work and so I felt bad pestering you about the bot. Anyway, I'm really glad to see you back on deck and I hope the rest of the school year goes well. Take care, Sarah 12:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could you give me support to keep this page Honorific titles In popular music. Heres the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_10#Honorific_titles_in_popular_music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvin Martinez (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Azad Mega Mart 24.jpg

I don't know why you remove the correctly placed {{Db-i9}} tag from this image, which I have replaced, but before you consider removing it again please read:- Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Picasa_Web_Albums. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the image in the picasa web album did not match the image that had the tag on it, when I looked. However, I just looked again and it did. Perhaps there was a hiccough somewhere in my setup. Sorry about the confusion. — Werdna • talk 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Haines

I'm not sure what you want from him more than "I have however never had any intention of pursuing legal resolution, nor stated such, nor will pursue such." That seems very explicit to me. Why is he still blocked? Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what you love! - A(nother) request to make media wiki do something clever...

G'day werdna - hope you're good... I've been playing around with RSS feeds lately.. and ended up writing one from scratch the other day here (this is a minor miracle in my book!) - it works a treat on the external server - its main use being to allow people to subscribe to our podcast project via. iTunes or equivalent... but wouldn't it be cool if it could somehow be served directly from a wiki page (not sure if that's the correct terminology...!)

I guess it would require a tweak / extension of some sort, and that's why I'm here! - to find out if you reckon it's a big job, or a small job.. and if it's suitably small, to persuade you to give it some thought! - It would certainly be very very cool - and could have very many uses throughout the wiki world, I reckon....

This request can't be the first for media wiki to do something with RSS - so do also feel free to point me in the right direction of any centralised (or not so centralised!) discussions... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. d'ya fancy another sydney meetup before too long? - I think it's almost time to start pestering folk again! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki already has support for RSS feeds — you can get feeds of user contributions, page history, recent changes, and related changes. However, your application seems to be far too narrow to make something sensible of. Feel free to suggest a specific improvement for the way it could be implemented in MediaWiki software as a general solution to a class of problems.

I wouldn't mind another meetup, although this time, preferably on a weekend, as afternoons/evenings are kinda evil for me. — Werdna • talk 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-five

For being awesome and having such a high success rate with your coding :D James086^{Talk | Email} 10:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re:false positives using Wikipedia:Abuse filter

Yo, Werdna, you mentioned here that your abuse filter made false positives for moving userspace articles with long titles into the mainspace. I've done this a few times myself (e.g. User:Skomorokh/Aliza Shvarts to Aliza Shvarts abortion art controversy) and was wondering what would happen if I tried to do it in future and it was caught by the filter – not to encourage WP:BEANS but is there any way I could avoid the filter for this kind of thing? Pagemove is preferable to cut'n'paste for preserving revision history and allocating edit distributions to namespaces, you see. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this filter, it would only apply if you happened to have an account newer than 30 days old, with less than 100 edits, and you were moving somebody else's userpage (not user subpage) into mainspace. — Werdna • talk 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. thanks. Skomorokh 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User with the most number of pages watchlisted

WP:AN#Watchlists

Hello my fellow Sydney wikipedian, i dont know whether you can answer this question or that it should be directed at Tim or Brion but being a developer, do you know which user has the most number of pages watchlisted on the wiki, i was just interested thats all. It states on the watchlist page that developers have access to this and have you ever wondered about this yourself? Can you fill me in on what you can do? Its just that Gwernol recently stated he had 40K on his watchlist which just blew me apart, i always knew he was one helluva of an editor but thats ridiculous. Thanks, hopefully you can help. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for a user with database access (Tim, Brion, Avar, River, Domas, River, Greg, etc) to check this. Whether they would actually do so or not is quite another matter.

Autoconfirmed

(I suppose I should note from the start that I supported 7/20.)

Anyway, I thought that at least 4/10 was implemented.

this seems to indicate otherwise. Or am I missing something? I'm confused. - jc37 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something. He didn't move any pages. — Werdna • talk 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, it's since been deleted. Burrito was moved. Look in "deleted contributions". - jc37 07:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the moves? this isn't a move. — Werdna • talk 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not? (Here's the target [11]) Then I really am confused. What are we seeing then? - jc37 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've noticed for some time that moves are sometimes "flaky" as to whether they actually "show" in a contribution history log or (especially) in a page history log.

And tonight I just had to restore a deleted redirect in order for the system to remove a page from a category. So maybe deleted content acts "odd" when it comes to logs or the cache or whatever? - jc37 08:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the archiving bot

That was quick! I guess it will start working soon. TONY (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have bots stalking my name. Should happen within 6 hours. — Werdna • talk 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008 Edits

Huh? I didnt make the edit you refered to is there a mistake? Just came up as new messages today but I have never even heard of the article and it wasn't on my IP's talkpage last week? 81.105.104.19 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably somebody else using your IP address (I expect your IP address changed since that last edit, and nobody's used it before). this is the edit referred to. — Werdna • talk 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day NewSouthWikiWelshman

...and I mean 'welshman' in the most gender neutral way, of course...and I'm aware that not all of you guys are from NSW.. and I'm aware that this hasn't been the most smoothly written note in Wiki's history, but hey ho...slaps head, persuades voices in head to pipe down, and continues.... Fancy attending a meetup? - We've got some interested Chapter stuff to chat about, no doubt there may be some tales of Arabian Nights (or at least Egyptian conferences), and it just generally felt like it was about time..... head over here if you're interested.... do feel free to wiki-edit away in the usual fashion too if you've got any other ideas! cheers all, Privatemusings (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)you've been spammed in this nature because you signed up as interested in being notified about this sort of thing.. hope that's ok![reply]

I need a fix

User_talk:Synergy/Archive_index

When you have time. I'm missing archived discussion again. Thanks. Synergy 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template seems a bit wordy

I don't think that the other users really care about the fact that the bot doesn't archive sections which don't have timestamps in; probably you should move that into documentation of the bot, and add a link to the documentation in the template.--- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samson

I'm in agreement with you that Bible articles should try to maintain a neutral tone. On the other hand, labeling a Bible article as "fiction" can be inflammatory. I've created a new template appropriate for Bible articles: {{Bible-in-universe}}. There are already ones for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, so a Bible one seems overdue. --Eliyak T·C 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for working with me on this. — Werdna • talk 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across two related templates which are under consideration for deletion - {{In-religion-universe}} and {{BibleAsFact}}, which seems similar. Have a look at the deletion discussion. --Eliyak T·C 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "almighty" abuse filter

Can we just move-protect the articles from users' accounts that are below 30-45 days old? That can mostly prevent Willy wanabes, "epic laugh out louds", and people who have nothing to do except edit Wikipedia regarding their (falsified) penis sizes from "defiling" Wikipedia. Do you agre with that or is it an epic failure? -iaN LOPEZ 1115 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

