User talk:Slakr/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

3rr

Can you explain why warning was issued instead of block? as you wrote:

Warned. – actual 3RR warning was made 21:04, 31 July 2008, after which user stopped. Re-report if user continues. --slakr^{\ talk /} 05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reply on your talk page to keep discussion in one place. Wikidās ॐ 07:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user stopped editing after the {{uw-3rr}} was given and hasn't edited since. If the user continues violating the 3RR, simply drop a note either there or here, and feel free to change the "Result" thing in the title to indicate new activity. Mainly, I try to avoid blocking if there's reason to believe that the block would be punitive rather than preventative. In this case, I could simply be deluding myself, but I'm hoping the user simply didn't know about the three revert rule, and the actual specific 3RR warning (instead of the vandal-oriented template, {{uw-vand4}}) was informative in that sense. Again, if I turn out to be wrong, definitely update the report and/or my talk page accordingly. --slakr^\ talk / 07:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago bot tagging

What is the current schedule for the bot tagging?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong bot. Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You better have blocked the other user who reverted the politico page 3 times as well. Otherwise it is clear that you teamed up with a fellow liberal to shutup the conservatives around here. Just like on the John Edwards page. Absolutely disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself and your fascist behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's the 4th revert in 24 hours that breaks the three-revert rule (3RR), as you were made aware; therefore, Gamaliel did not break the 3RR. So, while it might be more comforting to you to believe there's all some evil cabal out to get you and that I represent the evil forces of liberalism / darkness / conservativism / nazis / jews / christians / athiests / mustard / jelly / peanut butter, truth be told I really just have a pet peeve for edit wars. But, you're free to believe whatever you would like, obviously. :P --slakr^\ talk / 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:)

NonvocalScream (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NonvocalScream (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

I love your bot, especially the fact that it'll sign this post in seconds without me having to negotiate with those ugly tildes. Nice :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.94 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay for Sinebot! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sine-bot

Ahoy. Cool bot. Except when it gets on my bad side, which is a lot. I use two accounts, my admin account for adminny things (User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson) and this account (User:Mr. Gustafson) for everything else. However, I still request that people contact me through the admin account, and the signature I use while logged in as User:Mr. Gustafson reflects that, providing a link to the admin account. However, Sine-bot thinks I haven't signed (despite the presence of a user name and date stamp) and follows up with its little thing that it does... The most recent example is here. Anyway, it doesn't do this all the time, but when it does it is clearly in error and provides me the annoyance of having to revert it. I was wondering if you could program an exception or whatever it is you robot wizards do. Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It thinks you're trying to impersonate someone else. Check out User:SineBot#Opting_out. --slakr^\ talk / 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so I did the thing that's supposed to opt me out, and the bot is still signing my posts... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gustafson (talk • contribs)

Sorry to pester you, but is this going to be addressed? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gustafson (talk • contribs)

Apologies, but is it that you are ignoring me or simply are unable to help? I applied the proscribed fix, it did not work. I have tried several times to address this issue, you have not replied. The bot is signing my posts when it should not be, and you are not responding. If it does so again, I will block it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Gustafson (talk • contribs)

I am currently having a problem that sinebot is autosigning my contributions: I sign using the 4 tildes (which for some reason is not putting a link to my user page like it used to, am I doing something wrong?) and then signbot signs after me. See eg Talk:Divine Mafa. And probably here when I sign. Babakathy 06:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakathy (talk • contribs)

thanks Babakathy (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First time, but figured I'd report it since I read my way to this page already: diff JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLucas (talk • contribs)

Okay, I was editing my Commons signature, and I accidentally edited my Wikipedia one too. As you can see, it has a unnecessary (but technically okay) :en: before User:. Perhaps you can teach Sine-Bot to ignore that particular irregularity? Best, JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot problem

Sinebot has gone nuts! Whenever i put a signature..... (with talk page like this: Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ) it will go and put the unsigned thing. Can you stop it as it wastes space. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre. It must have something to do with the + or =. I'll see what's going on. For now, use {{NoAutosign}} on your user page or user talk page to get it to ignore you. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

my reply to you

You wrote; Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Main Page, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —slakr\ talk / 11:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

my reply follows----------------

1 I did not know I removed comments at Talk:Main Page. I will try to be careful about that in the future. I thought I was always in an "edit" area.

2 What should I do if I am trying to make an "edit" and I get confused. Is there some way to simply abandon the effort and leave the page untouched.

3 If I have questions about editing -- where is the best place to post them

4 Does 4 tildes always sign my name?

5 When I "save" this page -- will it be delivered to you?

6 If you answer me -- (a) how do I know that and (b) how do I find the message

Thanks

Marty Martycarbone (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fast delete

Can you please fast delete category Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rjecina and IP pages in questions. If you look history of that category and IP you will find that 2 out of 3 users puppets tags are created by banned user and 3rd is stale so it is not possible to check. My edits on wikipedia are under attack of banned user and if history of this editors is not clear enough you can read administrator Wknight94 talk page. I am writing this from my IP address (puppet !!) so that you can see my real IP. Can you later delete this section from your talking page? Thanks Rjecina--212.91.99.205 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed user KhoiKURČINA from this category --212.91.99.205 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing RfC

Hi, how to withdraw RfC. I started a rfc in Talk:Bajrang Dal, but now I am beginning to agree with the rationale of the other editor and want to withdraw the rfc. What is the process? Should I simply remove the rfc template or something other? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the other editors are okay with it, simply deactivate the template (e.g., stick "tlx|" at the beginning of it making it "{{tlx|RFC...") and add a comment in the discussion saying that you've done so and that anyone else if free to undo it if they would like. --slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you delete my page thats not cool i wasn't doing anything wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinny0302001 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit War User:PhilLiberty

The first actions taken by the editor upon his return from the block that you implemented were:

Further edits at United States Declaration of Independence along the same theme -- attempting to diminish the significance of Lincoln.

An edit at American Revolutionary War that added back material twice reverted -- once by me and once by another editor. The issue involved is one involving the issue of secession which has been discussed at Articles of Confederation where the editor failed to receive consensus (or any support) to add to that article.

An edit at Gettysburg Address, a Featured Article, that continues the anti-Lincoln theme.

An edit at Emancipation Proclamation that continues the anti-Lincoln theme.

An edit at Treaty of Paris (1783) that involves the issues raised at the Articles of Confederation article.

