| Revision as of 20:47, 11 May 2007 edit216.251.219.200 (talk) →Ward Wettlaufer← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:42, 12 May 2007 edit undoDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,747 edits +Next edit → | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| Makes sense. Thanks. | Makes sense. Thanks. | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Please undo your premature close of ]. It had just been relisted, with a strong request to let it run the full five days, when you clsoed it, thus undoign the actions of the relsiting admin. ] ] 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No. ]is a policy allowing me to. -- <small>] <sup> ]]</sup><sub> ]]</sub></small> 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like Daniel was rather bounced into relisting. I don't see what difference another 5 days would have made. Both he and Drini made the right call deleting this article. It just isn't what we're about. ] and our basic duty to act responsibly trump a rather weak appeal to ]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was about to vote '''keep''' when this was clsoed. I will take the matter to ], and we'll see what happens there. ] ] 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh FFS. First amendment knee-jerks again.--]<sup>g</sup> 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The meme is notable and deserves an article. This is about the kid's article (but I expect most people won't be able to make the distinction) -- <small>] <sup> ]]</sup><sub> ]]</sub></small> 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is not a question of the first admendment (I know perfectly well that doesn't apply on wikiopedia, which is not a governmental project). It is not even a question of whether the article should be kept (although i think it should). it is a question of closing an AfD against the expressed consensus, closing it early for no good reason, and thereby undoing another admin's judgement. I ask you one more time, please reconsideer the early clsoe. ] ] 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No. Anyway Matt Crypto override me now, wheel warring anyone ? :P -- <small>] <sup> ]]</sup><sub> ]]</sub></small> 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Hmm, yes, fair point...wheel warring not good; sorry about that ;-) More discussion on this won't hurt, though, and I think it's not a straightforward issue either way.. ] 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I see that the close has been reverted. I wouldn't have done that, I was in the process of composing my DRV post, but there is no issue for DRV unless you or someone else reverts again or closes early again. I hope you can see my point even if you disagree with it. ] ] 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Although I would have ''liked'' to have seen the discussion run another couple of days, my comment was merely a suggestion, and I respect Drini's actions. What I '''do not''' respect is the unilateral overturning of the deletion closure. I have reverted to the closed debate and redeleted the article. Matt's actions were most certainly not called for. ''']''' 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:42, 12 May 2007
Read the Words Of Wisdom
| Disclaimer: |
| I'm human. I perform several hundred actions each day. Once in a while I make a mistake, I apologize for them. If you tell me in a calm way where I'm mistaken, I'll fix it. |
Jimmy Wales wrote:
This should be required reading. Charles is a voice of great experience and wisdom:
- Charles R Matthews wrote:'
- (...) In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.(...)
Drinibot
I've archived the page. Just wanted to let you people know that I've debugged the bot so it won't shuffle categories around within a page. -- Drini 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The main problem I saw was that the bot was messing up table syntax when removing categories. It ended up leaving the table close tag (
|}) on the end of the preceding line instead of the beginning of the line as required, which broken dozens of user pages. Just wanted to point out what the actual problem was since I wasn't sure from this note if you had fixed that specifically. Mike Dillon 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)- I thought the problem was caused since I left out the -inplace parameter (so it shuffled categories around), if that's what happened it's indeed a very serious bug, but not my bot's one but the whole m:Pywikipedibot framework. You should comment them about it. -- Drini 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- The specific script I used from that framework is m:Category.py -- Drini 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Drini. I came here to point out that your bot did some serious damage to several of our cryptography templates. Especially to this one: Template:User WikiProject Cryptography. I hope the fix you mention above solves it. You should not let a bot automatically edit pages, you as a human should visually check each bot change before letting the bot save it. Now I have to manually check all the edits your bot done to our project... :((
--David Göthberg 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:The J.B.'s members
I just noticed (I don't watchlist) that this was created by Drinibot from the old category I created, Category:James Brown instrumentalists, evidently with the consensus of the interested parties on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. My question is, does this leave Bernard Odum, who played bass on most of Brown's classic 60s recordings but never performed with The J.B.'s in the 70s (or The J.B. Horns in later decades), irreparably out in the cold? Or is it permissible to massage the category description somehow to include him? Would appreciate a response.