After reviewing User:Nfitz's unblock request as an uninvolved admin, I was thinking of unblocking - the most recent unblock request seems to be one of the better faith ones, and of course the condition would be a very, very short leash. However, I wanted your input, as you were the blocking admin. Tan ǀ 39 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the relevant comment is in the block summary. Any user viewing your block log and making judgements based on it presumably has the sense to follow the link and see for themselves. — Werdna • talk 10:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some comments I've had in the past, the assumption of such sense my be generous. I don't think such an accusation is justified, and I'd sooner that you either provide justification on how this was sexual harrassment, rather than a simple one-off humourous statement that is being misinterpreted, or simply annotate the log. Nfitz (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block log reflects my reasoning for the block. My reasoning for the block was that I honestly believed that your comment constituted sexual harassment, in that someone reading it would reason that, in all the circumstances, it was conduct offensive enough to create a "hostile environment" on Wikipedia for Krimpet and others. It is unfortunate that this was not your intent, but sexual harassment doesn't require intent. A misplaced joke that crosses the line still crosses the line. While I would not use the same block summary again (it could be construed to imply something altogether more serious), I feel that the summary is accurate, and that anybody who was looking for dirt on you would undoubtedly read the comment linked to anyway. I'm willing to change my mind if a few other editors agree with you, but the opinions I've got from a few quick checks with others seem to indicate that the block summary is, at worst, borderline (and that includes an arbitrator who responded to your unblock request). — Werdna • talk 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, harrasment requires persistent behaviour. It also requires intent. As neither were present, please amend the log. Neither were present. In addition Wikipedia:Harassment it clearly says "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior ..."; with a single comment that caused offense I can't see how a pattern can be observed. It's also unclear to me why if you felt that the text was inappropriate, why you didn't assume good faith WP:FAITH and discuss it with me, rather than starting by blocking; had it occured to me that people would take it that way, I'd have immediately removed my comment. Wikipedia:Block#Disruption notes that a block may be necessary for "persistent gross incivility" or "persistent harassment". Even if this was harrasment, there was nothing persistent about it to allow for a block under the policy. You also violated Wikipedia:Block#Reasons_and_notification by not following "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to"" Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about harassment, I'm talking about sexual harassment. They are different beasts due to the peculiar way that they have developed. While originally, sexual harassment covered merely harassment of a sexual nature, it now covers a wide variety of offences which, for one reason or another, make for an unpleasant editing environment for a particular sex (in this case, females). Intent is, under no definition, an element of sexual harassment, and so good faith is hardly relevant at all. A comment made in good faith which unnecessarily marginalises one gender over the other is still sexual harassment – I could have assumed that you were genuinely making a joke, and it would have made no difference to my decision to block.

You should be aware that policies such as our blocking policy are not binding on anybody: they are advisory. They describe current community practice, without presuming to dictate it (see ignore all rules). A block was perhaps harsh in all the circumstances, but certainly defensible in the interests of promoting a collegial editing atmosphere by deterring similar harassment.

I'm not sure what relevance, if any, your point about notification has to any discussion about the reason for the block.

I would recommend that, if you wish to pursue this further, you ask a few other editors for a third opinion, as it's obvious we're not going to agree in a one-on-one discussion. — Werdna • talk 05:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, doesn't look like it. Are there any Wikipedia documents, or other cases discussing sexual harassment? You seem to be implying that sexual harassment, unlike harassment, does't have to be persistent - though harassment contradicts this, where it notes in the first paragraph that "Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances ...". Though note, that I've made it clear, that it hadn't even occurred to me that the comment would have been seen to have been sexual, nor am I aware of the gender of the person in question, having not encountered them before, nor having ever visited their user page. (nor am I aware that my own gender has ever been revealed). So note that while I admit what I wrote was not appropriate, not only do I not feel that what I wrote was harassment, I don't feel that it was sexual (though I admit that I can see in retrospect why one might think that), and even if true, the reaction seems very disproportinate. But there is nothing here I haven't said before, so I agree that there is probably not much point discussing further here. My point about notification isn't relevant to the block itself - but I was really, really surprised, that I'd be blocked for breaking rules - only to have the person break a clear black and white rule in implementing the block - but your correct, not relevant to the discussion itself, and I'll pursue that point no further. Nfitz (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global blocking

Really useful extension -- thanks for coding it and getting it implemented! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hey there Werdna, I've sent you en e-mail. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't received it. Presumably, you sent it to

a\,\!nd\,\!rew\,at\,ep\,\!st\,\!one.n\,\!et

? — Werdna • talk 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the onsite e-mail function. Forget about it, it wasn't really important anyway; to be honest, it's not really even worth my retyping. Happy editing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AOL user message bot 2

Thanks for your help reverting those pages. I don't think that user was a real active bot, but just someone passing themselves off as a bot. Either way, thanks for your help :) Take Care and Have a Great Friday...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it was somebody from AOL trying to add messages to the talk pages. I've left a message on the original bot's talk page. — Werdna • talk 04:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie...Thanks for your help :) I will keep an eye out for other "AOL User Message Bot" accounts. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. I added it to the username blacklist. — Werdna • talk 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cool! I didn't know we had a username blacklist. Good thinking! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dev question regarding an RC feed

Hi Werdna, I was told to talk to the developers about this. Your thoughts?--chaser - t 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werdnawerdna

Any relation? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. — Werdna • talk 10:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think his username is inappropriate. I've asked him to have it changed. User_talk:Werdnawerdna#Wikipedia:Username policy#Similar usernames. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't stress about it. — Werdna • talk 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Missouri

Hi Werdna and good question on the Spin article. I've amplified your question somewhat and hope we can get an understandable explanation that involves physics and not just mathematics. Cheers.WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mooretwin

Hi Werdna, I just wanted to explain myself as to why I issued the user in question a week long block: [12]. If you think it was overzealous of my, please reduce it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey block

I've seen enough bizarre JVM behavior in the past, but I was hoping that we could get some comment from him via Guy or someone prior to blocking. The described real life contact was disturbing, but also only one side of the story. It may well be entirely correct, but there was no need to rush to indef block given the existing, standing block in place... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werdna. Please don't make indefinite blocks based on well meaning hearsay, which is in turn based on well meaning hearsay. Pfagerburg thinks JVM harassed him by calling his employer. This may very well be true, or maybe someone was impersonating JVM to have a good time. After all, JVM is quite a character and has been trolled, harassed and stalked for years. Anyway, Pfagerburg's HR said it was JVM who called - did they have caller ID? Pfagerburg tells us what his HR person said - did he relay everything accurately? Do you see what I'm getting at, Werdna? --Duk 11:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user was already blocked for a year, so we've got about 11 months left to disprove the stuff on ANI before it has any real impact. — Werdna • talk 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Merkey in particular. I'm talking about engaging in some critical thinking before taking administrator actions. --Duk 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your assistance in addressing the real-world stalking that arose from a year-old wiki dispute, thank you. And good-bye. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I c eUnshattered ^{[ t ]} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Speaking of the protection of my index, Cobi's index at User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Cobi could use a protection too. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what really needs to happen is that the local MediaWiki (1.44.0-wmf.4 (a8dd895)) needs to be updated to the most recent version. But only Brion or Tim can do that, supposedly. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-looks confused- Anyways, speaking of blankings by ClueBot, Ajl772 seems to be the newest victim. If it continues then that probably needs a protect, too...I'll give you more cookies :D I c eUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test Wiki Admin