I reverted three of these edits and another editor reverted two of them. Any suggestions or actions in what seems to be devolving further into an “edit war of attrition” would be appreciated. A copy of this message was also sent to User:Ultraexactzz who sustained the original block. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM:In fact, on the article that generated the block, United States Declaration of Independence, Phil is already up to three reverts. The specific revert involved the information box at the top right of the Article. The existing text was “purpose=Announce and explain separation from Britain”. He has now changed this three times since his block to “purpose=Announce and explain secession from British Empire.

This change was discussed in depth at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence#Is "secede" a dirty word? with four editors opposing and only Phil favoring the description of the American Revolution as a secession. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk)

D'oh, forgot to reply. Anyway, I blocked the editor for 72 hours this time, since it doesn't look like he was willing to refrain from edit warring. --slakr^\ talk / 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Within hours of the end of the 72 hr. block Phil made this edit [[1]]

This reverted most of this specific language, “beginning in 1854 as he spoke out against slavery and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, provided a reinterpretation” and changed “provided a reinterpretation” to “popularized a reinterpretation.”

This was reverted by me (along with a few additions) with an explanation on the discussion page. The response was this edit [[2]]. Once again the change from “provided” to “promoted” was made.

At the same time, Phil restored similar (but not identical) language added at this edit [[3]] and reverted at this edit [[4]] by User:Tedickey The language was added back in again at [[5]] and it was reverted by User:JimWae with this edit [[6]].

Despite the fact that five different editors have reverted Phil’s edits for one reason or another, and despite the fact that nobody has concurred with him on the discussion pages, he continues to add material based on the same theme. A copy of this has also been provided to User:Ultraexactzz Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. doesn't quite look like edit warring yet, but I'll keep an eye on it. Lemme know if it gets out of control/becomes obvious. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me, but not the other guy. Why?

On August 2, you blocked me for violation of the 3RR rule regarding edits to the University of Florida article, but you did not block Fliry Vorru, who was also in violation of the 3RR rule for reverting my edits to the page, and also duly warned. Why the disparate treatment?Ufuncecu (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That editor only reverted 3 times, and a person violates the 3RR on the 4th revert. Had it been apparent that the other editor was resorting to longer term edit warring, I would have blocked; but, it was clear from the other reverts by multiple other editors that consensus was against your changes. As a result, your editing behavior was the only thing sustaining the edit war. Also, since there were so many others opposed to your changes, they might be considered disruptive edits, which would have also gotten you, but not the other person, blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting take on the facts. So, let me see if I understand: in an article with as many contributors as the University of Florida article has, you consider a consensus as 3 against 2? That doesn't hold much water. Second, I think you need to count Fliry Vorru's reverts one more time. Let me help:

1. 03:37, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229347757 by Ufuncecu (talk) This is ridiculous.) (undo)
2. 04:49, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229351795 by Ufuncecu (talk) Same old revert) (undo)
3. 05:01, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229357158 by Ufuncecu (talk) Undone for FINAL time. Please refer to discussion.) (undo)
4. 14:03, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229392691 by 69.23.202.204 (talk) This addition is in discussion. See the Talk page for further info.) (undo)

That adds up to four every time you count it.

And finally, regarding my change to the article that you think may have even been disruptive editing: it is now a part of the article, and the consensus is that it belongs. So I am glad I didn't give up simply because a "consensus" was originally against me. I think you should be more thoughtful in deciding who to block and who to let slide.Ufuncecu (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You blocked me again, apparently out of retaliation for my comments above. Luckily, I was able to email the admin who handled the case and argued to him that the evidence could not possibly confirm that I am 66.26.89.99 (since I am not). He agreed and lifted my block early. I plan to report your abuse of the block function.Ufuncecu (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as you might like to believe there was some retaliatory motive at hand, there simply wasn't. I'm far too lazy to let something as silly as this even remotely influence my emotions. When you were originally blocked, you were the only one in violation of 3RR. When you brought up the second point by posting the diffs, I decided to investigate instead of blocking Fliry Vorru (talk · contribs) automatically, since it's not an uncommon occurrence for disruptive users to evade blocks in order to push a particular point of view and/or "win" an edit war. Since the edits looked suspiciously familiar, I filed the RFCU and decided not to block Fliry Vorru (talk · contribs) until receiving the results back, as reverting block/ban evading users qualifies as an exception to the three revert rule. Once the checkuser was confirmed by Sam, I blocked you for having continued an edit war while blocked. Whether or not you actually were edit warring while blocked is irrelevant, as you have since been unblocked. It's as simple as that.

Naturally, of course, you're free to believe I'm some evil dude/someone holding a grudge/someone out to get you/someone who'll win at any cost/whatever; however, I assure you that you would be incorrect in those beliefs. I simply check WP:AN3, try to end edit wars in the quickest way possible, and if someone gives me reason to doubt them, I doubt them and investigate that doubt. Again, it's as simple as that.

If you truly believe I was incorrect in my actions, however, most people tend to launch complaints at the administrators' noticeboard/incidents (ANI), so you're totally free to do so if you so desire. --slakr^\ talk / 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid Drum Rudiments Page

You deleted this back in February. I had looked at in in October 07 and thought it was useful, do you think you could send me a copy? Email is davidcadrian@gmail.com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.29.0.232 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

I run a wiki (MW 1.12.x) at which the users don't seem to understand comment signing (we recently moved from using the pbwiki code to using mediawiki) so I was wondering if I could have the bot to use at my wiki? NightKev (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

At 00:11, 12 August 2008 you removed my report of an IP address from the vandalism board, but did not take care of the matter, nor did you leave any explanation. Considering this user is continuously vandalising this page I would think that some form of action would be taken. -Fall Of Darkness (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're speaking of this, the contributions list didn't reveal obvious, persistent vandalism, there are constructive edits, that the user's prior removal of info from the page a relatively long time ago could arguably be an issue of WP:BLP, since the information was unsourced. Should the latter be the case, the removal would be warranted. Long story short, it probably doesn't belong on WP:AIV. --slakr^\ talk / 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Help Request

Hi Kurt - Slakr Administrator

before making errors (or to receive reproaches) I would like to know if I can widen the explanation of the term / headword "SESAMO (Sexrelational Test)"

Thanks for the helps and best regards

Vincent Trevisan (Italy)

aka Trevinci (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I edit Anti-Americanism?

