User talk:Slakr/Archive 1

Older

• Thanks for editing my userpage back, no issues you didn't overwrite anything. Appreciated. Riksta 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• wikipedia pkk propanganda make.I m this not Pkk anti kurdish wikipedia millitanism noTURKS REVENGE BRİGADE--88.241.3.229 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not exactly sure how to respond to that one. I do assure you, however, that none of my actions are anti-anything, so I'm sorry if any of my reverts came across as such. If you feel they were unjust, please speak with the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, and continue enjoying Wikipedia! :) --koder 14:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OohahahaAAAAH%21_Oh%2C_man%21_The_colors%21_It%27s_so_beeeaaauuuuuuuuuuutifuuuuuuuul...... And tried to tag it. But you or one of your bots thought I was creating it. I was not, I am new to this so could you please help me get rid of the article--Ed2087 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be gone now. Thanks for helping out :D Have a great one. :) --koder 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Ed2087 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting archive blanking

Eep, no, I've been out of town a few days. Thank you kindly for putting your oar in on reverting my archive page!  RGTraynor  00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Pruden Prod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Matthew Pruden, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to [1]. I suppose you could be right that it wasn't intended as an objection to the deletion, but on the safe side I wouldn't assume that. I noticed your "oops" edit but didn't take it as any particular interpretation of the other editor's intent. Anyway, sorry about any mixup. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for the notice put up on WP:AIV about a vandal. They have not as of yet been blocked, due to the fact that they seemed to have stopped editing for now. But keep up the good work, but remember to warn users, as they cannot simply be blocked usually. Jmlk17 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for all your hard work. And yes, I always make it a point to warn users before bugging you guys except in cases of repeat offenders =) Cheers. --koder 04:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD on SKY U

Hi. No headaches. The place gets a lot of g-hits, so I thought a speedy might be a bit hastey. The first version was clearly written like spam, but I couldn't find any copyvios, so I just edited down to something vaguely encyclopedic. I'll keep an eye on the article. As far as the editor goes - he/she is just a novice (probably just a WP:SPA who needs polite guidance. Good work, and cheers, Rklawton 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Links

I'm sorry Koder but the edits I made to the pages of Hutu and Tutsi are not vandalism. The articles I added are from BBC.com based on the Rwandan Genocide which affected those 2 groups. You don't have any right to remove those articles from the Hutu and Tutsi pages, because those articles are about them. Plus, you should not remove it from the evil or the church pages, because in those BBC articles it mentions how people were killed in "churches" and how there was evil behind those killings. What I did is not vandalism Koder so you need to give me a good reason why, because if you remove valid content that is related to an article like Hutu and Tutsi or evil and church then you are committing vandalism yourself, because you are removing articles that contain valid facts based on the Rwandan Genocide and church evil. An editor has asked for a deletion review of [[MASSACRE AT NYARUBUYE CHURCH, ]] and [[TAKEN OVER BY SATAN, ]] . Since you closed the deletion discussion for these articles or speedy-deleted them, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 129.89.134.234 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC) These articles do not contain inappropriate content, therefore you need to give a reason why you would delete them for the Hutu, Tutsi, Church, and Evil pages even though the content in the bbc articles "TAKEN OVER BY SATAN" and "MASSACRE AT NYARUBUYE CHURCH" are relevant to them.

• Yikes, I apologize for outright removing those two links from Hutu and Tutsi and calling them vandalism. On the other hand, links regarding the Rwandan Genocide should probably be placed there instead of the ethnic group pages. Consider: would two links about The Holocaust be relevant to the present-day state of a jew? But, I digress, you are correct in notifying me that those two links were not outright vandalism. However, the main reason I removed both links from your recent history was due to overlinking for the following reasons:
  1. They are merely "indirectly related" (see also: wikipedia's external links guidelines) to the pages you added them to. You added both links, which primarily address Rwandan Genocide, to the following pages, none of which reference or pertain to the recent genocide:
     1. Church
     2. Horror (emotion)
     3. Hate
     4. Evil
     5. History of Christianity
  2. The mere mention of a location of an event is not sufficient reason to warrant a direct reference of that event on the location's page. This applies to placing your links on Church. While I understand why you did so (one of them occurred in a church), it is not appropriate to link a genocide with an otherwise-innocent establishment. For example, while during The Holocaust, Jews were forced to work in factories by people who called themselves Christian, it is not appropriate to add Anne Frank's diary to both Factory and Christian (or even History of Christianity). Therefore, I removed your links from both Church and History of Christianity.
  3. The Horror (emotion), Evil, and Hate articles deal with their respective emotional states in almost purely scientific and/or philosophic approaches. They take a meta-analysis approach to the emotions and their implications for history, and do not expound on explicit examples, as they're deemed universal emotions. That is, the average reader will understand horror, evil, and hate without reading an article by the BBC on genocide. Instead, we allow the reader to explore articles like Rwandan Genocide, The Holocaust, The Crusades, Darfur conflict, Armenian Genocide, Bosnian genocide, and more. You can quickly see how linking every single link from these pages to the Evil, Hate, and Horror pages could be problematic-- and that's not accounting for all the nasty things that happened in their churches, either. Thus, your links were not appropriate there.
  4. The links also do not belong on the History of Christianity page because the acts, themselves, were not overtly under the claim of God, Jesus, or other deities, as were The crusades. However, this is debatable, but more so in the Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide article.
  5. No discussion of the links was made prior to inserting them in any of the pages. Usually you should discuss changes on each page's talk page, defending why the change was made.
  6. You gave no edit summary defending why you added the links or why they pertained to the pages to which you were adding them.
  7. You are anonymous. The majority of spam and spam links and vandals come from anonymous users. Consider creating an account.
  8. Your links are shock-and-awe in nature, which led me to believe you were simply trying to gain a commiserating audience for whatever cause you support.
  9. Your links were ALL UPPERCASE, which draws unnecessary attention to the links.
  10. Your link additions were done in a short period of time.
  11. The exact same links were posted multiple times, as was demonstrated above, on multiple, irrelevant pages. All of this taken together, this led me to believe they were spam, or you were from the BBC (or possibly, you were the author of the content in the links).
  12. I was in auto-pilot mode due to the large amount of spam that was coming in when you made those edits.