Hey, I was wondering if you would grant admin rights to my test wiki account so that I could play around with the filters. Thanks! NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested. — Werdna • talk 08:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi! I've sent you an e-mail. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot

Heya, I thought I'd let you know werdnabot was creating tons of subpages of User talk:Emilyzilch/Archive 1. I screwed up pretty good cleaning up after it, but, you might want to look into it. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot III

I think unprotecting User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Calvin 1998 is OK now (API bugfixes should be live now ^). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Werdna • talk 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blease unblock my account on your test wiki

I have done a small test which is blatant Grawp actions on your test wiki. Please unblock my account (same name as here) and IP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Werdna • talk 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

test wiki request

I'd like to explore how the abuse filter works, may I have access? (Asking here, since it states to not ask there.) I'm jc37 there as well. - jc37 08:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Werdna • talk 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA comment

As you'll have seen from the talk page I found the comments utterly astonishing and appalling, but he still has the right not to be misrepresented, even fractionally. What he actually said was that he won't vote for non Christians, ("I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power"). He made no comment about whether non-Christians are unsuitable. A fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

Yours pedantically, --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a world where people acted somewhat sensibly, refusing to vote for a person would usually be on the grounds that that person is unsuitable. — Werdna • talk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that makes all kinds of suppositions, lol. Hope you're well. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment on the Technical Pump.

(The reference post is here: Village pump (technical)#Javascript_Error

I know that the bot had been blocked, but when I examined the code, it did not appear (to me at least) that it did not use any such bot to update it, but thanks for the infomation anyway.
Ajl⁷⁷² 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the purpose of the bot – to automatically flood the database with edits saying whether someone was online or offline – was frowned upon. — Werdna • talk 09:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sydney Meetup

G'day all - I'm dropping this note in to let you know that there's to be a Wiki Meetup the week after next, on Tuesday, 21st at 18:00 at The Paragon in Circular Quay. If you've ever thought about popping along to one of these, but haven't had the chance - now's the time! If you love the idea, but the time and / or place don't quite work for you, please do feel free to wiki edit away at the meetup page and I'm sure we can sort something out :-) Meetups are a great way to share wiki-thoughts, meet wiki-friends, and generally learn how to prefix all areas of your life with wiki- :-)

It's a very friendly bunch, and we're hoping to be able to formally collect membership fees and details for the Australian Chapter (did you know that we're the only current english speaking chapter? Join now for kudos and future bragging rights!) - as well as just generally have a good 'ol time. I look forward to seeing you there :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Metadata

It's use should be encouraged? Thanks! I was convinced there was some over-arching page about this already, but if not, could you add to the talk page and list other stuff you know about? Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's some policy page on it. But as a general rule, providing metadata can only be a good thing, because it means people can scrape us to create databases and so on. Of course, it would be nice if we could get Extension:Semantic MediaWiki installed here, but I'm not sure it's quite ready for prime-time. Werdna 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Werdna. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#AntiPageBlankBot.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

AIV

208.86.225.40 (talk · contribs) - any idea why this bot is doing stuff while not logged in? Cirt (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my bot. — Werdna • talk 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

If you have a moment can you check out my comments at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTP upload

Hi. I use this script to batch upload images to commons. Is there a way to use FTP commands to speed up the uploads? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Werdna

No problem about the block. I'm just learning the ropes around this place. Thanks again! Maxis ftw (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date autoformatting

Hey, just had a question regarding MediaWiki. :P How hard would it be to enable date autoformatting for IP users/editors (that is, have linked dates/times formatted to one specific format set somewhere in MediaWiki)? And expanding on this slightly, would it be difficult to add a new syntax/wiki-markup that performed all the autoformatting linked dates provide but without actually making them in to links? Maybe a new psuedo-XML tag similar to <ref></ref>? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would be too difficult. — Werdna • talk 06:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expiring protection

Werdna, would it be possible to add an option to the protection expiry allowing admins to choose whether the protected page should return to no protection or semi-protection? This comes up w/ vandalism targets that temporarily go to full protection, but should go back to semi after a while (I'm coming at the issue from the presidential candidate biographies). Is there a patch already in the works, perhaps?--chaser - t 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good idea! That would be helpful. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs are reported that way. You could also post on the village pump with this idea – I'm not the only developer, you know... ;-) — Werdna • talk 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm picking on you b/c you developed cascading protection. I'm off to VPT.--chaser - t 02:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character-counting parser function

Wow Werdna. An actual programmer. Allow me a request:

There are two templates {{delimitnum}} and {{val}}, that delimit numbers (add narrow spaces) in values like this: 6.0224438467(40)×10⁻²³ kg. Unfortunately, both these templates must rely upon math-based techniques and both suffer from unpredictable rounding errors. For instance, coding {{val|0.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces 0.29872813×10⁻²³ kg (note the …29) but adding 2 to the value, {{val|2.29872813|e=-23|u=kg}} produces the correct 2.29872813×10⁻²³ kg.

All we need is a character-counting parser function to use in these templates. Such a parser function would continually be asked the following question: “are there five or more remaining digits in the string?” If so, move over three more digits, add a space, and ask the question again. Details are at bugzilla:15677. A prior version of that bug (six moths ago) is bugzilla:13025. MOSNUM currently advised editors about {val} but cautions editors to be extremely careful and proof check the output to ensure it matches their input. Note too that our Kilogram article, starting here in this section, makes extensive use of the {val} template. However, a couple of numbers had to be hand-coded due to this bug.

Can you help in any way? There are two template editors who would be anxious to rewrite {delimitnum} and {val} if they could get their hands on such a parser function. Greg L (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna? How long do you think it would take a developer to create such a character-counting parser function? Greg L (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this over the last few days, and I think the general developer consensus is that such a parser function will not be created, because it encourages the use of templates where other parser functions should be written. If you like, I can certainly write a function to format a value in scientific notation. — Werdna • talk 06:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for offering. Could you make one that worked as outlined in bugzilla:15677? Greg L (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas it would be nice to see an easier-to-use template as is described in bugzilla:15677, looking at the number of articles that currently link to {{val}} and {{delimitnum}}, it would probably be better, if we were going to just make one template, to just re-write {val} with the character-counting capability. All it needs is to not choke on big numbers and not have rounding errors. Is that something that you could do? Greg L (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna, is there anything I can do to make the task of writing a magic word easier for you? Would a little chart-style, tabular checklist of specific features be handy? Greg L (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably not be the person to write it. I have been employed to work on certain projects starting on Monday. This is probably what I will focus on in terms of Wikimedia development, although I may poke other things as time permits. Add your request to bugzilla, and somebody else may write it for you. These sorts of requests might be done by Krimpet or Mr.Z-man, if you're after someone close to English Wikipedia. — Werdna • talk 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you, in fact, a fairy penguin? Or was that just friendly userpage vandalism? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Showing one of my friends a thing or two about Wikipedia :) — Werdna • talk 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I though that might be a bit over the top.

I still think it was just a joke topic. HalfShadow 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said here. لenna vecia 04:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not mutually exclusive. HalfShadow 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you wanna talk about sex, baby....

we can talk about you and me.... (sing along if you like...!) - or don't, of course.