What am I allowed to edit? What do you mean by edit warring. I didn't edit war the first time. The anti-American article is OBVIOUSLY not neutral. Rachel63 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually somewhat troubling that that's the first article you set your sights for after the good faith unblock. Anyway, to answer your question, what articles you edit is really up to you. I couldn't care less what you edit— I just don't wanna have to deal with someone running, screaming to my talk page about this, that, or the other. :P That said, I would guess that editing that, particular article is likely going to be the quickest way to get re-blocked (for any number of reasons— edit warring, sock accusations, pov pushing, civility, etc); and, the next time around, the likely scenario is going to be that nobody is going to support an unblock. We've literally got millions of articles; but, if you wanna descend back into the lion's den, that's your choice :P. I, for one, am going to continue avoiding it like the plague. --slakr^\ talk / 09:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wtf man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverback144 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ACtually, I saw some Korean articles I want to fix while I was blocked. But I don't see why I should be more afraid to edit anti-americanism than anybody else. I have equal rights. The article offends me. Rachel63 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you're free to edit whatever you want and I'm not gonna care. It was simple advice to you to not edit articles you're emotionally invested in. The same advice would go to anyone else wishing to edit any number of our controversial topics, because any number of them will, no matter how many revisions are made, always have a handful of people who find them offensive, non-neutral, biased, and any number of other qualities. However, as Admiral Akbar will help point out, editing any of the articles in which you are emotionally invested is a trap, because at some point, most editors will end up crossing the line between rational discourse and irrational belief, leading to edit wars. That's all I was trying to caution you about. Where you go from from that is totally up to you, but I'll be able to sleep well knowing I at least tried to give you fair warning to the various storms that may await you should you decide to sail those seas. :P --slakr^\ talk / 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You know the problem with the AA article is that almost any edit you make is reverted right away and Colin4c makes fun of you right away, so it sucks you in. I don't want to spend twice as much time on that article as anything else, but if Colin4C argues with every single thing that you do, you start spending more time there. The only option is to give up, which isn't how Wikipedia should work. Rachel63 (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

"You were confirmed as a sockpuppet by checkuser. Therefore, I'm not sure how you'll avoid going near... ermm... yourself... in the future."

I just wanted to say that my thoughts are with him at this time, it sounds like a painful clinical procedure.  Asenine  21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Hi Slakr, just letting you know SineBot signed something that it should not have signed here. ΛVΛVΛ^Talk 15:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake; I had my talk page going to User talk:User talk:ΛVΛVΛ so that's probably what confused it. ΛVΛVΛ^Talk 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Hi Slakr, just a heads up, but your bot appears to be signing and notifying posts made by User:Itfc+canes=me, despite already being signed and timestamped. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes.... thanks Julian. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.....

SwisterTwister (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

By the way, I appreciate what User:SineBot does, he's a big help. Cheers, Kurt!:) - --SwisterTwister (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rachel63

I have reapplied your indefinite block of this user. This is a slam dunk sock of User:Bsharvy who, since you unblocked, got up to exactly the same behavioural problems we've been seeing on Anti-Americanism for almost a year. Durova had actually asked for a community ban and I'm not sure if it was made official. In any case, this is a sockpuppeter we shouldn't be letting in the door. Normally I'd wait to ask you, but he was at AN causing the same time-wasting problems a couple of hours ago, so I blocked. Feel free to ask for more info. Marskell (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's totally fine with me. I reasoned that I'd AGF on the remote possibility that something good would have come of it, but it appears that nothing did, so c'est la vie, right?. :P Ah well. Cheers :P --slakr^\ talk / 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RD Reynolds and Vandalism

Since you took off the protection tag on the article RD Reynolds a few days ago, it has been vandalized repeatedly by sock puppets of User:ECW500. I am requesting that the protection tag be put back onto it so that it cannot be vandalized. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I semied it for now. As per our protection policy, the page had been fully protected for far too long. --slakr^\ talk / 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Invisible Ink and Scantegrity II

Why did you remove the reference to Scantegrity II from Invisible_ink? AndersJohnson (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's original research (link was a primary source), spam (it fails verifiability through secondary/scholarly sources), and quite possibly a conflict of interest. Same goes for Scantegrity II, which was deleted per criteria for speedy deletion - G11 - blatant advertising. --slakr^\ talk / 04:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the primary source was in fact reliable, being published in a peer-reviewed journal by highly reputable authors, and that the article was not interpretive. Another editor added a link to the missing article in End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems, so I felt there was a need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersJohnson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a press release made to look like a journal article. If it isn't, however, simply cite the reference to the article in the journal. --slakr^\ talk / 05:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This thing is an academic project, and I don't see why pointing to copies of articles on the author's website counts as an advert. It even says "This paper will appear in the proceedings of USENIX/ACCURATE EVT 2008." As abstracts are meant to be advertisements for the paper I can see how you could have thought it was an advertisement, but how hard is it to google "Scantegrity USENIX"? [7] Toshardin (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this work meets the self-published sources exclusion, see David Chaum, Ron Rivest, and Punchscan. It is obvious that these authors are experts in the field of Computer Science, not to mention it was never in violation to begin with. I still wish to know why posting a copy of a published work on your website counts as spam/self-sourcing/etc.. Could you undelete/give the text to the Scantegrity articles? I have the feeling five minutes of finding the original source links and changing the feel for some of the language would satisfy your objections.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshardin (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1. It was written like an advertisement (see also WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV).
2. You appear to have a conflict of interest.
3. One paper does not satisfy our notability criteria to have its own article. --slakr^\ talk / 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re the advert, I guess you're talking about the article (which I haven't seen because it was deleted). Fair enough. I have found numerous references through a quick google search (IEEE, USENIX, RangeVoting.org, MSNBC, MIT Technology Review, NPR, etc). What is the minimum number of references required? I think the language can be changed, we can add these references, and you will be satisfied. I do not understand the COI (i've read the whole COI page twice now). Could you elaborate on why you believe I have a COI? I don't think we should remove reliable sources illustrating the practical use of a technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toshardin (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re COI, I'm not aware of any plans to commercialize the system, I would not stand to gain from its adoption, and I have no personal relationship with the authors. Re advertising, I still don't see it (let alone blatant), but I guess that's subjective; I tried to pattern the article after Punchscan and ThreeBallot. I'll concede that notability is a possible concern for now, as the paper is less than a month old. AndersJohnson (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that while we're waiting to establish the notability of Scantegrity II as a separate topic, we restore the original reference to it in Invisible_ink, complete with the original journal citation. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersJohnson (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which already happened, I just noticed. Doh! AndersJohnson (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Slakr, can you help me by pointing out a couple of biased statements in the deleted article? Thanks! AndersJohnson (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You know how a brochure reads? That's basically the tone of the whole article. One of the best examples is, "Because Scantegrity II differs from a traditional optical scan voting system only in the type of ink used and in the addition of optional steps, it retains the familiar integrity properties." In fact, that sentence, alone, basically sums up why it likely fails WP:N: it's best placed in a section of the main article— if it's to be included at all. --slakr^\ talk / 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree that this statement does not belong. Can you give me any actionable advice on how to neutralize the overall tone? I'm having some difficulty distinguishing the tone from that of Punchscan, for example. Thanks! AndersJohnson (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi Slakr. Thank you for unblocking me. Why did the Block log shows that I was unblocked at 03:03:56 when I wasn't? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The second block was an autoblock on your IP address, so while your normal block was removed, the autoblock (essentially, a second block automatically added by mediawiki) on your IP address was still in effect. --slakr^\ talk / 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and a Little Help

