User talk:Pseudomonas/Archives/2008

SSP Case

Just to inform you that a case you recently filed, linked here, has been closed. If you wish to conclude the final results, the last comments were made there. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the community. Regards, Rudget. 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for catching that :) --Blowdart | ^talk 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem; you see the oddest stuff hanging out in Newbies' Contributions! Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Gyak1

Thank you for the report. However, this user needs to be given a final warning; that is a 4th level warnings, and vandalize afterwards. Please see WP:UTM for a handy reference. I don't slavishly follow the levels where vandalism is in any way extreme, but removing maintenance tags and speedys from a self-created article is very run-of-the-mill, low level vandalism, and this may very well stop if they see that last warning, where a user with obviously malicious intent would not be likely to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Benny Hill

Well, thank you! Les woodland (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)les woodland

Blackadder

Delete MY page?? F*&k you buddy!! No, only kidding. Thanks for letting me know. To be honest, I created that page years ago when I didn't really fully understand wikipedia. It probably doesn't fit in with wikipedia's expectations but it is funny and interesting, so it wouldn't be the worst thing if it slipped through the net. There should really be somewhere for this information, but it's not wikipedia. CHEERS --Crestville (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are rediculously helpful. Thankyou very much :)--Crestville (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) And I'm glad you said "only kidding" up there - you had me for a moment, given some of the characters that hang around here... Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: fast

Yeah. Huggle is pretty insane. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot testing

I noticed one small error here. It left a duplicate warning and didn't do the revert. Cluebot beat you to the revert and also left a warning. If you'd rather that I not point out the errors during testing, let me know. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One more conflict with ClueBot here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I spotted that too. I ought to figure out a way to detect the conflicts and not warn, though I don't rate it as urgent, since PseudoBot's warnings are a bit more informative in some cases. Thanks for keeping an eye on it! Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like ClueBot has the same weakness here. So not a big deal. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris Coleman

I added Chris Coleman to the 10th June page, birthday section but the bot removed it straight away.

Chris Coleman - Coventry City Football Club Manager

I quote from your talk page -

• 1970 - Chris Coleman, Coventry City Football Club Manager : The page on Chris Coleman is a Disambiguation page.

Please choose the individual that you mean from that page, and link to their Wikipedia page.

• 1975 - Adrian Forrest, Restaurant Manager : There doesn't seem to be a page on Adrian Forrest.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 05:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pseudomonas! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello?...

Yah, I tried to make a minor change on a page recently and your bot k.o.'d it. Was wondering if I could get a recount?

Thet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetasashhatap (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, can you link to the change you're talking about? Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudobot

Hi - Can you let me know what's up with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PseudoBot? Mufka seems to think the bot idea is dead. Have you given up on this? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not given up; just delayed. I'll try and get something done about it :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that vandal bots do not have the bot flag set. I see that Pseudobot is using the bot flag. Is that correct? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it has the flag. I don't actually know if it's in line with WP policies. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a bug. Look at this edit. The entry that was reverted ended with <!-- so the last half of the bot's talk page warning (and any subsequent warnings) was commented out. It took me a few minutes to figure out why Sinebot signed PseudoBot's warning. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the earlier revert

Thanks for the earlier revert on List of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton tracks. It seems we have a vandal with a WP:SPA who is starting to vandal if you check the revision history. Chris (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

hey

Acinetobacter says hi :P Eli+ 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

About reverting my changes

Hi. I'm about that.
>Hi, the recent edit you made to Need for Speed: ProStreet has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.

Click on some links (Airbourne, Plan B, Digitalism for example) and you'll find disambiguition, click on The Toxic Avenger and you'll find article about... movie. I also fixed Dude 'N' Nem to correct name and pasted a link to article about them. I removed error link on The Sound. Some articles are not existed yet and that's why they were red (I think sometime they appears).
So why my edit is unconstructive?
Sorry, but I speak english only on a basic level :)
10X
62.109.177.6 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PseudoBot's warnings