I thought I'd swing by here to test the waters of your interest in chatting further about the sexual content thing - I appreciate and enjoy your forthright engagement, but wanted to confirm that you're not at all frustrated, pissed off, or would just generally rather not bother talking to me for any reason at all - which is both fine, and your right! :-) Yum Cha and beers got in the way of a reply yesterday, but if you're up for it, I can bang on some more - or just disengage.... hope you're good regardless :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page deletion

Why was my page deleted? All information was relevant and correct. I demand a re-evaluation of my article.

Just found this out,

you can post completely irrelevant information about you (you stated your a fairy penguin), but I can't post relevant information about Andrew Revord? That is abuse of power. I have half a mind to report you to the king de la wikipedia who will destroy your reign of abusiveness. — Somebody

I can't find the specific article that you refer to, but it should be noted that user pages are not articles, and therefore it's not unreasonable for me to put most things up there. Articles are a bit different, and we expect them to be sensible, about notable subjects, and to be properly-sourced. — Werdna • talk 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Christmas Meetup

G'day all - I'm hoping that I might persuade you along to a Wiki christmas celebration / meetup on december 18th :-) - The meetup regulars are a friendly bunch, and we're very much hoping to get a few new folk along to chat about all things Wiki (and there are apparently some exciting things in the pipeline! Come along to find out a bit more ;-) - you can sign up here - and do feel free to edit that page with any more ideas or suggestions too :-)

Hope to see you there - I've heard a rumour that the first drink is on the highest placed Australian in the current arbcom elections.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)ok, so I started that rumour too....[reply]

Has the Filter Gone Live?

Has your filter just gone live? WP:AN is filling up with reports like these. Better tweak around and eliminate more of those false positives :/...were you aware that there was going to be a demo run?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! Seems the addition of some problematic regexs to the title blacklist caused all those false positives.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the abuse filter is live, you'll know. It has very distinctive messages. — Werdna • talk 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

db-move of Canadian & African cuisine redirects

Is there any reason why you deleted these tag and undid the moves? I am finishing up standardizing the cuisine articles and these are some of the last that still use the Cuisine of topic format. This is a policy based move regarding Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Per the caveats section of the policy: It is important to be able to differentiate when a topic is actually country-specific. Often what may look like a country adjective is really describing a set of people or a language. Notice that "Polish" may mean "From or related to Poland" or "referring to the Polish people or language." For example Polish language, Polish people, even Polish literature (since these articles most often deal with the literature of the set of people, not the country necessarily). By contrast, Culture of Poland, Politics of Poland and Economy of Poland are all describing the country itself. Since cuisine can be found in geographical areas outside of the country itself the Country topic is appropriate.

Here is an example about Germany and Poland: Historically Germany has changed its geographic borders a great deal over the course of history, with Poland and France being on the receiving or taking end. As a result there are parts of the latter two countries having a German culture with a history of German cuisine, German wine and German beer. This applies to all countries in which there is a native cuisine.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it looked like you were just marking redirects as {{db-move}}, which didn't make any sense. Maybe the {{db-move}} template should include a reason for the move. — Werdna • talk 13:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD early closes

Hi Werdna. I brought up a concern I had about how often AfD discussions get closed early, and MBisanz told me that you had been working on a function that would make it clearer when a discussion was "old", i.e. greater than 5 days. Apparently there is some problem with discussions being marked as "old/open" even before they hit the 120-hour mark...? Thanks in advance, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Queued Deletion, and it's an implementation of our deletion process in software. — Werdna • talk 04:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha. I had not heard about it before this week. What is the current status of the implementation? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working full-time on it at some stage in January-February, after the Abuse filter is finished. — Werdna • talk 05:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey, Whats up? I can't believe your an admin.! Most admins are so tense, I'm glad your not that way, but you are still taking things seriously. Cool! DylanIloveYou ^{[Sign Here!]} 21:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanIloveYou (talk • contribs)

wikitech-1

Hello. I was looking at some old discussions in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 46#Proposal: create MediaWiki:Wikibits.js and saw that you referenced a discussion forum called wikitech-l. Where do I find that? Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[13]. In general, anything-l can be found there. — Werdna • talk 08:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A crown of laurel

is waiting for you on fr, on my beharf. And you deserve it ! For the very powerfull option undo, that you build...a while ago. Sincerely. -- Yalla (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (my usual nick is Perky, but someone allready had it here.)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday, Werdna/Archive 1, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Versus22_talk 06:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Werdna

WikiThanks

Werdna nice to meet you. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns on the request for comment Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am happy that you also see how important this guideline will be on wikipedias future. You maybe interested that another editor responded to what you wrote, and had comments and questions. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting/MOSNUM

Heh, nice comment on WT:MOSNUM. =) You mentioned doing your own parser function, have you seen the work done by UC Bill (talk · contribs) (I'm not sure if you've read the entire MOSNUM talk page, I'd understand if you didn't given the attitudes prevalent there)? He has a test wiki set up to demo his work in progress: so far his allows for date linking to be turned on/off via Preferences, turns off linking of dates for anon-readers, allows dates to be explicitly linked and still remain auto formatted, auto formats date ranges, and he appears interested in improving his code/expanding the feature set. If possible I'd like to see his changes committed to MediaWiki (it seems to me to be a basic enough feature, and MW already has a somewhat broken date auto formatting/linking system, so it's not like we're adding anything totally new here). Do you think this might be possible? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the interest in this topic. Please keep in mind that date-linking and date-formatting is a topical and difficult issue. Before starting any coding, I would suggest you have a scan through the following (in order to familiarise yourself with some of the complexities involved):

This RfC.
This RfC.
Current debate/work on a date formatting/linking patch.
Current attempts at a specification here.
And of course, large chunks of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers).

You obviously have something to provide the process, but (for your own sanity, and so as not to waste your time) it would be good for you to find out more about the background before you begin. I would be interested to see what sort of lateral thinking you can bring to the specification process. Cheers. HWV258 04:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm going to write a date formatting function for my own benefit. English Wikipedia may use it if they like, or they may throw feature requests at me. If the feature requests are sensible, I might follow them. I'm not interested in getting into the politics of it, and if that means that it isn't used here, so be it. — Werdna • talk 04:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

Please unprotect {{UF-hcal}}. None of its sister-templates (e.g. {{UF-hcal-auto}}, {{UF-hcard+hcal }}, etc.) are protected, and I often have cause to change them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia Art

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia Art. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Administrator Conduct, Wikipedia:Administration

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."

This section also states that:

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed."

In addition,

"administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools".

In light of these guidelines, I found your conduct regarding the Wikipedia Art page AfD discussion to be non-neutral, disrespectful, and out of line. The AfD discussion was meaningful, active, and important to the editors involved. In lieu of addressing editors' real concerns in a neutral and diplomatic fashion, you Speedy Deleted the page and in the Review commented the following:

"The article was egregiously stupid, and the only people voting to keep it seemed to be new editors who were undoubtedly involved with the article's creation. There is no discussion necessary on silly little experiments like this."