Just wanted to thank you for upping the protection level on RD Reynolds again but I seem to be having a problem of my own. Someone editing from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.245.171.32 went and put a sock puppet thing on both my and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:COOLRUNNER87 talk pages. It's one of the vandals from that page trying to get revenge or whatever, it's really stupid. I removed it from both of our pages but wasn't sure if that was ok or not. It's obvious that neither one of us are sock puppets of the guy who keeps doing the vandalism since we always revert it. Just thought I'd run this by you since you dealt with the first page. It really is pretty stupid all around. DX927 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. It's pretty obvious it was done in bad faith by the user, and no SSP case was opened. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the Protection on the Feng Shui

Hello,

Can you please tell me why you have lifted the protection on the Feng Shui page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedonafengshui (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) --Sedonafengshui (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally protected due to an edit war, which has since seemed to have died down. Per our protection policy, the protection was removed. --slakr^\ talk / 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The only reason the edit war stopped was because of the protection. If you read the discussion board you will see that there is no consensus on this page. Removing the protection without consensus will only lead to more problems. I would request that you review the discussion page and put this page back under protection until consensus is reached. Thank you. --216.19.43.241 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)--Sedonafengshui (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to request that, but they'll probably tell you the same thing I have. --slakr^\ talk / 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User requesting unblock who is affected by your rangeblock

See User_talk:Florin92. He may have been hit by a rangeblock that you placed. You may want to comment on his User talk. I did not want to give him any advice without consulting you first. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(un)Blocking of Opera Mini servers

Hi!

I work for Opera Software as system administrator for Opera Mini.

I understand you have blocked users from Opera Mini server IPs from editing Wikipedia due to abuse.

To address this issue, I've now had our IP ranges added to the XFF project (we were already forwarding the x-forwarded-for header).

The Opera Mini Demo application specifically mentioned in your block will have a unique IP in it's x-forwarded-for header, and can be permanently blacklisted. It's not intended for regular use, only as a test-drive of the product.

I have verified that the addresses are listed in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/trusted-xff.txt.

But still, I get blocked from some of our IPs, but not others. Are only parts or the ranges blocked, or are not all Wikipedia servers using the same configuration?

Please contact me (kronberg (at) opera.com) to resolve this as soon as possible, or direct me to someone who can help. Since these servers are not normal web proxies, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to go through the normal process for unblocking an open proxy.

Regards,

//Mats Operamk (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll drop you an email in a second, but I figured I'd reply here just in case. Since it looks like you've placed the demo on 195.189.142.176, and Ryulong has already blocked that one; and, on top of that, all of the XFF stuff is in place now, I've now unblocked 195.189.142.0/23 and 91.203.96.0/22. Those were the two ranges that I think I was originally able to proxy through using the demo. Anyway, thanks a million for your help, and keep up the great work. :) Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1

Hey slakr, can you please lock Aleenf1's profile because IP users vandalized his profile to avoid ruining.

I found the page history of his profile which they were a vandalism pages:
Old revision by 66.93.43.66
Old revision by 62.158.70.254
Old revision by Cptnrodent
Old revision by 76.185.91.79
Old revision by 212.23.162.37
Old revision by 154.20.148.225 (1)
Old revision by 154.20.148.225 (2)
Old revision by 154.20.148.225 (3)
Old revision by 64.231.1.124 (1)
Old revision by 64.231.1.124 (2)
Old revision by 71.107.129.219
Old revision by Paraside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.110.167 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be excessive enough to warrant automatic semi protection for the time being, though the user is free to request it him/herself as per our protection policy. --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it declined to semi-protect Aleenf1's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.110.167 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Keenyah Hill

Hi Slakr, Can you please lock the page of Keenyah Hill (America's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 third placer) for full-protection to recreate the article again. Which it was deleted back in November 2006. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot mis-sign

Just thought I'd let you know that Sinebot signed a message on an AFD vote I made, which had a date and a link to my userpage. Here is my signature:

— {{SUBST:User|Byeitical}}

Diff: [8] — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because your signature is malformed. You have two colons preceding each wikilink (e.g., "::User:Byeitical"). Technically speaking, this denotes a page in the article namespace called ":User:Byeitical"; however, Mediawiki will still guess and render the link correctly because there is no article named that (yet). Remove the two preceding colons and all will be well in the world. Alternatively, simply opt out of auto-signing. --slakr^\ talk / 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hi slaker when is the ryan signtunre on the edit page thanks a millon cyberdemon4

pleese tell me where it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberdemon4 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

Why did SineBot sign a backup article? See User:Andy Bjornovich/Sandbox, but if it isn't there, see the discussion page for it. Thanks.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 10:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you're talking about. Please use diffs, like I instruct in the huge FAQ at the top of this page. --slakr^\ talk / 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your SineBot is driving me crazy!

My sig works fine, but for some reason, your SineBot keeps autosigning it and posting stuff on my usertalk! I use four tildes, and it does include the date and everything, so can you please make your bot behave?