Nice bot you created, by the way. It seems very useful. InnocuousPseudonym 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't know about individual entries. I just get my task list from Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working but I don't participate on the specific debates. I suppose you'd be better asking people involved in editing such topics. Sorry :), I just don't know what to advise you. -- Drini 21:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
WhisperNumber.com deletion
Hello Drini, You deleted an article titled WhisperNumber.com on 21:45, 29 May 2006 . I looked in history and and elsewhere but couldn't find why. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. john
- It was marked with Proposed deletionfor 5 days and noone objected. I happened to be doing the janitorial work that day and performed the deletion. I didn't do it by will, again, I was just doing the clean up work of the day. -- Drini 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe
Nice job :D Yonatan 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Fluenceopedia
Actually, it is. Did you not visit the link? If you do a Randompage there, chances are that the page was written by Fluence. I would have no issue with that (we have other Wikipedias which are like that), except that Fluence gives herself a level of nah-1 (more appropriately, according to language codes convention, nci-1). I guess you see no problem with that. Note that the person who has the second most edits, User:Glenn, has claimed a similar level of Nahuatl abilities and is responsible mostly for number pages. The only user who comes close in edits to either of the two of them is Ricardo_gs, but he has over 200 edits less than either of them, but it's really not important either as he also lists a level of nah-1.
So again, I tell you, it is the Fluenceopedia. --07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
CBOTB GA
For Drinibot:
|
| |
|
You were a contributing editor to Chicago Board of Trade Building during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we built this page from scratch. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles. | ||
|
| ||
 |
| |
Wikispecies
All set buddy :-) --lightdarkness 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha
I didn't even notice :) No harm done! – Riana 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Shell account
E-mail me a username and an initial password to use, and I'll try to get a shell account up for you. Ral315 » 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ward Wettlaufer
Why did you remove the Sigma Phi category reference on the Ward Wettlaufer page? I don't know that would not be of interest given he is a notable brother of Sigma Phi which is itself a notable collegiate fraternity since it is part of the Union triad and the first intercollegiate fraternity in the US.
(cur) (last) 21:00, 23 April 2007 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) m (2,044 bytes) ("Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17 " removing:Sigma Phi brothers)
Here, click on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 17 and look for Sigma Phi. -- drini 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
However, if you feel it's important to know that WW was a member of Sigma Phi, then do mention it on the article, don't recreate the category. -- drini 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun
Please undo your premature close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It had just been relisted, with a strong request to let it run the full five days, when you clsoed it, thus undoign the actions of the relsiting admin. DES 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. WP:IARis a policy allowing me to. -- drini 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Daniel was rather bounced into relisting. I don't see what difference another 5 days would have made. Both he and Drini made the right call deleting this article. It just isn't what we're about. WP:BLP and our basic duty to act responsibly trump a rather weak appeal to WP:NOT#CENSORED. WjBscribe 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to vote keep when this was clsoed. I will take the matter to deletion reveiw, and we'll see what happens there. DES 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh FFS. First amendment knee-jerks again.--Doc 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- The meme is notable and deserves an article. This is about the kid's article (but I expect most people won't be able to make the distinction) -- drini 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a question of the first admendment (I know perfectly well that doesn't apply on wikiopedia, which is not a governmental project). It is not even a question of whether the article should be kept (although i think it should). it is a question of closing an AfD against the expressed consensus, closing it early for no good reason, and thereby undoing another admin's judgement. I ask you one more time, please reconsideer the early clsoe. DES 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. Anyway Matt Crypto override me now, wheel warring anyone ? :P -- drini 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, fair point...wheel warring not good; sorry about that ;-) More discussion on this won't hurt, though, and I think it's not a straightforward issue either way.. — Matt Crypto 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the close has been reverted. I wouldn't have done that, I was in the process of composing my DRV post, but there is no issue for DRV unless you or someone else reverts again or closes early again. I hope you can see my point even if you disagree with it. DES 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although I would have liked to have seen the discussion run another couple of days, my comment was merely a suggestion, and I respect Drini's actions. What I do not respect is the unilateral overturning of the deletion closure. I have reverted to the closed debate and redeleted the article. Matt's actions were most certainly not called for. Daniel Bryant 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see that the close has been reverted. I wouldn't have done that, I was in the process of composing my DRV post, but there is no issue for DRV unless you or someone else reverts again or closes early again. I hope you can see my point even if you disagree with it. DES 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, fair point...wheel warring not good; sorry about that ;-) More discussion on this won't hurt, though, and I think it's not a straightforward issue either way.. — Matt Crypto 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. Anyway Matt Crypto override me now, wheel warring anyone ? :P -- drini 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh FFS. First amendment knee-jerks again.--Doc 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to vote keep when this was clsoed. I will take the matter to deletion reveiw, and we'll see what happens there. DES 16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Daniel was rather bounced into relisting. I don't see what difference another 5 days would have made. Both he and Drini made the right call deleting this article. It just isn't what we're about. WP:BLP and our basic duty to act responsibly trump a rather weak appeal to WP:NOT#CENSORED. WjBscribe 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)