Not only does this comment reveal an aggressive bias, it constitutes a disrespectful, uncivil personal attack on the authors and the editors who were genuinely engaged in a nuanced discussion. Perhaps you did not appreciate the nuances of the debate, nor its importance to the editors, who were engaging the very nature of what Wikipedia is and contested interpretations of its stated guidelines. Considering this lack of appreciation, I question the neutrality of your use of the speedy deletion tool, based on the language used in your comment in the Deletion Review. Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutually assured discussion idea

Hi, there was a question about your statement here. Could you clarify on that page if you have a problem with the actual technical extension as written, or the idea behind it, and whether in WMF policy devs have final say over the former or latter? rootology (C)(T) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

File:Vitruvian Original Barnstar.png		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing my rename =) Much appreciated. –xeno (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global account not mergifying

I recently had a steward delete my global account in an attempt to move my home wiki to en.wiki . It seems to have only half worked. See http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Xeno where it claims at the top my home wiki is simple.en and the bottom it claims en.wiki and the line item for en.wiki says "unattached". Any bright ideas? =) Thanks, –xeno (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to attach your enwiki account using Special:MergeAccount. Why do you want to change your home wiki? — Werdna • talk 04:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that link it claims to be attached, but the SUL collision detector claims otherwise. I want to change my home wiki because en.wiki is my home wiki. –xeno (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sulutil relies on a replicated copy of the database, which is currently several months out of date (it will be fixed in the next few weeks). Please ignore whatever sulutil tells you. The home wiki currently has no practical effect, and we will, at some stage, introduce a way of changing it (just as soon as we find a real use for it!) — Werdna • talk 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a suspicion that's what it was, cheers mate. –xeno (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse Filter

You need to change the settings for the Abuse Filter on testwiki: [14]. Yellowweasel (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you linked to the filter you thought it should match. — Werdna • talk 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-Grawp filters (8, 19, 30). Yellowweasel (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're intended to be comprehensive, they're there to make sure the extension works properly, not to block any vandals in particular from testwiki. — Werdna • talk 13:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the Abuse Filter settings going to be tested? Yellowweasel (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual filters can be tested by leaving them at 'flag'. — Werdna • talk 03:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

poke

Hi Werdna, did you get that email I sent you about the ts a couple of days ago? It's nothing terribly urgent, but a reply would be appreciated. — east718 | talk | 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry for the late reply. — Werdna • talk 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter manual ?

Hello Andrew,

First, many thanks for developing AbuseFilter, it will certainyl become a must-have! Secondly, I would like to see it installed on fr.wikipedia, but I was looking for any documentation on how to use it, and couldn't find much the pages on mw.org are quite succinct and I can't find anything elsewhere. Is there a manual for it anywhere which I could translate for my fellow sysops?

Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki.org is all we have at the moment. I'm hoping I (or somebody else) will get around to writing better instructions – most people have so far learned by experience and familiarity with other programming languages. — Werdna • talk 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. i was hoping it can be made clearer to non-programmers as well, maybe this is less of a priority. le Korrigan →bla 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

backstage pass: powerhouse museum

Heya Andrew, Are you back in the country, back in Sydney - or are you still O.S.? In the hope that you are in town, I thought I should point out what I've been doing in the hope that you might be able to attend. Here are the details:

The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.

Would you like to come along?

Signup and learn more here: www.Wikimedia.org.au/wiki/backstage pass

Date & Time: Friday the 13th of March @ 10am. BYO laptop. Where: Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo. map

Hope to see you there, Witty Lama 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Pages

Hi, at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter, I suggested to set up a special page where the abuse filter would report pages when an edit matches a filter with action 'report'. Could I have your opinion on the feasibility of this ? Thanks in advance, Cenarium (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking RFC

You might want to chime in here with some comments, specifically what was addressed by your recent commit (also linked there, though I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

r48249 (dates)

Hey, Werdna... just curious, how does the code work? Does it require markup? --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it's synced live, use {{dateformat:somedate|defaultformat}} to format a date as if it were linked. — Werdna • talk 12:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werdna, I ran into some problems while putting together a page of unit tests:

http://phase3.xoom.org/index.php/Unit_tests

If you register an account there and set a date preference, things go awry. (Feel free to copy the wikitext of that page to some other test server if you like.) That site is running the latest version of the trunk, checked out fresh from svn. I'll look at the code myself to see if I can figure out what's going on, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up right away. Hopefully I've just done something stupid with my configuration and there's no actual problem. :) --UC_Bill (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind (mostly)... I just forgot that $wgUseDynamicDates is false in DefaultSettings.php. There are some problems with using (e.g.) {{formatdate:January 15}} but those can be avoided by always including a year when using the parser function. (By way of comparison, January 15 works correctly in the old system, even without the year.) --UC_Bill (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in fixing the problem with yearless dates, it's an interesting one. When you strip out the [[ ]] syntax, you end up leaving " *,? *" as the only thing separating the day from the year, and since that regex matches the empty string, the parser function thinks the first digit of a two-digit day is the day, and the second digit is the year (or the other way around, depending on what the "raw" format is.) Fixing it is non-trivial because while the simple and obvious fix is to use " *,? +" (or " *,? *" for the non-perl-compatible regex) that will introduce annoying edge cases where the comma is misplaced (handled correctly by the standard autoformatting) or where the year is on a new line in the wikitext. I'm not sure if those edge cases are worth worrying about though. --UC_Bill (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "( ,)+" would be better.. except that will allow [[15 January]],,,,,,,,[[2009]] to be matched (which may or may not be a problem) and would require some corresponding changes to the "keys" array in DateFormatter to tell it to ignore the new match register. --UC_Bill (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF: de-wiki

Hi Werdna!
I'm not sure whether this is the best place to talk about that. However, feel free to move this message to a better one.
We have two problems with filters atm:

AF rule #2 seems to work, but it does not work always. For example, 91.34.3.58 made some edits that are matched, see de:special:abusefilter/test/2. But you won't find them in the log.
AF rule #3 shall disallow and tag some edits. But as you can see in the log, those edits got tagged only. Unfortunately the edits were allowed.

-- seth (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 Those edits seem to change the previous line -- look at de:Special:AbuseFilter/examine and see the added_lines and removed_lines. I'm not sure why this is broken, though. Might need some further investigation and testing. I'll look at it later...
2 I fixed on svn, for the time being remove the 'tag' action and this will work around the bug.

— Werdna • talk 08:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It seems like the context of the diff would be treated as removed and added. But I don't see, why this should harms rule #2, because the previous line did not include a "-- ~~~~" either, so the rule should match.
Thx!
The private rules should not be visible for everybody at the history. That a filter change occurred should not be hidden, though.
Is it possible to match new articles? I guess that old_size==0 & article_recent_contributors==user_name is similar to that, but it's not the same. Is there a better way for that?

-- seth (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC), 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Werdna, I've sent you an email. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter

I'm very much enjoying the abusefilter functionality, but I'd love it if it was adjusted so I could easily see if some trusted user already took care of the issue. Perhaps these could be combined with patrolled edits so all these actions can be patrolled? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be nice to have a history link and/or diff for the article involved so you can immediately check the edit properly. The current view and examine links, while useful in some cases, aren't really intuitive to users. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look under the variables in 'details'. — Werdna • talk 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the software thinks a line was deleted, when it was actually moved because of some other edit inserting material. My filter accrued two false positives[15] Any idea how to avoid them? - Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now managed to get this to run properly in several separate test in which I made anonymous edits myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all the work you've put into that thing...

