Jump to content

User talk:X!/Archives/01/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiCup Newsletter

[edit]
17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SoxBot III at it again (with false positive report)

[edit]

The problems with SoxBot III mentioned earlier (no ID, bad link, etc.) are still there, in this edit of Jose Menendez. By the way, it wasn't a test edit; it was just a conflict of interest issue. — Ken g6 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the score so it needs at least 5 Bold text or Italic text, or 2 File:Example.jpg, or 2 [http://www.example.com link title]s. Xclamation point 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxbot VI again

[edit]

SoxBot VI's fouling up again. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really worth a block for one time? It was just a conflict with getting the page. I've done what I can to make sure the bot sees the current version of the page, it can be unblocked now. Xclamation point 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked. Thank'ee. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of SoxBots

[edit]

Here is a report of the status of all SoxBots as listed on User:X!/Sox Commons:

SoxBot (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie!

[edit]

Maddie! 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie talk 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thank you! Xclamation point 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]
  • (From what I can see, after searching, there was zero discussion about this move. The old name was what was decided on on the talk page. If you think the name should be changed, bring it up on the talk page.)

You may want to reconsider your edit summary comments, since not only was there a talk page note, but it was several days ago.

That aside, I'm personally amazed that you appeared out of the blue, with no talk page discussions or posts to you, yet you not only immediately reverted, but also immediately found lucas's talk page discussion.

Oh wait, off-wiki discussion, right?

nm, then.

Hope you're having a good day. - jc37 07:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the edit summary, I forgot to add the word "again". The reason I appears out of the blue was that I have some of the pages watchlisted, and I noticed that my watchlist was 3 times larger. The offwiki discussion was on the checkuser clerk channel, where I asked if anyone had heard about the change. No one had heard about it, so I decided to revert, because I did not think there was consensus for the change. Being a bot operator myself, I also have a tendancy to try to make sure that bots break as little as possible (hence the speedy reverts). Nixeaglebot was trying to find the wrong pages, ClueBot was starting a brand new archive (and archived a discussion in the wrong place), and the stalkbot wasn't reporting edits. Basically, the reason I reverted was not offwiki discussion, but rather to prevent disruption. I just checked offwiki to verify that I hadn't missed something. Xclamation point 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure how you found lucas's talk page so quickly, but I'll chalk that up to looking at my edit history, which I'd like to presume you did, in order to make the presumptive determinations that you did.
Thanks again. - jc37 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Home367

[edit]

Hi, the talk page for the above is currently a redirect to a deleted page. The deleted talk page needs to be restored and moved back to the right place please. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Tiptoety talk 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please see this diff [1]. This image has been in the Cinderella (musical) article since May 18, 2007 [2] and is still there. Your bot removed it from a draft I was doing to rewrite the article itself, where the image still stands. Does it need to be removed from the main article? --Thomprod (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can be in the main article. Because it was in the User namespace, the bot had to remove it per WP:NFCC. Xclamation point 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policy and now understand. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter

[edit]

I forgot to reply, but in regards to my suggestion, thanks for listening and trying to implement it.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on that in a private sandbox. I'm actually trying to make a prettier graph for the tool, so it'll be implemented there. Xclamation point 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Virgo

[edit]

I'm curious as to why the use of Lenna.png as a placeholder and test image does not constitute fair use, as the publisher clearly states they encourage the distribution of that particular image without consent. Please check the policy on that image. However, I will find another placeholder image until I find a suitable image for the userbox. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenna.png is a fair use image, which is not allowed in userboxes (or any userspace). Even if the company gives consent, the bot doesn't know that, and so it removes the image. Xclamation point 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is your bot supposed to be removing links to non-free images enclosed in nowiki tags? SpinningSpark 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Fixed. Xclamation point 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for going through the usernames

[edit]
  • I would like to thankyou for going through the usernames. It will help me better identify wrong and right in the future. I would like to point out however that WP:Username lacks examples. Perhaps you could someone could add them in?

