Revision as of 15:29, 4 March 2007 editPeter Damian (original account) (talk | contribs)3,068 edits →Stop leaving threats on my talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:30, 4 March 2007 edit undoH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits →Stop leaving threats on my talk pageNext edit → | ||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
:: I'm afraid I can't do that. And stop behaving in this pompous way. ] 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | :: I'm afraid I can't do that. And stop behaving in this pompous way. ] 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
:Don't call me pompous, that is also a personal attack. Please argue the merits of my ideas and not resort in insulting me or you ''will'' be blocked the very next time you do it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:30, 4 March 2007
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
User talk:HighInBC/Header |
Helperbot Task 3
Task 3 for the helperbots has been approved, and I've posted the code. Could you full-protect WP:AIV/I (if you think that's appropriate - I certainly think it is) and add an appropriate note similar to the one you've placed on the Special IPs page? There hasn't been any commentary or editing of it, so I guess everyone's happy with what I came up with. Let me know if you have any problems with the new code. —Krellis (Talk) 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Kick ass, keep up the good work. I protected the page and left a note. I will update the source before I go to bed. InBC 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Bah, unneeded redirects are fun! (Okay, so I was lazy ;)) Now I just have to pass an RFA if I want to edit those instructions ever again! :) —Krellis (Talk) 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can use the talk page and the {{editprotected}} template. Once you have a few more thousand edits under your belt I am sure you will make a fine admin. InBC 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I was just joking. I don't think that's something I want to put myself through (plus I don't think I'd have the time, I already spend far too much time here) - I have no desire to deal with things like XfD, etc, and I've seen what happens to candidates who try to RFA just to fight vandalism (which is just about all I actually do on wiki, when I'm not hacking on bots). —Krellis (Talk) 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice
Good stuff. me too :) Deiz talk 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The HBC AIV Helperbot
Thanks for creating this bot. It's made my WP:AIV work so much easier. - Richardcavell 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (admin)
- No problem, it was fun to make. User:Krellis has made wonderful improvements to it recently. InBC 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Referenced Veiled pictures of Muhammad
and I have found few other pictures of Muhammad with very good citation of Museum Topkapi Museum. This could be a replacement of the un-velied image in case arbitration decides so. --- ALM 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another in Los Angeles County Museum of Art at . --- ALM 10:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
At least now no-body should say that veiled images are less cited as compared to the image they are pushing at the TOP of article. Can we agree on this fair point that there are veiled image with good citation available as replacement? Please? --- ALM 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have already agreed that the lead image can be veiled, but not as a method of removing the existing picture altogether, it can be moved if replaced. Of course I am but one person, you should seek further consensus before making such a change. I appreciate that you have found these images that can be used to expand the article. InBC 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Pardon?
Something doesn't quite parse in your comment on AN/I: . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did make a small typo, one instead of on, I fixed it. Does it pass the parser now? InBC 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, I found the other typo, an important one, able instead of unable. Thanks for pointing it out. InBC 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was pretty sure that was what you were getting at, but copyright is confusing enough.... Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Essjay's apologies
Hi, I've read at the Community noticeboard, written by you, that Essjay has already provided an apology. Can you please link me it?
Thanks and Happy Editing by SnowolfCON on 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly, it is his most recent edit: . InBC 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
HELP!
I accidently removed the " List begins BELOW this line -->" line from AIV now your bot has gone crazy--VectorPotential 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a new one. Looks like Krellis has stopped the craziness, thanks for the quick notification. We will work on a bug fix. InBC 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I just reverted 1.3 megabytes' worth of garbage added by the bot. Somehow it doubled the number of reports each time. Perhaps a sanity check to stop editing if the number of reports exceeds 1000? (and start again if it drops below, to prevent vandals screwing it up). At least then we'd be spared almost having our browsers crash trying to revert it :) – Qxz 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- A sanity check does seem like a good idea, I think we will do just that. Thank you for your patience. InBC 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Terribly sorry about that, it seems that losing the end of the comment indicator but not the beginning is the one case I managed not to test in my extensive sandbox work on this feature. I'm testing a fix now, as well as adding in a sanity check per Qxz's suggestion, and won't re-enable FixInstructions on AIV until HBC and I are confident it's fixed. —Krellis (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Username
See , should be bl;ocked for user name etc, SqueakBox 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, perhaps a reference to Dick Butkus. Perhaps WP:RFCN should take a look at it. InBC 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, no need, it is a vandal only account and can be blocked on sight, which I will do now. InBC 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
instructions
Hi! Recently you may or may not have noticed a really high rate of vandal reporting at WPAIV where the vandalism is neither in progress nor has occurred after a {{test4}}. Most commonly people will test4 an ip and then report them to wpaiv even though the vandal stops after the test4. I generally don't like to block that kind of vandal and enjoy even less having to explain it over and over. I would like to modify the instructions in the green box, just for wording, to emphasize (maybe in bold?) the concepts of IN PROGRESS and ALREADY RECEIVED A FINAL WARNING, just to see if that will cut down the work. (Of course, it will be nothing compared to how much work has been saved by your bot deleting the blocked ips - again, thanks). Can you show me how to edit the instructions- I can't even figure out where they are being generated. Cheers, Kaisershatner 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- The instructions are kept at Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/instructions. The page is protected to prevent vandalism, but you can make suggestions on the talk page and they can be implemented. InBC 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey High