File:WikiDefender Original Barnstar.png		Defender of the Wiki Barnstar with Golden Wiki Trophy
		Congratulations on getting Special:AbuseFilter up and running (reasonably) smoothly! This tool has already proven incredibly useful in stemming the tides of vandalism, and our efforts in working with it so far have brought up bugs that you've addressed in admirable time. I'm sure this tool will become one of the most useful features on Wikipedia as we hammer out the nuances of how to code these crazy things; plus, it's kinda fun too. :-) Well done once again for all of your work on this! -- *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitruvian Original Barnstar.png		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I hereby award you with the da Vinci barnstar for your admirable work on the AbuseFilter. Non-working filters almost made me hit my head against my desk a few times, but that was just me and my inability to program them properly on the first go. Thank you very much for offering us such a useful tool. Mgm\|^(talk) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited runs

Would it be possible to do limited runs on linked related pages or on your watchlist or simply have the filter log dig up the relevant log entries for such pages? I'd find it particularly helpful to be able to patrol filter triggers on Featured articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the abuse filter log is filterable by title. If not, it should be. — Werdna • talk 13:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but I can't check the log to pick out all featured articles, or all pages linking to a specific location. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for a rule to be ignored if another filter was already triggered? (let's assume for simplicities sake that they are checked in order and the other rule comes earlier in the process) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility, would need to be implemented in software though. — Werdna • talk 13:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a patient kinda guy. I suggested some sort of decision tree on bugzilla, but feel free to implement it in an easier manner if it helps.- Mgm|^(talk) 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filter notes

Today was the second time the filter notes for filter 61 disappeared without anyone editing them. A filter name is nice, but sometimes they need extra notes to explain how it workes exactly and we should be able to rely on those notes sticking around. Perhaps a separate box for a detailed description separate from the notes? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on getting AbuseFilter enabled. It looks to be quite an interesting feature, which could potentially save many Wikipedians a lot of time. I'm wondering, do you currently have any public documentation for the filtering syntax? ←Spidern → 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're probably quite busy at the moment, but when you get a chance check out AbuseFilter log entries 34761 to 34765. There are 5 entries, despite the fact that the ip (contributions) only edited the article in question once. ←Spidern → 18:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the number of warnings a user receives need not correspond with the actual edits. My bad. ←Spidern → 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to give you a huge thank you for developing that extension. In such a high profile, and highly viewed website, a thing like this, NOT FlaggedRevisions, is the thing we need. I only wish more people would take the time to develop tools that filter badfaith edits rather than all edits. A huge thank you again. -- penubag (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Science Barnstar
		For inventing the abuse filter! at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usability accounts, & my thanks as well

First -- I apologize for the usability project account blocks. You're right, I should have asked first. That said, they were clearly sockpuppet accounts, and a series of accounts like that is vandalism about 99% of the time. Was there a reason that the accounts needed to be anonymous (i.e., without a note on the userpage that said "This is a WMF account")?

Second -- let me add my thanks for the abuse filter. This is a vast improvement over the methods we had before for fighting systemic and repeated abuse. We've already seem dramatic changes in the behavior of some of our worst repeat offenders. Well done! NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup time again

Hi all, it's Meetup time again :-) - Hopefully you'll be up for meeting on April 22nd at about 6pm at The Paragon, a pub in Circular Quay. It'll be the usual round of drinks and chit chats, with no particular agenda, just some friendly faces, and a shared interest in Wiki stuff. If you've thought about coming along before, but haven't made it - we'd love to see you - it'll be a relaxed, social chin wag about all things wiki - bring anyone along you fancy, and I hope you can make it :-)

Please do sign up on the meetup page, and do also feel free to nominate an alternative time / date / location if for whatever reason the 21st doesn't work for you - we're an accommodating bunch :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Zombia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Zombia.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF: double tagging

Hi!
Wow, en-wiki is really keen on your AF. This is incomparable to de-wiki where we try to be very very careful.
However I found out something strange: Have a look at [16]. You'll find the entries

2009-03-21T14:28:43: 80.121.60.124
2009-03-21T14:28:27: 80.121.60.124
2009-03-21T09:18:13: 79.206.236.111
2009-03-21T09:17:59: 79.206.236.111

But if you take a look at de:special:contributions/80.121.60.124 and de:special:contributions/79.206.236.111, you won't find the first tagged edits there.
How this is possible? -- seth (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is broken for some reason. I'm looking into it at some point. — Werdna • talk 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter

Congratulations for your abuse filter. I am from wiki.pt and I would like to know if that tool can be implemented in other Wikipedias. Thank you, Lechatjaune (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Gather a consensus and post the request at bugzilla. — Werdna • talk 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 52

I understand and appreciate your concern. But -- all but 3 of the false positives you cited are from March 22 or before, and have been fixed (mainly due to "http" being in there). Two of the 3 recent ones involve the word "fuck" (which I didn't put in the filter in the first place), and the other one has been fixed. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that there are a "huge number" of false positives. I also think that this filter has been highly effective at stopping the specific vandalism that it was aimed at. Regardless, I will go back and look at the entries again and try to make them more specific. What do you think about "fuck"? It was the source of two false positives, but also of most of the hits for the last three days. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view, and the view of the community, and, according to Erik, the view of the Foundation, is that any false positive rate greater than a half percent or so is unacceptable. It is also not merely a matter of false positives, but also one of reducing random irritation of new contributors, who are one of our greatest resources. Many phrases with perfectly legitimate uses, such as your username, 'rooster', 'massive', and 'MBisanz' were blocked by this or other filters written by you. This is clearly a cause for concern.

Remember, of course, that until we start blocking users who trip abuse filters, the abuse filter is not a silver bullet against vandalism, and so preventing vandalism should be secondary to reducing irritation. The only way for the community to allow blocking with the abuse filter is for us to prove that we can administrate it in a way with minimal false positives and random irritation.

Blocking swear words, in my opinion, especially from new contributors only, is a flawed idea. We need to target phrases with no legitimate use other than vandalism. — Werdna • talk 04:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseLog

Can you make it possible to search the log for an action taken? Sometimes I want to search a particular filter only for tagged edits (rather than the warnings). Having to read whether a tag was applied each time makes the process of patrolling logs very slow. Some form of Feed that other programs can read would be a lot of help too. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on bugzilla? — Werdna • talk 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Thing Of The Year Award

Slakr's Best Thing Of The Year Award

For your hard work, dedication, and successful implementation of AbuseFilter— clearly the best thing of the year for Wikimedia—I hereby award you a box full of the next best things of the year. Since you've already made the best thing of the year, it's kind of silly to try to give you something more valuable and important, so I figured maybe a bunch of really cool, but not-as-cool runner-ups, combined, might yield something that could try to match the coolness of The One True Best Thing this year. :P

Heh, anyway, thanks again, and keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr^\ talk / 10:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Zombia.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Zombia.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. I uploaded it because it was unprotected on commons and on the main page, as I wrote on the description page. If it's off, please delete it. — Werdna • talk 12:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hands a glass of champagne

For easily the best invention on wikipedia since huggle. PXK ^T /_C 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced filter

Apparently, my filter 61 suddenly felt the need to use reference formatting [17] That is particularly unfortunate since it makes me unable to view the entire code properly (and in this case not see what caused the diff to be made) Could this be the result of a recent change to the filter code? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filter mixes up two different edits?