I'm not cranky, really. that's just the way i talk, well, type. ~ The Rebel's Gone Pokeynuts LOL 12:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're signing as User:Princess Rebel, but your actual user name is User:Rebel Queen Pokeynut, thus, it signs because it doesn't detect a valid signature pointing to your user page. --slakr^\ talk / 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

okay, i'll change it. thanks ~ The Rebel's Gone Pokeynuts LOL 05:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

SineBot vs. sandbox talk pages

Do you think SineBot should be signing things on the sandbox talk pages? (Wikipedia talk:Sandbox, that is, not Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox.) Some things aren't comments, and people probably won't expect their edits to be signed... Know what I mean?  — SheeEttin {T/C} 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Like it says on its user page, it signs stuff in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, as well. There are ways to make it stop, just like it says on its user page. --slakr^\ talk / 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature Problem

Hello, Sinebot recently told me that I am not signing my posts. I am using the signature button but it isn't hotlinking my signatures and I keep seeing that my comments are unsigned. What is the problem? Thanks in advance! --Flans44 20:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncheck the "raw signature" bcheckbox in "my preferences." --slakr^\ talk / 19:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Flans44 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

Hello, I added {{bots|deny=SineBot}} to Template:AFC pending which was on this page. However SineBot still signed which we don't want. Is there a way we can stop this? Doesn't putting {{bots}} on transcluded templates work? Thanks, MSGJ 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

{{bots}} doesn't work on transcluded templates; 1., it produces no output, and 2., none of the bots (including SineBot) are gonna loop through every transcluded template on the page to try to find where/if it's transcluded, as that would eat considerable amounts of bandwidth. --slakr^\ talk / 19:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what can I do? It would not be convenient to add to every page. Is there any way you could stop the bot signing anything on pages with that particular prefix? MSGJ 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Msgj, I can do it for your with AWB. Please leave me a message on my talk page. --mboverload@ 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You Have Bloked Me Why What did i do Wrong and i was roughly typing main points before i edited its content by at that stage i was blokeed and i wasnt trying to promot a Business as im a non profit entity,Promoting Back to the street Shopping Supporting local Comunity Safty

blocking

Why did you block and I want a clear and legitimate reason. The works I contributed are totally legitimate, as I have proven the level of understanding of the section (in talk page of function (mathematics) is known to the general society and I have give reason as to why the section will do a better job than the opposing work contributed by the users. The opposing users revert my section, without giving a better solution and delete my edits. (This is totally biased which violate the WP:NPOV.) Also during one my reverts, I also made minor edits, which make the section even less technical which they ignore. So why am I being blocked for contributing NPOV works and constantly improving when the opposing choose to ignore, because of stubborness and inability to written better works. The WP:CONS is based on freedom of speech law which doesn't require me to remove my works, unless it is a biased article, a personal attack...etc, which I haven't violate. So what are you giving me illegitimate consequences? --Ramu50 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that being blocked can be annoying, confusing, and seemingly unjust. More or less, the order of events:

1. I check our three revert rule violation noticeboard regularly.
2. I saw this report wasn't actioned on.
3. I checked for the existence and nature of edit warring in Function (mathematics)'s page history.
4. I checked to make sure you were warned about violating the three revert rule by checking for a warning like {{uw-3rr}} on your talk page.
5. I checked to see whether you still chose to edit war after being informed of that policy.
6. I blocked you due to there being sufficient evidence of willful edit warring.

As a general rule of thumb, a lot of administrators, including myself, couldn't care less what edit is right/wrong; rather, we're more interested in dealing with those breaking our policies and guidelines for harmonious editing on the encyclopedia. In the future, please attempt dispute resolution instead of resorting to edit warring. Even better, try to stick to one revert and you'll probably never have to worry about getting blocked for edit warring again. Of course, that's just a suggestion. Hopefully that answers your question. --slakr^\ talk / 23:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing text

Hi Kurt. Thanks a lot. The browser dropped some buffers on the save which hadn't shown up on the preview -- and I just saw it and was changing browsers temporarily (FireFox --> IE oddly) to fix what had happened. Thanks so very much. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove Vandalism

Heya, I was undoing the results of some pagemove vandalism by User:Blameoften and saw he did something I haven't seen before. He first moved War on Terrorism to some stupid redlink, and then moved it back. Later, you had to move it to the same page, and then move it back again. Why did he do that? And why did you have to double-move it as well? Was he trying to get all the redirects to War on Terrorism to point to the wrong place unnoticed? --JaGa^talk 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. It's possible he was testing out pagemove vandalism to see how it worked and self-reverted so that he had more time to set up the subsequent moves. The reason I reverted twice is that the script I wrote generally fixes pagemove vandalism in bulk by reverting the moves that have been performed in reverse order of how they were performed. So, if the dude self-reverted along the way, it would still run through the self-revert unless otherwise told. --slakr^\ talk / 05:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your sign-bot

Hi, I like the auto-sign bot of yours. What is it based on? in which language? what is it's feed? is it on constantly? do you run it on your own computer, or perhaps from the toolserver? Did you publish your code under a free license? If so, can you send me the source code? Thanks, Yonidebest Ω Talk‏, a bot-operator and sysop in Hebrew wikipedia, 08:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of 202.47.122.14

Hello Slakr. Recently you put a block on 202.47.122.14, which happens to be the IP of the school I attend. I have no objection to the block, but it seems that somehow your block is stopping everyone at that IP address from editing, including me and a friend that both have registered accounts. Even when we are logged into our accounts we cannot edit. This is most unfair, since it is our every intention to improve wikipedia. Our school IP has been blocked in the past, and we have still been able to edit using accounts. Could you please make whatever changes are neccesary to resolve this issue? Thank you in advance. --Simpsons fan 66 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Strange, though, that an entire school would be placed on an adsl uplink, but w/e :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Slakr. --Simpsons fan 66 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JoemerCAM

Hey Slakr! This morning you blocked JoemerCAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours. Just wanted to drop you a note to say I've extended this to indef as their response to the block was to continue the same behaviour using obvious sockpuppets. (1 2 3). Hope you don't mind. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you slakr

Ive made some adjustments to the Showbiz Pizza Place Page and proposed a merger. This is getting easier by the day. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my "Bjornen 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)" signature?