• In short: you are correct in noting that, if you honestly added the links believing they were relevant to the pages, that it was not explicitly vandalism. On the other hand, the removal of the links from their respective pages adheres to Wikipedia's external link policy-- at least, as I understand it. Thus, I believe that while the reason given for removing the links may not have been accurate as to your intentions, the removal, itself, was accurate. I apologize for mislabeling your intentions as vandalism, I appreciate you notifying me of this error, and I hope you accept my apologies for labeling you a vandal. Sometimes the people like me who are always looking for vandalism start assuming that things that match vandalism patterns are, themselves, vandalism. :(. If you would like, however, it would seem completely relevant for your links (NOT IN ALL CAPS, that is) to be posted to Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, as they appear to be possibly valuable contributions. However, if you would like, you may also continue with your deletion review request. Thanks, and sorry about any mix up. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to notify me. :) --koder 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BITE much?

You reverted a good faith edit as vandalism here, then left a vandalism warning on their talk page. Please take time out from biting the newbies to refresh your memory on what is and is not vandalism. I will be more than happy to assist you, if you have difficulty. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that one probably should have been an even more welcoming notice than the level 1 vandal one. However, I did not think that level 1 vandal was excessively harsh to a new editor. After all, consider the text, "Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to whateverarticle, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." This is much, much nicer of text than which the average person, who even himself claims WP:AGF, will post on discussion pages and user talk pages, and it doesn't even mention the word "vandalism" except in the edit summaries. Moreover, it's an actual message as opposed to a random removal of text without any notice of what happened (like quite a few non-RC patrolling admins do, sadly), therein ghosting the new editor's changes and leaving him in the dark as to what happened. I reason that if at least I leave a notice is so that the user will come to me as opposed to randomly flaming people elsewhere and getting pissed off and leaving the Wikimedia sites.

With regard to what vandalism is not, I honestly did not see the edit as an unintentional misinformation attempt. The exact preceding two sentences explicitly said the exact opposite of what the user added, and the user placed his text directly before the cite for the contradicting information, which made it look very suspiciously like vandalism, but not quite something as overt as cuss words and calling atheists morons, which is normally the case on a highly vandalized page such as Atheism. I saw it as something similar to someone writing "Do not go the" in front of a "Speed Limit" sign. Believe me, I know what vandalism normally is, and I always try to AGF (check my contribs, if you would like). However, I am known to make mistakes from time to time, and I apologize if you believe I was excessive in my actions. If you have suggestions as to what I can do otherwise, please let me know. Have a good one, and cheers. :) --slakr 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was a complete sentence; it was about Atheists in foxholes, so it was in the appropriate paragraph. Far from being "the complete opposite" of the previous sentences, it did not even contradict the previous statements at all, but even if it did that would be poor writing not vandalism. It was OR and incorrectly placed before a cite which did not support it, but it was also the very first edit of a registered editor. In short, this was clearly not vandalism, and using the template you used for anything other than obvious vandalism (such as your examples of foul language and childish insults) is biting. I fail to see where the confusion might be.