I gave valid reasons for WP:U violation: "inflammatory". You may not think so, but that is just one POV (like mine). Please let it evolve normally. Most RFCNs last for days, not for hours. This case is especially contentious, and POV-pushing will not solve it. NikoSilver 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I really think there was clearly no indication that a consensus to disallow was likely, I think it should be closed. I will not revert you if you bring it back, but I stand by my decision. InBC 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, please let it stay there for a day or two, and we see if you are right. I'm reverting and citing our conversation as a reason. NikoSilver 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a note, RFCNs rarely last days, and are usually done in a half day or so. It is not unusual to close them this early. InBC 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- The last closing was on false reasons. Please see Ryan's talk. I don't get it why you all have this itch to close it so fast! If you are right, then there won't be consensus and it will finish. Why not wait? What are you afraid of? NikoSilver 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see a lack of acceptance of the consensus. InBC 00:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Indexerbot Signature
Do you have any thoughts on the Indexerbot's signature now that it's been renamed? I changed it (temporarily) to "", but I'm not a huge fan of that... I liked the short HBCBot, but it doesn't quite fit with the new name. HAIbot? HBC AIbot? I haven't come up with anything that I really like yet, so I figured I'd see if you had any thoughts. —Krellis (Talk) 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, how about ""? InBC 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's not bad. And if people can't figure out what it is, they can always mouseover or just click to see where it goes. I updated prefs and did a run, it looks decent enough. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Your bot
Details please, sounds interresting, SqueakBox 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it is User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, I add this line to a page and next time the bot runs it goes through all the archives and makes links to each heading and lays them out on one index page. Here is an example: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index. I somewhat abandoned it a while ago, but User:Krellis has started working on it and has improved it significantly. Next time it runs an index should be generated. InBC 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- And there it is: Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive index InBC 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection level of indexer default template
Now that the name change has been completed, what do you think about semi- or full-protecting User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/default template? On the one hand, I'd prefer semi-protection so I can still modify it w/o using {{editprotected}} or bugging you, but on the other hand, the more popular the bot gets, the more risk there is that the template could be used for bad things. I suppose there's also some argument for going back to an off-wiki default template, with the on-wiki copy just being for reference purposes - after all, if anyone wants to change it, they can just create their own template and call it from the OptIn (once I document that feature, anyway :)). Keeping the actual default template on-wiki seems more in line with wiki-philosophy, though. What do you think? Code-wise, it really makes little difference, of course. —Krellis (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will protect it, you can bug me if it needs to be changed. People can make their own if they want it modified, and if they have a great idea for the default they can use the talk page. InBC 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, sounds fine to me, and for testing anything I want to put into the default, I can do the same, using my own version and then only bugging you when I'm done. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Image That Should Be Deleted Immediately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Prussianblueduo.jpg.
You can see why. It's disgusting. Acalamari 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- hehe, taken care of. InBC 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you: somebody replaced the entire Prussian Blue (duo) talk page with it. I'm surprised it wasn't deleted last time the talk page was replaced with it. Acalamari 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- The user that uploaded it and replaced the page has been indef blocked as a vandal only account. InBC 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did see that; thank you again. :) Acalamari 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- That IP you just blocked; they vandalized my user page just before you blocked them. I guess you saw the vandalism anyway. Acalamari 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, I have your talk page on my watch list. InBC 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I gathered that, thanks! I'll add your user and talk pages to my watchlist then. That way, if I see any vandalism to you, I'll revert it. Acalamari 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
What's going on
Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.
In what sense does (this this or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. edward (buckner) 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- He was blocked after being asked to stop over and over and over. The diffs you present are not the same diffs used as the reason for the original block. It was only a 24 hours block, one which I did not give. I gave a second block for personal attacks, also 24 hours. He is welcome back when that time is over. I appreciate you do not think the block is needed, but me and the other admin disagree. You are welcome to make a post at WP:AN/I if you think it is unfair. InBC 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
How do I get article noticed to be fixed
I was randomly browsing and came across the chronic pain article. It seems like it should be an article of value to lots of users yet it seems vary under worked on. I was just wondering if either you could tell me the best ways to get the article noticed for more work (lists ect to put it on) or if you could do it your self. Thank you. Lonjers 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, by putting templates from here: WP:TM/CLEAN onto an article you place it into categories that people can find the article through. For example the {{unreferenced}} tag can be added to an article without references and that will place it in Category:Articles lacking sources. InBC 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop leaving threats on my talk page
Thanks. If you read carefully what I said, which was that you guys seem to be behaving like f---wits, you will see it was not a personal attack. It was a comment on your strange behaviour. edward (buckner) 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot just put a conditional after your comment and insult away, the warning stands, I suggest you take it to heart. "Yes well you are fuckwits, it seems to me." is a personal attack. InBC 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't do that. And stop behaving in this pompous way. edward (buckner) 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't call me pompous, that is also a personal attack. Please argue the merits of my ideas and not resort in insulting me or you will be blocked the very next time you do it. InBC 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)