Your bot felt there was something wrong with my signature (created with tildetildetildetilde): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross_compiler&diff=237915251&oldid=237915119

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornen (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pukhtunman

Hey, Alison actually confirmed it, you can leave a note on her talk page to double-check, but she has indeed confirmed that Pukhtunman is a sockpuppet of the banned user Wasabi salafi koonkati (talk · contribs) via CheckUser. Khoikhoi 06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. :-) Unfortunately there's no CheckUser report but feel free to leave a message on Alison's talk page. She also confirmed that Pukhtunman = Smeagleeater, used largely for vandalism ([9], [10]). This goes against Pukhtunman's claims that his edits "have been aimed at correcting errors and rectifying POV." Khoikhoi 06:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As Khoikhoi says, both of these are  Confirmed by checkuser. I recommend declining unblock - Alison ^❤ 06:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Joyous. Thanks a million for looking into it. Now I can officially mark this as Wayyy too much work for dealing with a stinky old sock and move on. :P Heh, cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Kenya

Hi, could you please reconsider your decision for the semi-protection of Kenya? There were 2 protections within the last 10 days, this is why it was quiet in the meantime. The last semi-protection expired only at 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC) and a few hours later there was the next vandalism. Thank you and best regards, -- R.Schuster (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Settled, thanks anyhow, obviously my POV is wrong. Brgds, -- R.Schuster (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RFPP Backlog

I wouldn't say the backlog is gone on RFPP. This edit has been sitting there for over ten hours along with others before and after that. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined?! Oh gee, thanks. I wait 12 hours and you decline it, even though it has support. Does it matter this has been going on two days or their is an active checkuser on that IP? That IP is also vandalizing the same images on WikiCommons? Thanks alot. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I owe you an apology for my comments above. I took my anger, anger I have for the person causing the vandalism, out on you. That was uncalled for and unnecessary on my part. I will take my place in the corner now. Again, my apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

96.35.252.144

I think you should block that said user, because I've warned him twice about vandalism in several pages by Sony Pictures Entertainment. If you can look at the articles such as Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Television, etc. King Shadeed 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Any clue who do I report for Template bugs. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally the template's talk/discussion page. Though, some template talk pages aren't frequently watched, so you could also try opening up a thread on the help desk. Be sure to specifically describe the bug and a link to the template that is causing the problem. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article probation

Thank you for attending to the Bill Ayers article. I am wondering if it might be best to remove the NPOV tag I inserted there pending resolution, strictly as a procedural matter. My impression is that a protection notice itself is adequate to alert people that the article is under dispute. I have no objections either way and will defer to your judgment. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, we generally won't make edits to protected pages while they're still protected unless there is consensus on the article's talk page to make a specific edit. Simply open up a new header on the talk page, ask if anyone objects to the edit, and if nobody does, simply place {{editprotected}} under that header requesting a change, and an admin should be by shortly to make that edit. Alternatively, you could simply wait for the protection to expire. --slakr^\ talk / 18:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of Adam James Williams

You have indefinitely blocked Adam James Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated creation of inappropriate pages; since he wasn't acting out of malice, I suggested that I wouldn't be opposed to reducing his block to one day should he promise to behave (and tried to educate him on the policies of Wikipedia). What do you think? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Sure thing. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

USC

Could you protect the USC article? I would say something about a tag team, but its not worth the bother.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a tag team in place on the article just check the history of who was last to revert. BigDunc^Talk 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot on en.wikinews

For some reason sinebot is not reliably signing Comments: pages. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

SineBot

I have given SineBot IP Block exemption. You shouldn't notice any change. If there's any problems, or other legitimate recognized bots of yours run on the same IP, they may need it too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• your bot is signing things I've already signed Jesse James Shoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Jaimes (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IndependentMedia

Do you mind refreshing my memory (since I'd requested speedy-delete for Betterstream): IndependentMedia made legal threats? Was he the person who said he was going to launch a complaint if we didn't stop standing in his way? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text was, "I am an attorney in a case against Wikipedia and "Orange Mike"." as well as "If any media gets in the way of this truth mission, they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight. That's right, we will reincarnate and continue the lawsuit over and over again."

Because the user is claiming direct legal action against the foundation and an editor on wikipedia in a manner non-conducive to harmonious editing, it's policy to block until they affirm that any and all legal action is concluded and/or all threats of legal action are withdrawn.

On top of that, the ambiguity of "attacked" as an adjunct to the lawsuit is ominous to say the least. --slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought it was some other, less malignant, incident I'd come across. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld 3RR

Not even a warning to Flatterworld for his 3RR? CENSEI (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even check to see if he had received one or not. Usually I check the page first before the individual user, and since there were multiple people edit warring, I pretty much stopped there. Usually if it's clear that either one or two people were edit warring, I'd check their contributions, block, and warning history as well, but in the interests of wanting to do other things, I skip that if it's not needed. If an editor is close to violating 3rr but has not yet received a warning (or you think he should be reminded of the policy), then you're free to place {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers protection

Thank you for protecting the page. However, it's now frozen to an odd version voerall, including a rather eye-popping lead paragraph. Would it be possible for you to revert it to a version that was fairly stable earlier? For example, a month ago before things went so far downhill: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=237538604 Flatterworld (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no clear policy violations in the current protected content. It should stay as is. CENSEI (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Per our protection policy, if there is a content dispute on a particular page that requires full protection, we generally protect the page in whatever form it's currently in, assuming there aren't any serious policy violations (e.g., biog. of living persons policy violations) or obvious vandalism. If you believe that a page should be changed while it is protected, please gain consensus on the article's talk page for that change and use the {{editprotected}} template to signal an admin to make the change after it's clear that there are no objections to it. --slakr^\ talk / 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Signature

Hi there, i hope you're well. I've recently editted my default signature to add a little colour. It is currectly  Declan Davis   (talk) . I signed a talk page with this and everythign appeared as it should with all of the Wikipedia mark up. But then sinebot came through and autosigned my signed article. I guess there's either a problem with my edited signature, or there's a problem with sinebot seeing editied signatures. What do you think the problem is, and how can I/you fix it?  Declan Davis   (talk)  15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed in 1.5.5– You've got a bookmark in the internal link (#top), which I hadn't anticipated. Lemme know if it's still giving you any problems --slakr^\ talk / 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I had to put the bookmark in: it didn't work without it. I have no idea why.  Declan Davis   (talk)  23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Sinebot keeps on signing my messages while I sign with "Jouke Bersma" most of the time. Will you let this bot stop doing so? Was signed,

Jouke Bersma

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page under "SineBot" #1. --slakr^\ talk / 03:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to examine this edit?