I don't think it's a good idea to quote any text added in an edit in PseudoBot's warnings, because Google indexes user talk pages. I'd rather not tell you to stuff too many beans up your nose, but I can see this causing headaches with personal information. I've also fixed the archive order on your talk page - hope you don't mind. Graham87 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed (I hope) all the quoting of text for the time being because of the possibility for defamatory material. It's a shame, because I think it is quite helpful to show what people have been adding. I guess the diffs are still linked; maybe I'll make them a bit more prominent. Pseudomonas_(talk) 07:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article name is still linked, but if that was removed, it would make the messages a lot harder to understand. I'm more concerned about defamatory entries, so I'm happy with the warnings now. Graham87 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning the article name is still problematic. To make a nonsense example, if Alice added an entry about Bob Asdfghjkl, Bob may not be happy with a random Wikipedia user talk page coming up in the top 10 search results for his name. Wikipedia's robots.txt excludes all old revisions of an article and all special pages for similar reasons. If Wikipedia's search was better, robots.txt would probably exclude everything but the article namespace from search engines, but that's another story. How about a message like "the person you added does not have a Wikipedia article", with "The person you added" linking to the diff? Graham87 09:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PseudoBot only monitors date pages. I find it highly unlikely that someone would be named June 17. Have you brought this up in reference to CSD templates? Most users of nn-warn put the article name on the creator's talk page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I meant the name of the person added, for example if someone added "1989 - Abcde Fghij, the best person in the world", a Google search for "Abcde Fghij"" would include the Wikipedia page. Removing the article title from the speedy deletion templates would be much crazier ... "the article you created has been marked for speedy deletion" would be confusing. Perhaps it would be easier to not index user talk pages. This wouldn't be much of a loss for me as when I'm trying to find an old conversation, I usually have a good idea who was in that conversation. Graham87 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #Stopping search engines from indexing the user talk namespace? Graham87 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot - years?

Hey. I think you're the one responsible for keeping the day pages clean. What about the year pages? Now, this will seriously eat into my edit count if you do it, it's surprising how many people in their 20's think the date of their own birth is a notable event, however, why not extend the functionality a little? Franamax (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi :) I'd hesitate to say that I'm responsible, but yes, I'm considering asking about extending it to the year pages. Don't expect anything immediate, though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trademark symbol

I would argue that even in that case, it was not necessary. We already said it had a trademark symbol, there's no need to show it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You may certainly argue that (though I disagree), but you do have to admit that just removing the symbol and not the whole quoted chunk left it pretty silly-looking. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Shiny for PseudoBot

(barnstar here was moved to PseudoBot's talk page)

Thank you! Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV

Why have you reverted my edits to GTA IV and put a warning template on my talk page? I referenced all the information I added... If this is an accident then I'll revert it back; please respond. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad - restored now. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I screw up like that sometimes :) I don't suppose you know how to de-nest the navigation box at the bottom of the page? - It's rather annoying me. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Donny Long

Thanks for the revert. I suspect that the Donny Long page will be the target of vandalism for some time. James W. Ballantine (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

wow, every page i check, you're there ahead of me!

Dlohcierekim 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 and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Heh, I guess I've found a use for being a fast reader... Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Hiya. I've fulfilled your request. If you require any help with using the tool please feel free to ask. Full information can be found at WP:RBK. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fang

I noticed you reverted my edit on the article "Electric Chair." Well, Boner Records was the record label that released the single, so thruthfully it isn't vandalism, but I could see how it could look like that. Just wanted to clear that up.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Thanks for being understanding :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks God there are people on wikipedia like you reverting vandalism!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the section below, what goes around comes around :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish to apologise unreservedly for blocking you

Er... my finger slipped... um... well, it was meant to be the ip you had reported... Please be comforted by the thought that you are only the second editor I have done this too... or is it three? Er... I really am sorry. Mark. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I hadn't even noticed, since I was away from the keyboard for a bit :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting that insultation. Is that vandalism? --Mark Chung (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I reckoned so. If they'd been abusive while also making a point about Wikipedia, however trivial, I'd have left it for you to read - as it was it wasn't helping anyone Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Total Carnage

Don't suppose you could help keep an eye on it? That anon IP has really got a bee in his bonnet over the page and has been repeatedly vandalising it over the past few days. Thinking of turning myself in for violating 3RR! Cheers. Geoff B (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, which they should have had long ago with that much activity. If they do it again, they're liable to be blocked. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

PseudoBot

Great bot...got to edits ~4 times before I was going to revert...nice job. Spencer^T♦C 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now 6 edits...this is ridiculous. Spencer^T♦C 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

barnstar for Pseudobot

Hey, I wasn't quite sure whether to put the star on PseudoBot's page or to put it here and then let you move it :S so I just added it to your bot's page.
Anywho, here's a little something for you as well....