Signpost tech report

[edit]

I have a draft at User:Aude/Technology report, though think there is more to add. I will take another look tomorrow, but if you have anything to add, that would be helpful. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice Wikibreak

[edit]

And please do comeback when you're ready. Wikipedia won't be the same without you :( --Chris 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

[edit]
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost delivery

[edit]

Go for it. I just updated the delivery message.--ragesoss (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Don't mess up like you did last week. :P Xclamation point 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

[edit]
The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post

[edit]

Hey, not sure if it happened to anyone else so I figured I'd let you know, you missed me. Thanks, §hep • Talk 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox

[edit]

bot seems to be wiping the sandbox every 5 minutes, even though he is leaving a message saying that it is cleared every 12 hours. 5 minutes seems like way too short a period of time, i could see every 15 minutes, or ideally hourly. (really just trying to let you know that the bot may be malfunctioning) -TinGrin 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoxBot III at it again (with false positive report)

[edit]

The problems with SoxBot III mentioned earlier (no ID, bad link, etc.) are still there, in this edit of Jose Menendez. By the way, it wasn't a test edit; it was just a conflict of interest issue. — Ken g6 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the score so it needs at least 5 Bold text or Italic text, or 2 File:Example.jpg, or 2 [http://www.example.com link title]s. Xclamation point 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxbot VI again

[edit]

SoxBot VI's fouling up again. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really worth a block for one time? It was just a conflict with getting the page. I've done what I can to make sure the bot sees the current version of the page, it can be unblocked now. Xclamation point 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked. Thank'ee. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

[edit]
17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Automated report of SoxBots

[edit]

Here is a report of the status of all SoxBots as listed on User:X!/Sox Commons:

SoxBot (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]
  • (From what I can see, after searching, there was zero discussion about this move. The old name was what was decided on on the talk page. If you think the name should be changed, bring it up on the talk page.)

You may want to reconsider your edit summary comments, since not only was there a talk page note, but it was several days ago.

That aside, I'm personally amazed that you appeared out of the blue, with no talk page discussions or posts to you, yet you not only immediately reverted, but also immediately found lucas's talk page discussion.

Oh wait, off-wiki discussion, right?

nm, then.

Hope you're having a good day. - jc37 07:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the edit summary, I forgot to add the word "again". The reason I appears out of the blue was that I have some of the pages watchlisted, and I noticed that my watchlist was 3 times larger. The offwiki discussion was on the checkuser clerk channel, where I asked if anyone had heard about the change. No one had heard about it, so I decided to revert, because I did not think there was consensus for the change. Being a bot operator myself, I also have a tendancy to try to make sure that bots break as little as possible (hence the speedy reverts). Nixeaglebot was trying to find the wrong pages, ClueBot was starting a brand new archive (and archived a discussion in the wrong place), and the stalkbot wasn't reporting edits. Basically, the reason I reverted was not offwiki discussion, but rather to prevent disruption. I just checked offwiki to verify that I hadn't missed something. Xclamation point 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure how you found lucas's talk page so quickly, but I'll chalk that up to looking at my edit history, which I'd like to presume you did, in order to make the presumptive determinations that you did.
Thanks again. - jc37 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Home367

[edit]

Hi, the talk page for the above is currently a redirect to a deleted page. The deleted talk page needs to be restored and moved back to the right place please. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Tiptoety talk 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please see this diff [3]. This image has been in the Cinderella (musical) article since May 18, 2007 [4] and is still there. Your bot removed it from a draft I was doing to rewrite the article itself, where the image still stands. Does it need to be removed from the main article? --Thomprod (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can be in the main article. Because it was in the User namespace, the bot had to remove it per WP:NFCC. Xclamation point 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policy and now understand. Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie!

[edit]

Maddie! 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 someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie talk 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thank you! Xclamation point 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter

[edit]

I forgot to reply, but in regards to my suggestion, thanks for listening and trying to implement it.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on that in a private sandbox. I'm actually trying to make a prettier graph for the tool, so it'll be implemented there. Xclamation point 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Virgo

[edit]

I'm curious as to why the use of Lenna.png as a placeholder and test image does not constitute fair use, as the publisher clearly states they encourage the distribution of that particular image without consent. Please check the policy on that image. However, I will find another placeholder image until I find a suitable image for the userbox. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenna.png is a fair use image, which is not allowed in userboxes (or any userspace). Even if the company gives consent, the bot doesn't know that, and so it removes the image. Xclamation point 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is your bot supposed to be removing links to non-free images enclosed in nowiki tags? SpinningSpark 21:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Fixed. Xclamation point 22:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for going through the usernames

[edit]
  • I would like to thankyou for going through the usernames. It will help me better identify wrong and right in the future. I would like to point out however that WP:Username lacks examples. Perhaps you could someone could add them in?

Signpost tech report

[edit]

I have a draft at User:Aude/Technology report, though think there is more to add. I will take another look tomorrow, but if you have anything to add, that would be helpful. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:X!/Archives/01/2009&oldid=1085565575"