May I ask you to please examine this edit?

I do not think that anyone disputes that Robertson did publish "the Free Zone decree", that he did claim the provenance for it that is stated, or that the use of "Free Zone" as an umbrella term evolved out of its use to designate this one group. So I tend to think that you may have simply acted in too much haste when you reverted all changes made by IP editors, rather than those which were vandalism. I wished to alert you to this at the time, but your talk page was semi-protected.

I would appreciate your attention to this matter. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I'm not well-versed in the topic and usually stay out out content disputes/issues; and, my revert on that page included some sock accounts as well. If I made a mistake, since the page is currently semi-protected, you can either log in if you have an account or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to request an edit be made. --slakr^\ talk / 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:69.122.210.59

This user continues to leave unsigned comments on my talk page (his first on my USER PAGE), telling me to stop making what he considers "erroneous edits" to pages I originally created or have long helped maintain, and harping on a single point I have "completely ignored", in his view. While I concede that he may be right about this single point (I would need to recheck my sources, and nobody's complained up to now, in over two years editing the pages in question), he appears to be basing his conclusions on a single, possibly noncanonical source.

Meanwhile he himself ignores wikiquette, style norms and general manners, a string of automated warnings on his own talk page about making unsigned comments and unexplained edits (dating back to 2006), and several revert notices regarding nonconstructive edits (likewise). When I pointed these warnings and notices (including those from your SineBot) out to him, noting that he was disregarding their intent in his ongoing actions, his response was to first erase them all from his talk page (isolating my replies and wikiquette reminders), then blank that page completely. I showed him links to MoS and editing standards, and asked him to stop leaving unsigned comments on my talk page; I told him I would approach an admin if he continued. He of course left yet another unsigned reply, on my talk page. I've heard enough. Could you please look into this matter? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, a string of cut-n-paste, also-unsigned comments - with no edit explanations - on related talk pages appear to support his conclusions. They read like the work of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have to wonder?) Zephyrad (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milk Morinaga

Since you deleted the article Milk Morinaga, can you close this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Two articles still open

Hi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel has two saved articles and they seem to still have the AfD in process. -- Banjeboi 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops. My bad. I'll fix momentarily. --slakr^\ talk / 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper)

I accidentally overrode you since my closer script didn't realize it was already closed. Anyway, I reverted myself, so hopefully nobody notices. :P Cheers, =) --slakr^\ talk / 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have liked to delete it, personally, but I think the decision wouldn't survive a DRV. We'll have to get Mr.Z-man to put in something so that the script doesn't close-conflict ;) Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Signing a revert

Thanks for maintaining SineBot! However, I want to report a false positive. A comment was removed from a talk page, which I then reverted. SineBot went ahead and incorrectly added my signature to it. Note, the revert comment did not contain the standard revert template, so maybe this is why it was confused. FAQ #4 says to report these things, so I thought I would let you know. Thanks! --Mosquitopsu (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion help

I saw your name as someone who decided on a deletion.

Belle Vista and Robert D. Booker are two articles that I think qualify for removal.

Belle Vista is a neighborhood. There is no indication of why it is special. Unlike cities, which probably qualify no matter how poorly the article is written, neighborhoods are not afforded similar consideration.

Private Booker was probably heroic but this is not a reason to keep it. I think I read somewhere that "Wikipedia is not a memorial" and that 9/11 victims are not automatically guaranteed an article.

If you agree that either one (or both) of these articles should be deleted, would you submit the request? I will study very carefully how you do it so that I can do it myself in the future. Since you decide on these things, you are probably more familiar with how to write a request in a convincing manner. Thank you. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! You have a robot/ non-human

Cool! How did you get a non-human/ robot? He went on my disccusion page and told me I had to sign posts.

It's SOOO cool how you got an online robot!

I'm shocked! O_o

--Blacky98 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at some obvious block evasion?

Hello, Slakr. I saw that you declined to unblock some editor. I think that the other party, Propastop (talk · contribs) who has been blocked for 24 hours today for his 3RR violation is currently evading a sock, Newmenber1 (talk · contribs). I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa because Propastop's activities are almost identical to Pabopa's multiple socks.[11][12][13][14]. The newly registered editor (just 30 min ago) targets to the article with similar edit summary with Pabopa's.[15][16] The RFCU procedure would take two or week, so if I'm asking you to look into the case to see if my concern is right. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge Letters

I don't know if the recent change to signing in very large letters on the Ref Desks is deliberate or not. Personally, I find the text extremely distracting when it is this large. Can we go back to text the same size as the rest of the desk? Thanks for your help. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. There was a change to {{Unsigned}} recently, but I think it was reverted back to small font use. If you get a chance, can you provide a diff example of the problem? Thank ya =) --slakr^\ talk / 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As of today, the large letters are still showing for me (IE browser). Here's a link: [17]Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The big letters are still appearing. They seem to come from this [18] template, if you look about 80% down the page to a group of — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) s all in large type. The Ref. Desk (Humanities) is littered with them and Sinebot seems to be using them. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC) And I just noticed the same large text at the bottom of this page. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bielle: what do you mean by "large type"? Can you post a screenshot somewhere? What browser are you using, and have you made any changes to the default font sizes? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Bot Signing Signed Posts

Why is your bot signing my posts? I sign them with four tildes, but it signs them again anyway.--Tree 'uns 5 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree 'uns 5 (talk • contribs)

The same thing happened to me just a minute ago. Is it a bug or something? Rigamarole's Needle (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigamarole's Needle (talk • contribs)