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For making a bot that can remove vanity from date pages, (seriously, you have no idea how much Wikipedia needed this one...) I, J.delanoygabsadds, hereby award Pseudomonas this Wikipedia Bot Builder Award along with a hearty handshake and a cookie. J.delanoygabsadds 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Glad to help. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent warning

You warned me about the canine reproduction page, i merly created a link to make the 'normal way' (which i deemed too loosely a statement) transfer to ejaculation. If this was a proper warning, i accept it and apologise, but if it was a mistake because of the vulgar terms involved, could you please remove it?

Thank you! Matt (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Matt (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, it was a slipup on my part. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Coolest Kid 50

Hi Pseudomonas, I have removed your uw-lang warning from User talk:Coolest Kid 50. First, this user is already indefinitely blocked, so there is little point in warning them over this issue. Best, Gwernol 15:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think the message was intended for you, but you have not vandalized an article, it is possible that you may have made an edit that is not actually vandalism, but might not have fit Wikipedia's

You have vandalized an article, it is possible that you may have made an edit that is not actually vandalism, but might not have fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of including fact.

Can you please explain why you blanked a User page to assert your own ideals of 'slogans'.

The Images used were uploaded under share-alike with contributer note - removal of the USER page must include the removal of images uploaded under license, and the license includes ability to edit, and modify images, or its license.

Perhaps, do you think you could suggest changes to the words that seem to affect your mind to the point your brain is thought it was required to take kind of action of removing images of criminal acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoConviction (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See comment at your talk page - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

excuse me

i was trying to correct some vandalism 86.87.93.85 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

I wanted to draw your attention, to your bot request. SQL^{Query me!} 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to leave a message here too to see if you were going to test your bot. AFAIK a fortnight has passed. I'm really looking forward to seeing it work. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

god im sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.207.114 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard working reverts on vandalism and beating me to the punch several times when reverting. Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very flattered - I think that Huggle deserves the lion's share of the credit - great bit of kit. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I second this award. Great job patrolling James Dobson! -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My warning

Please be more careful with whom you warn. It appears you've warned me for an edit I didn't make. I'd appreciate if if you removed the warning you left on my talk page. Thanks ——Ryan | t • c 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, and sorry! Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

thankx

thanx for improving the KNM page. But like u just saw, people start wars and just wont leave it neutral. Im actually not a critic, fan or member of KNM but the name calling was annoying, so decided to do something. Do u know whats required to lock an article? Joeblckw (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Locking an article can only be done by admins (I'm not one), and I really don't think that this article is a candidate for being locked. Hopefully if we can get some good references then people like me (with no connection to the subject) will be able to expand and tidy and review, and it won't be a war situation. I'd advise you to be careful about name-calling on talk pages, too - it doesn't help to calm the situation. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

pesudomonas, I am a little confused as to why you would delete an external link about an organization. The website it was linked to is meant to expose a religious party that is heavily involved with politicians, and people with shady connections. It is a website with proofs and sources. There was never any name-calling. Yes, a lot of the material was against the KNM. But it was referenced to the scholars and sources for every matter that was talked about. If there anything supporting the KNM, then people are welcome to post it. But, as i fear without realising it, you have actually made it in favour of KNM because you deleted everything against it. If you want the article to be balanced, you must have both views. That is plain common sense. I am undoin your revision to post the link of the website. If there are website supporting the KNM, let anyone post it. There is room for both views.