Me being a newbie to using the admin filter, first of all congrats and respect for getting this up running after seemingly endless discussions with other editors (including myself). Right now, I'd like to draw your attention to a Wikipedia:Abuse_filter/False_positives#32.178.157.35!false positive export, not simply because I haven't received feedback yet, but because this[18] abuse log entry related to Brian Kelly (historian) seems to be wrong in a more basic way than just in the filter logic (29: "New user removing deletion templates") as it creates one entry based upon two different edits by two different users, both of which (Admin removing deletion template and IP adding cat) are fine as seems to be the filter expression. But unless I am missing something here, the first action should never be attributed to the IP in the first place.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got mail again

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RegexParserFunctions

Can you please add RegexParserFunctions to Wikipedia? A template that I'm trying to create won't work without it -- IRP ☎ 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a trivial Denial of Service vector, and uncomfortably close to an arbitrary remote code execution vulnerability. Not to mention the potential impact on site performance of that extension being in general use. — Werdna • talk 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF: ghost log entry

Hi!
At [19] you can see the entry "2009-03-29T18:11:35: 84.58.235.34" (probably the time is localized). But at de:special:contributions/84.58.235.34 one won't find this entry. Is that a bug? -- seth (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example (with the same rule #4):

2009-04-02T09:55:42 85.16.222.15

Is it possible that tagging blocks some edits? It seems like that. -- seth (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new_html

Its just not true that there is no performance burden. Using that variable against very complex pages routinely times out the server. Even if it weren't timing out, delays of seconds are not really good for user experience and need to discouraged when possible. Dragons flight (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries with 400kB and 600 references seems to be our posterchild for a page too complex to filter with new_html without timing out. Obvious that page is rather ridiculous, but people do still need to be able to save it. I've seen other examples too. Dragons flight (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has to be parsed per-edit anyway, and that parse operation is shared with the abuse filter. It increases the run-time of the abuse filter, but it decreases the parse time for the edit correspondingly. — Werdna • talk 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. We really did see pages that did seem to be consistently uneditable with new_html in play but I can't seem to duplicate the issue testing against Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries. (That major detail aside, how much parser effort is duplicated and how much is cached? One could hand forward a fully parsered page, but I don't know if you go that far. The caching of links and the like would get you part way but would not be as good as passing the full parser result.) Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full parser output is cached. — Werdna • talk 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add a {{SECTIONNUMBER}} magic word to Wikipedia? Its purpose is to generate a number depending upon which section of the page it is in. For example, if it were to be inserted in this section, its output would be "9" (at the time this comment was posted), as this was the 9th section of the page when it was created. If it were to be put in the section above this one, its output would be "8". Is that possible? I plan to use it in {{emptysection}} -- IRP ☎ 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you reply? -- IRP ☎ 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Please make feature requests on our dedicated feature request system, bugzilla. That way, all developers can look at the requests, rather than just me. — Werdna • talk 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter request

Hello Werdna,
please see meta:User_talk:Werdna#AbuseFilter_request_(alswiki). --- Kind regards, Melancholie (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please take a look at this request? Thank you very much. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

last call for the meetup tonight in Sydney

G'day Sydneysiders :-) - this is just a 'last call' note to let you know that the meetup tonight at the belgian beer cafe. This meetup coincides with the end of an 'unlocking IP' conference, and various folk from creative commons, and other interested parties are hoping to come along, so it should be an interesting and rewarding meet - plus Casliber assures us the beer is fantastic :-) - it's an 'all ages' venue, and I hope to see you there! best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot

I'm sorry about that report. For some reason I was on ClueBot's contributions page when I clicked the button. I did not cause more trouble than I think, did I? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

backup

where should i ask about backup? Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mess at Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States

Hi -- I'd like your help in repairing some problems that were inadvertently created by a recent Wernabot archiving edit.

Werdnabot recently did an initial archiving of Talk:List of city nicknames in the United States, and the results suggest that the talk page wasn't ready for bot-archiving. There are two issues:

the page had a bunch of minor messages posted without time stamps, which were left on the page after most of the content was archived
it turns out that an anon had deleted a big chunk of content on 30 December 2008 (not detected because the deletion was part of a long series of edits).

I'd like to reverse the archiving process and start over. I've turned off the werdnabot template, added a temporary link to the archive, and restored the content that was removed on 30 December (no longer in sequence with the related sections). However, I think it would be better to undo the archive, restore the page to its condition prior to archiving, and insert the deleted content and time stamps before attempting another bot-archiving.

Can you undo Werdnabot's work in a clean fashion, so we can start over? Thanks for anything you can do. --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - This can be resolved manually; I'm just hoping that there is an easier way to "undo" a bot action. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Mistake?

I sorry if I seem to be getting involved in something that isn't my business, but why was Scjessey blocked with only 3 reverts? Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of how many times you revert. — Werdna • talk 02:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Hi Werdna

I noticed your block of ChildofMidnight (as that user is on my watchlist). Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notification of block makes it clear that the notification required is more than an edit summary in the block log (as the policy specifically refers to template messages as a minimum that can be supplemented). I checked the editor's talk page log (and user page log, just for completeness) and didn't see any message from you. Am I missing something?

Bongo matic 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

Seems pointless to me. The block message adequately explained the block. Any template left on the talk page would add nothing. Remember that "policy" is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding. Talk-page notification seems sensible if further specifics need to be given, for reasons such as "harassment", "personal attacks". That sounds like the intent of that section, which then details that if you do not give full specifics of the reasoning behind your block, it is more difficult to explain it later on. In this case, all the necessary specifics are in the block message, and so notification seems like unnecessary red tape. — Werdna • talk 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rude to me that you notified neither CoM nor Scjessey of their blocks. Not bothering to notify vandalism-only accounts is one thing; regular editors should be told. Ladyof Shalott 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having never been blocked, I don't know what shows up when it happens. But there is no reason to assume that editors have their own page on their watchlist as it is equally viable for editors to be notified of messages by the new message banner. Also, I don't "remember" your description of policy. Rather, I consider policies to be "standards that all editors should follow", and doubly so administrators. If that involves red tape, then I suggest is it necessary rather than unnecessary red tape. The fact that another editor felt it necessary to point out that ChildofMidnight had been blocked is some evidence that LadyofShalott and I are the only editors who thinks this. Bongo matic 03:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figure the big red box saying "You are blocked" with a summary of why seems like it does the job, no need to plaster it all over their talk page too. I personally see plastering a big fancy template on their talk page as smarmy, but maybe that's just my crazy ideas of ettiquette ;-) (no sarcasm intended).