It looks like it's the apostrophe in your names. Using four tildes inserts a &#39; rather than a '. SineBot doesn't see your name because it doesn't understand ampersand codes and thinks you didn't sign. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The apostrophe screw-up was due to my screw-up in accounting for the silly bookmark thing in the regex to make the bookmark thing work. Instead I'm thinking I just need to do processing of the regex match instead, since I can't think of an easy way to make it foolproof on the regex. Anyway, the apostrophe problem should be fine once again. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Same issue a day later with Category_talk:Attapu_Province where I signed normally with --~~~~ just on a new line. Is it a bug or is it a feature?!? --katpatuka (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I screwed up a rollback in the revisions. Should be fixed now, but now I have to figure out how to make sure that in-page bookmarks get fixed again. :P --slakr^\ talk / 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not working correctly and I don't have an apostrophe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legend_of_the_Red_Dragon&diff=241134766&oldid=241134549 --JonnyJD (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That was before I fixed it. If you see anything after 15:37:47, 26Sep08, then lemme know. --slakr^\ talk / 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

nsigned template

Your revert here, besides changing the font size, also removed the css class from the template. Also, since you only edited one template out of the 10 or so unsignedX templates, that one is now out of sync with the others. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why it was changed in the first place. For one, there is no "autosigned" class. Second, small is XHTML-1.0 compliant. Third, it predates (html 3.2) the span tag (html 4) and is thus more likely to be universally understood by browsers of all shapes and forms. Finally, it's smaller, more user-friendly in its meaning, less obtrusive, and I never had to deal with a complaint in the last few years over bugs in it rendering due to CSS issues in modern browsers. Why, exactly, do you believe it urgently needs to be changed? Please help me to understand.--slakr^\ talk / 15:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please let this user know as well, because I have no idea what to tell them. :P --slakr^\ talk / 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was changed to add the css class; I don't know what you mean when you say there is no such class, as any user can use the class in their own CSS file. I was originally going to add it to Common.css, but people prevailed on me that it's better to put the style in the template itself, and also include the CSS class so that users can override the size. It's been discussed at length. When you reverted it, you put it out of sync with all the other unsigned templates; reverting all of them would have kept them consistent. Just reverting without adding to the conversation doesn't help resolve the overall issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Any html element can take a class parameter, including small. Example: <small class="autosigned">this is more predictable than <span style="font-size:smaller;" class="autosigned">this. Again, if it's not broke, why fix it— especially if it reportedly gets broken in the process of fixing it, and it never really gets fixed? --slakr^\ talk / 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There were people complaining about it being broken when it was small - hence the desire to add a CSS class to give them a chance to override the font size. I agree that we could change to <small class="autosigned"> and I would be perfectly fine with that - but that isn't what your revert accomplished.... — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto-sig inappropriately added

See diffs. El T (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem was fixed @ 15:37:47, 26Sep08. --slakr^\ talk / 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my talk page

I appreciate it! Billollib (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with bot

There seems to be a problem with the bot as on the Special Action Force's talk page. I had removed its comments that personally attack the article, but keeps coming back. Ominae (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Double check the page history. After you removed the comment, the user re-added it (again unsigned), so the bot signed again. --slakr^\ talk / 05:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please semiprotect blocked user talk page

User talk:202.156.8.9 is now being cyclically blanked by the user (blocked by you); would you please also semiprotect the talk page? Thanks! Todd Vierling (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see this request. I semi-protected the user talk, timing it to the end of the current block (if I did the arithmetic correctly). The user's recent behavior might justify a longer block. I'll leave that to slakr to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay, thanks a million. I was totally away when this was posted. For future reference, Todd, it might be faster to stick a request on requests for page protection, as more admins are likely to monitor that page than this one. Thanks for keeping a look out, and cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Hello again. I told you about an autosign problem with sinebot due to my new customed signature. You said, and I thought, that it had been fixed. But sinebot seems to be up to his old tricks again. I signed a talk post and it came through and autosigned it.  Declan Davis   (talk)  17:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically what happened is when I fixed your problem originally, I screwed up my regex such that it prematurely stopped at the "#" in escaped characters (like the quotation mark), thereby fixing the problem for you, but breaking for anyone who had a signature with escaped characters in it, including the people a few threads up that had quotations in their names. Anyway, I quickly realized my mistake and reverted the change, then re-fixed your problem a little while later. The bot's signing on the talk page happened about 2 hours before I had re-fixed the problem, and since it doesn't appear to be signing your posts any more, it should be finally fixed for good :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work!  Declan Davis   (talk)  12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

SineBot bug, please fix

I signed a message here with the date and time but SineBot said it was unsigned (2nd comment). In the page history it shows I signed. Neptune5000 02:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune5000 (talk • contribs)

You forgot to include links to your userpage and talk page in your raw signature; that's why it autosigned you (above included). Make sure there's a [[User:Neptune5000]] and [[User talk:Neptune5000]] in your sig, but you can customize the appearance of those as you wish. Todd Vierling (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I now have a link to my userpage and user talk page. Neptune5000 (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeppers, t'was likely the problem. =) --slakr^\ talk / 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

About that vandaliser

Argh I didn't notice because he kept blanking his discussion page. I just started reporting vandalisers so I'm new to his.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MY GLASSES ARE TOO BIG TO FIT ON MY FACE - UAA

Could you look over the request I made at UAA? Thanks. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Signing with tildes

A few months ago, you sent me a message that I just now read about signing with four tildes. I've got two words for you: Fuck off. In case you hadn't noticed, Mr. Incest, my name is signed automatically after a while, so there's no harm done. Mind your own god damn business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 October 2008

Thanks for the kind words. You truly understand the amazing things that being nice to people can accomplish. By the way, part of the value the value of signatures is that they tell you who left the message, so that when you cuss at people for doing something they didn't do, you don't appear to be horribly and completely in the wrong for doing so. For example, had you actually read the signature at the end of the {{tilde}} message, you would have noticed that I didn't leave you a message— my robot did.

Also, your observation that your name does, indeed, get signed automatically "after a while" is correct— I wrote the bot that does that, which, had you appreciated the fact that signatures link back to user pages filled with lots of info about the dude who writes something, you probably wouldn't have made the mistake of assuming malice in a robot enforcing a guideline, as is clearly explained on User:SineBot. Cussing me out for something my bot correctly did, at least to me, makes about as much sense as cussing out your car's manufacturer because your car starts when you turn the key.

Of course, you're free to continue wrecklessly attacking other editors and violating our other policies and guidelines, but I'm not sure how long you'll be around if you choose to continue doing so. --slakr^\ talk / 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I SEND THIS TO YOUR BOT:

???? So far I know I use the four tildes!! Can you give me an example that I did not use the four?

With regards

Dr Karel J Labberté

Labberté K.J. 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labberté K.J. (talk • contribs)

HE IS NOT HUMAN, I HOPE YOU ARE! AND YOU SEE FOUR TILDES. (THE 4 MUSKETEERS!)

Labberté K.J. 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labberté K.J. (talk • contribs)

Go to "my preferences" -> uncheck raw signature and save. --slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say your form hell Dallas texas --DCsniper207 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an attempt at humorous hyperbolic metaphor. --slakr^\ talk / 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)