--Almalabaari (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

hi, another thing FYI, on the site you deleted, there is a tab called - promoting qaradawi. Qaradawi is an individual who supports the suicide bombers among other things. KNM is linked to this individual and promotes him on their sites. By deleting this link, fewer people will know things as this. --Almalabaari (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well FYI, i dont support knm or anyone but im against radical fundamentalists. ALmalabari does not want women to gain education, photography of any kind is prohibited, there should be no inter faith dailogue and so on. This orgainsation called knm is the exact opposite and have been trying to revolutionise the backward society. Also i estimate that they have at least around 10 million followers, and who are now rapidly gaining internet access. So the only reason why i dont additional inputs is not because i care about them, but because i dont want youngsters to fall prey to extremist recruits. So its funny how hugely important this issue is but very few people realise it. And to almalabari , i respectfully understand your disagreement, but i think that articles or websites put in a bit more diplomatic never the less critical would be appropriate in a wiki entry rather than sites that look like 9/11 conspiracy theorists! Joeblckw (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Date page edits

Hi - Can pseudobot look for additions that are links to disambig pages, e.g. this edit? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It already does - look at the talk page of the editor who made that edit. That one only got through because PseudoBot won't revert the same editor twice. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GAAAA

[1] Soooooo close, but you beat me... :( Rock on! :D Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pseudobot on non-date pages

You know, I actually said to myself yesterday that it would be awesome if Pseudobot would do that. I think the idea of a template on the talk page is good. You should also create a category (like Category:watchedbyPB) to add to the talk page to trigger Pseudobot to go to the page as well as the template. That way, if any vandal figures out what is going on, they will remove the template and hopefully miss the category or vice versa. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough idea, though frankly if any vandal wants to get round it, they can just get an account and wait a few days, or for that matter, try it twice, since PB doesn't revert any account or IP more than once. I'm less worried about the technical details (there are loads of ways to do it, all easy to implement), and more about the political ones - I think that this is likely to be controversial in a way that PseudoBot isn't - there's a longstanding consensus about no-redlinks-on-the-date-pages, but other pages don't have that level of agreement. There will always be the odd case where a non-linked entry is appropriate, and we don't want to bite people over those. What happens if someone slaps a template on an inappropriate page? I guess we could fix it so that it takes an admin to label the section (by having the registration of the article on a protected page), but it'd still need guidelines, which might be more regulation than a lot of people want. Are there any types of pages where such a consensus exists for named sections? If so, I could try and get the bot approved and running for those articles, adding more as the demand arises. I predict opposition, though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to repeat my suggestion to do year pages. They get lots of "Jamie was born"-type additions. Franamax (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It already does year pages (as of yesterday), though only the sections headed Births and Deaths. Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, I haven't seen one come up yet on my watchlist, else I'd already have been here with kudos :) I have another suggestion for the patrol keying discussed above (well, two): if the bullet entry has a reference, your bot could skip it and let humans decide; and another alternative to templating or cats would be a sub-page in the botspace listing article-name/section-name pairs. This would be you/admin-edit only and could of course be defeated by changing the section names, but that would be an easy giveaway. Franamax (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

see eg [2] Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good stuff, as I said before, it will seriously hit my edit count, but the sooner we clear the frivolous edits, the better! Another good thing with the bot is that I've noticed that the editors putting their own name into year pages are almost never serious vandals, so I and others can relax a bit about having to follow those ones up. All-round excellent and thanks! I would suggest though that you do provide a little more in the edit summary, something like "un-wiki-linked article doesn't qualify for listing here" (but much better than that!), maybe "no valid link in entry"? The more communication that any bot provides, the happier we can all be! Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And quick follow-up on my post just above, either the template or bot-subpage could carry a scan key, ie. 0=insist on bluelink, 1=accept bluelink or inline-ref. That would allow additions to lists where a ref conveys the notability rather than the bluelink, for instance a university chancellor who does not (yet) have an article. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive?

Maybe it was. But it was still true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertechnician (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Brougham, Cumbria

Hi Pseudomonas. Thanks for adding the coordinates to the Brougham page. The Google aerial photo at your coordinates is some distance from any buildings (which may be because there are not many buildings in Brougham). I think 54.654309,-2.716937 gives a point at the entrance to the castle from the road. That would be one possible point of interest. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be because I've added them to the nearest minute - does it help if you use the full coordinates as in the comment? Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment points to Rectory Farm, Brougham. That's probably OK. If you visit the area, the natural centre is probably Brougham Hall which is about 300m NW of Rectory Farm, but the geographical area called "Brougham" is quite dispersed and you have identified a spot that lies well within the area. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dickinson Wright

First of all, you need to realize that speedy deletion isn't appropriate for this page, as notability has been asserted and third-party reliable sources have been provided. Secondly, it would probably be a good idea for you to look at the other articles in a particular category before singling one out for speedy deletion. --Eastlaw (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastlaw is correct, that page should not be deleted. Please be careful in tagging pages, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll try and be more selective in future. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sharon Wilkins

You had no business deleting postings about Sharon Wilkins, Af-Am actress. There was nothing there libelous. Apparently, you have a lot of time on your hands and you spend it editing unnecessarily postings regarding other individuals.