In any case, I don't think this discussion is really worth the time it takes. I don't think the tension in arguing over it is justified by the stakes. — Werdna • talk 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think an indefinite block for CoM would be better. --122.57.82.44 (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello~

endulge my trespassing on your time. I'm a university student at Seoul National University, and I'm currently working on a research project on Wikipedia. My focus is on dispute resolution and the Wikipedian culture- subjects that needs real understanding rather than statistics or observation of explicit things. Therefore, I'm eagerly searching for live voices, for accounts of active users.

I see you are an administrator who has been active in Wikipedia for many years, so I thought your experience and opinions would add a lot to my research. Would you by any chance care for an email interview? If you have the time, please send a reply and I'll mail you the questions. Again, your help would mean more than a lot to me.

Thanks for reading.

p.s my email address is sankiwi@snu.ac.kr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramram91 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

AbuseFilter at Wikinews

I believe we now have consensus to implement Special:AbuseFilter at Wikinews. Please see n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#Update. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For being awesome :) Chris 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnaot malfunctioning?

Werdnabot hasn't archived my talk page in a very long time. Am I doing something wrong? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TorBlock

Heya :) I'm poking you because I was trying to check whether an IP was blocked by the extension earlier (it didn't show up on the Tor Checker, but googling it showed TOR related results). My guess was that the extension blocked it although one couldn't exit to Wikipedia with it. Is there a way to confirm that an IP is indeed blocked? (Email me if you want the precise IP :)) -- Luk ^talk 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't likely, the tor checking system on tor's side tests each exit node individually. Most likely, the data was stale. It can take up to 24 hours for tor blocks to expire. — Werdna • talk 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WerdnaBot

This definitely doesn't look right, although at the moment I am not sure whether it is a bug or user error. Even if it is user error, it would be nice if you had some way to catch such things. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm would bet a lot of money that it was me. :/ I tried to play around with it so that it would archive by size into custom-named archives (so that I didn't have to move my archives). It looked like it was working fine, but evidently not... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning abusefilter rights, going forward

Per this, I take it that everyone who can currently use the abusefilter is an admin. Going forward, do you favor allowing every admin to assign userrights and/or only allowing admins to have access? Assigning these rights seems to me like a task naturally suited to crats, and there's a relevant discussion here. (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. Figure out what makes sense, come up with a consensus, and I can make whatever tech changes are needed. — Werdna • talk 10:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a clean bill of health

Werdna, I renamed to "John Vandenberg" about the same time that the wiki fell apart during the recent sync, and my prior contribs appear to be stuck under Jayvdb. They do appear in the SUL stats, so I am guessing that I need to wait. Or is some voodoo required to reclaim my old contribs? If it isnt easy to investigate or fix, there is no need to stress about it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing archive numbers

Hi there,

I've added your bot to several pages BUT I don't know how to amend the numbering so that the archiving starts with a new archive when there are previous archives (if that makes sense). E.g. Talk:Oldest people which already has 12 archives so the bot needs to start with Archive 13. The first archive action put new archives in Archive 1. I've moved them to Archive 13 but don't know how to amend the counter on the bot which still shows Archive 1. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Set inc_cur=13 in the settings for the template. — Werdna • talk 10:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, simple! Thanks very much. DerbyCountyinNZ 11:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate

And thanks again. –Moondyne 15:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup

Page started: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 4. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot

How could I get it to archive my talk page? I've seen it on other users talk pages archiveing.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences settings

Hello. Thank you for the great improvement of the preferences. By the way, I saw your comment on the Village pump (technical) about the settings for image size and thumbnail size being changed automatically. It seems that this problem is still not resolved in the Japanese Wikipedia (or maybe on other projects as well). Could you please check it when you have some time? Thank you in advance. --Aotake (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Kindness Barnstar for your offline help with reseting my password. Thank you very much.!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF bugs

Hi!
Do you read your meta talk page frequently? Shall I better make a bugzilla report instead? -- seth (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup 1 August

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'm looking into my options :) — Werdna • talk 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Meetup

I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.

If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the [wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list] an email, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!

ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to oversight the edit filter log? I was asking around in IRC today and was pointed to your talk page. Thanks, →javért ^stargaze 00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily find me on IRC to discuss further, but the short answer is "If absolutely necessary, it can be done by a sysadmin. Otherwise, you'll need to wait for the functionality to be added to the AbuseFilter extension." — Werdna • talk 14:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I'll PM you next time I see you on IRC. →javért ^stargaze 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always on IRC, PM 'werdna'. If I'm not there I'll see it next time I am. — Werdna • talk 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noindexing on testwiki

Would it be technically possible to noindex all testwiki pages? See testwiki:Talk:Main Page#Noindex all pages. Shubinator (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily possible. — Werdna • talk 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, next step, do you think it's a good idea? Shubinator (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you'd bother. — Werdna • talk 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the testwiki pages are showing up as the first hit on some Google searches. We could be more aggressive in deleting old pages... Shubinator (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Werdna's Day!

User:Werdna has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Werdna's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Werdna!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter request(s)

Hello Werdna,
please see meta:User_talk:Werdna#AbuseFilter_requests_(barwiki_and_itwikiquote). --- Kind regards, Melancholie (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, re: Your feedback on LiquidThreads

Hello, Werdna. You have new messages at 84user's talk page.
Message added 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Samuda Estate

Hi Werdna, you can find out about the Samuda Estate and also the St John's Estate, both of which have there own pages on Wikipedia.Harrypotter (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Werdna648,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter

Hello, Werdna.

Could you please take a look at this request? Thank you, Lechatjaune (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here too (AF related, probably a quickfix). cheers! –xeno^talk 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb size preferences

Hi, User:Jarry1250 suggested I contact you on this. I'm trying to find out how many users have set a preference for these. The excercise was done for date prefs earlier this year - here, by Lightmouse, who seems no longer active. Is this the sort of thing you do, or can you suggest someone? The question often comes up in the endless debates on image issues, but no one has a clue. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mysql> select count(*) from user_properties where up_property='thumbsize';
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
|    10478 |
+----------+
1 row in set (6.11 sec)

— Werdna • talk 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that means a total of 10,478 users have set a specific thumb size at some point, yes? Is it possible to analyse between the different sizes chosen? 120/150/180/200/250/300 are the options. Thanks againJohnbod (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup Time in Sydney :-)

Hi all,

It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong continent :-) — Werdna • talk 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced editing toolbar

Hi, the advanced editing toolbar looks like it might be quite useful, but the little pictures look very ugly and amateurish to editors using the greenscreen gadget. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's something for the people who developed the greenscreen gadget to fix, by my reckoning. — Werdna • talk 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the little pictures have clear backgrounds, but the image itself (e.g. the little globe) have scrawled white outlines. They look like the pictures have been cut out by a five year-old with blunt scissors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout/CSS issues

Would you know how to fix this issue, or know someone who knows? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bug on watchlist

Congratulations from Germany! You did a good job! If you ever stay in Warstein, you're invited to take one or more beer on my account! -- THWZ (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHU breakage

Can you fix Wikipedia:Changing_username#Heja_helweda_.E2.86.92_Vekoler? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup 14 November

Another Cambridge meetup is planned for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]