Statements of opinion regarding a person's lack of talent are just that, opinion and are fair game for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.71 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Stick to the facts. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

December 20 added birth

Bill Gross president & CEO of new york consulting firm is not the same bill gross from PIMCO,Idealab, etc. There is already a page for this Bill Gross but not one for the other. I do not want to link bill Gross from NYCF to bill gross of pimco. The birth for New York Consulting Firm, LLC for Bill Gross is December 20, 1984. Please add and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.37.11 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Three points:

1. People don't go onto the date pages unless they have an article about them.
2. I can't add a page about the guy from NYCF because I know nothing about him.
3. Given that NYCF doesn't have a page (as far as I can find with a quick search), are you sure that its CEO is notable enough to have an article about him?

Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand scope to include certain lists?

Would it be feasible to expand the scope of PseudoBot's operation to include certain lists? I'm thinking of pages like List of aerospace engineers, which regularly attracts self-addition of non-notable (and therefore redlinked) names. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See here for previous discussion. I'd be delighted to implement this - it'd be technically extremely easy to have a talk-page template registering named sections, and/or delimiters on the page itself. The problem is that there needs to be community consensus a) that redlinks/no-links are unacceptable in any particular list or section - there isn't always, if you look at the guide to inclusion of notable alumni of schools, you'll see what I mean - and that b)a bot is the best way to enforce the policy. If you think that there is consensus for a particular subclass of pages (as there is for the date pages), then maybe we can start cooking up a bot proposal; but the problem is the social mechanism - do I have to go back to the Bot Approval Group every time I want to add a page to the list? Do I have it so that any admin can do it? or anyone at all? Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PseudoBot and removal of links to disambiguation pages

PseudoBot removed [3] what appears to be a perfectly valid addition to the 2008 page, I assume because the IP that added it linked to Michael Turner (a disambiguation page) rather than Michael Turner (comics), the specific page of the guy in question. Is this working as intended? If you think links to disambiguation pages are bad enough to warrant auto-reverting, do you think a more enlightening edit summary might be an idea for that? Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea about the edit summary - the message to the user already specifies the issue and how to fix it, but you're right that the summary should also. Pseudomonas_(talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't think to look on the IP's talk page. It's a very well-written message there - an edit summary would just make it easier for other people who watchlist the page (i.e. me) to fix it too. Thanks. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the edit-summary labels. Thanks. Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, those edit summaries are both concise and informative. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Rosenthal

I found this {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Rosenthal (2nd nomination)}} on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 30. Because it is also nominated for Speedy Deletion, I am taking the liberty of wiping the {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Rosenthal (2nd nomination)}} off the log page. Bwrs (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about that. I nominated, Twinkle did odd things, I decided it was probably speediable anyway. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was about to change my mind and complete the AfD nomination on it. What do you think? Bwrs (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Give it a while; no point going through the bureaucracy of AFD if it can just get speedied. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey I need help!

Hey I see that you are very well recognized (for good and bad). I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on many things. Please respond. Dude (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope not too much for bad, though we all make mistakes. What did you want help with? Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This IP Looks Suspicious...

Hello, there. I notice that you're dealing with an IP address that radically changes population figures in Africa without any sources or proper citation. I'm just here to let you know that this IP appears to do the same, although I'm not sure. Could you please look into it? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested improvement for PseudoBot

Hi Pseudomonas. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for PseudoBot to revert the addition of links which are redirects. At the moment PseudoBot can be fooled by making an entry that links to a redirect, thus bypassing the rule that entries must have their own artcle. Of course quite a few people will do this as an honest mistake but they can easily go back and re-add their entry as a direct link. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think most of the people adding links to redirects are doing so in a sensible way, and indeed linking to redirects is not necessarily a bad thing; they can be fixed later if desired, but the information should be on the pages, and we don't want to discourage that.
• The bot isn't intended to be proof against people trying deliberately to fool it - there are many ways it can be circumvented, and that's inevitable. It's designed to prompt people who just haven't considered that there might be a reason there aren't umpteen billion birthdays on the date pages.
• A link to a redirect that doesn't point at a page or that points at a disambiguation page is currently removed.

Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Expand to dab pages?

I'm sure I'm overlooking something but couldn't Pseudobot be expanded to dab pages? BJ^Talk 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hey about deletion of page

i'm not sure if the bot was right to delete the pagei created it was a page on this poet i saw on deviant art a i believed he deserved a page so thats whyi created it i got my information from his blog posts. i believe that the page about the poet. --PTPengun (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

PseudoBot doesn't delete pages - it can't. It doesn't have anything to do with page deletion. You might want to ask elsewhere? Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

diff links generated by your bot

FYI, the diff links generated by your bot

• are incorrect: should be /w/index.php not /wiki/index.php

(although they are close enough that there is little practical difference. WP:POPUPS displayed the wrong page name on hover but still displayed the actual diff fine.)

• have a hardcoded base URL. This is undesirable in case users are accessing Wikipedia through a proxy such as WMF's SSL server.

current format

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=${pagename}&diff=${revid}&oldid=${oldrevid} edits]

proposed format

[{{fullurl:${pagename}|diff=${revid}&oldid=${oldrevid}}} edits] --Jeremyb (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this suggestion. I've changed the code - do let me know if it's not what you mean or if you have any other suggestions. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, looks like the edit I checked exactly matches my proposal. Cheers! --Jeremyb (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me

Sorry if this isnt the correct way to contact you, please tell me how to if not User Talk:Kyb12

I edited the page July 25, adding the recent Qantas flight 30 incedent, however it seems to have been deleted, can you tell me why? Thankyou.

It was deleted by Mufka with the explanation rm [removed] nn [non-notable] event - no long term notability, See WP:DOY I think you'd better ask Mufka if you want more about the rationale behind this, since I don't know much about the incident. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyb12 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

slight problem

Hi, i think your link removal bot is great and saves me a lot of time, but today i noticed a slight bug, an ip added several items in one go to August 16 [4] and they were all legitimate links apart from one which was a dead link, and your bot reverted it, [5]. Anyway to fix this? or else it might be a good idea to have it not revert in cases like this--Jac16888 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elise Taylor

You had no right deleting my entry on *October 15 - James B Aguayo-Martel, physician, surgeon and scientist]]. A page does exist and is better reference that most of the pages I have encountered. People should really used peer reviewed journals for reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejteye (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the link you added above to James B Aguayo-Martel is red - no page exists. Did you check that you've spelt the name the same way as the article (as the message on your talk page suggested); perhaps the article doesn't use the middle initial or something. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AWB edits

Oops, yes: I forgot to switch these off. Hopefully okay now. Thanks for the alert. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi

I got a message from you, which said that I made some changes to an article on January 5. Well, I didn't make those changes. I understand that IP change over time, and I might be on somebody else's IP now. I'm writing just to clarify!

Thanks

122.163.208.21 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, people know that IPs get rotated; I'm sure no-one will hold it against you. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Why did you erase my note worthy messege? --BlasternMinnesota (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It clearly didn't belong in that paragraph, and I can't see that it was useful in the article at all. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hi there Pseudomonas,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up if you are located near London at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon!

Thanks for reading.

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Beatrice Arthur Recalls

Contrary to normal beliefs, although Beatrice "Bea" Arthur was mentioned as 1922 being her birth very recently, an astounding number of external links and sources say 1924 as her actual birthdate.

They are:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

However there are other external links saying 1923, but some verifications may be needed under that.

Whatever response you have, please contact my talkpage.

Hrcnjennie2010 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who this person is, and have no opinion what her date of birth is. If PseudoBot has reverted edits to the date page, please read the guidelines on how to avoid this. I've reponded here since your userpage soft-redirects to another non-existent page Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

The discussion, to which you contributed, has been archived, with very much additional commentary,
at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi? (subsectioned and sub-subsectioned).
A related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Talk:Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Talk:Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership"). Another related discussion is at
(Temporary link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership and
(Permanent link) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (Section "Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership").
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup!

Hi, this is just to let you know of a proposed Cambridge meetup - suggested dates currently Saturday 18 October or Sunday 19th October. If you're interested, please give an idea of which day might be best for you there - & if you know of anyone else who might like to attend do let them know! Cheers, Dsp13 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd edit

Not sure if this is something that needs looking into, but this was an odd edit. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and sorry, but there's not much I can do about it short of extensive magic. If an anon user changes a name and the new version is a redlink, it'll get reverted to the previous version even if that previous version has one or more redlinks. There's no easy way to detect whether the previous version is worse, since the bot takes on trust that any version by an autoconfirmed user is OK. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 in chess

Your bot sucks. Please turn it off. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the bot's edits in that case. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for daily Bot action please

Nah! Your bot is groovy. Please can you program your bot regularly to go through List of photographers, deleting anyone with a red link or link to a disambig page? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd need to be approved by the Bot Powers That Be. But technically it'd not be difficult to either run periodically, or just check edits as they occur (as this bot does at the moment). The thing is, that there are a lot of lists where redlinks are acceptable, and there's not a clear policy about it. I don't want to tread on too many toes. I guess I ought to just build something and see what people say. Pseudomonas_(talk) 20:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made a proposal here. All comments welcome Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. As edits occur is good. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit

Uh, what the heck was this about? It appears to revert an IP anon edit, but no such IP has ever edited that page. That edit also created a page full of redlinks, deleted intralanguage links, and generally made a bit of a mess. I've reverted the changes. Mindmatrix 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea, but thanks for bringing it to my attention! The bot oughtn't to even be considering edits to non-date pages like that! I'll shut it down and investigate. Pseudomonas_(talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it looks like it performed a legitimate revert on the wrong page, and that instead of changing to a recent version of May 27, it changed Wikipedia:Wikipedians back to its original version (presumably because the specified version number didn't exist for that page). I'll try and figure out why if possible. Pseudomonas_(talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't turn up the problem; I've reinstated the bot, since it doesn't seem to have done this before or since. Please let me know if you see anything like this happening again. It's extremely odd; I wonder if it might not have been an issue with the IRC feed or something. Apologies for such an unsatisfying response! Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and I had actually assumed that it had injected the reversion of one article into the Wikipedians page. Other possibilities include a momentarily corrupt memory address, or if you store some of this on disk or a DB, it may not have been written or read correctly. If this is an isolated incident, then it's not a big deal. Mindmatrix 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit redux

It seems to have done it again, in a strangely similar way. Feezo (Talk) 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is odd. I'm looking at the message it left on User talk:210.236.163.5, and in particular the link to the edit that the bot reverted: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_12&diff=247531807&oldid=1 ({{fullurl:January 12|diff=247531807&oldid=1}}). WTF is going on with that? Pseudomonas_(talk) 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny edit by your bot

Take a look at this on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians page. Malfunction maybe? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've patched it so that can't happen; let me know if it does. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

An erroneous revert

Hello, I've been trying to correct a minor error, but your bot keeps reverting my correction (link). I wonder if there are other year pages with a similar issue. 81.190.137.113 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very odd, it certainly shouldn't be doing that. I'll look into it, and thanks for reporting it. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot

How does one make a bot? J.B. {{=)}} (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Creating a bot first, that covers the basics. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahuva Gray

Can you please explain your recent edit on Ahuva Gray.--Java7837 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. At the time that I nominated (this revision), the story was "this person changed religions and then wrote a book". There were no claims of notability for the person or for the book. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pseudobot?

Hi, Why has Pseudobot stopped running? --Jac16888 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The format of the IRC feed of recent changes was altered. I've changed the program to deal with this, and all should hopefully work properly now. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, should have realised, it messed up the aiv helperbots too. Great to have it back, its a fantastic bot. Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this Pseudobot editing while not logged in? Reverts are the same and talk messages are the same too. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. Thanks for the heads-up! I think it'd had so much uptime that its session cookies had expired. I've restarted it - it should be OK now. Pseudomonas_(talk) 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)