If you choose to reply to this, please do not duplicate your response on my talk page. As I clearly indicate on the box at the top of my page, I will reply here to any response you may choose to give. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding questions: I do not use TW. Is that template an automatic one when using TW? Is there a choice of which template to use? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No warning is automatic. In fact, I explicitly revived an old revision to TW, by request, in order to re-humanize the process for other RC patrollers. If you want to experiment, take a peek at User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js versus User:Slakr/twinkle-oldwarn.js. The former was the most recent (as in, last couple of days was a major change) versus the latter as the longer-standing version. Cheers. --slakr 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

You actually send me an e-mail making claim that those pop culture entries belong in there and not in FILM/TV/MUSIC 1978...think about it, I'm actually trying to make the page CREDIBLE, I learned a long time ago to not let PERSONAL PREFERENCE get in the way of shaping Wikipedia...what claim can you make that a "Star Wars Holiday Special" belongs there with murders and crashes and REAL important news? :) --69.238.75.35 23:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, actually I found the Star Wars Holiday Special remove quite entertaining and totally agree with it, mainly because the thing was so god-awful (have you seen it? Heh, it's bad-- trust me). All I was asking was that you discuss removing multiple things from the page in the page's discussion tab, especially if you're not going to place them in another area. The only real reason to keep them there is that there isn't a 1975 (film/tv/music) page to place them on (actually, if you want, you could totally make it if you want). Of course, it's totally up to you. I was just hoping that you might not delete otherwise valid information from the pages, especially so that the pop culture nuts don't flame you. :P

On a different note, I must congratulate you on removing the "first pub" date about people magazine, as it was actually off (it wasn't published in feb-- it was later that year, or at least, so the people magazine article said). Way cool edit on that-- keep up the good work =). The only reason I reverted some of the others was that they were at least decently well-known (eg, Queen's album) but were completely deleted without discussion (instead of being moved elsewhere, to say, maybe a (film) or (music) area). However, if you still feel they should be yanked, then by all means, be bold. My main suggestion, then, would just be to remember that other people added the information thinking that it might be important; therefore, we should always assume that when removing it, we should have equal if not better reasons for deleting it. Anyway, best of luck =). --slakr 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a pop culture nut believe it or not...THAT'S why I'm trying to simply put things in proper places! I do thank you for the kind comments...I may come across as gruff here, but I'm just trying to help steer the ship in the right direction... :)--69.238.75.35 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up. I was pretty confused there, I'm very new :( Giles the Happy Penguin 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dean & tyler

I noticed that you placed a deletion tag on this article at the same time as me. I decided to go with the advertising template, since the article was advertising for the company.--NeoNerd 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's cool-- both get to the same point. Keep up the great work, and cheers =) --slakr 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR - Rambutan

Hi, I don't think I broke it, though I may have reverted up to three times in a copyright dispute, an image which is now deleted.--Rambutan (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, my warnings to the IP of Giles the Penguin were valid: he kept re-adding a non-existent link to the page, despite by constant reversions and gradually less polite warnings - if he ignores notes not to do something, it is not good faith. Please reply on my talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded here, per your request. --slakr 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, I reverted no single "thing" more than three times, and when I realised that it was my third revert, I noted this in the edit summary. Talkpage consensus has now come to support my revert. The spoiler warning was replaced in violation of WP:SPOILER, and I didn't really "belittle" an editor, they were making unilateral changes against consensus. I changed The Master>Professor Yana since that was less spoilery, without impairing the quality of the caption, but I thank you for your effort in highlighting my many reverts of yesterday.--Rambutan (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded here, per your request. Cheers. =) --slakr 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Gsnixon

What is the nature of the "vandalism" you claim for this user page? Owen× ☎ 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the page history. Cubed mass (talk · contribs) created the page with >200k of nonsense. This was done in retaliation to Gsnixon (talk · contribs)'s vandalism warnings. I originally tagged it db-vandalism, but figured it'd just be easier to blank the page due to its monstrous size. --slakr 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I deleted the page as per your request. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no worries. High five on the vandal whacking. :D Cheers and have a good one =) --slakr 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WeeWeeSlap

I don't belive the [WeeWeeSlap] page should be deleted, it is a higly recognise rollercoaster wesbite within the communtity.

--

i see now that it was deleted and that the [no limits (software)] page was reverted back to pre-my changes. i cannot for the life of my understand why this was done, coastercrazy.com no longer exists, and i was updating the page to make sure it was up-to-date and accurate

Acasperw 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiSmile

Thanks for that. I didn't write that mini-essay to win friends, though - I just couldn't live with the thought that I'd been directly responsible for an editor quitting Wikipedia. Here's hoping it works. Terraxos 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

... and I didn't send you the smile to win friends, either. It's the only one I've sent so far. It's simply a symbol of appreciation for you doing what you did. :) --slakr 05:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Hi, I took off the tag as it was added whilst I was editing it. Thanks Flyrv 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the "Show preview" button before committing edits, otherwise they will be reverted or speedily deleted unless otherwise noted with the assumption of nonsense or vandalism. Moreover, please do not remove CSD tags from pages you have created yourself. --slakr 09:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see how it might've looked that way. Thanks for the welcome you placed on my page. Flyrv 09:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RobinBot BRFA

Hey Kurt,

I just wanted to give you a quick heads up that RobinBot's BRFA request expired yesterday. Oh, and if you need any help, my offer still stands. :)

Cheers, S ^up? 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (the artist dude formerly known as Seed 2.0 ;)

ACK! I totally got sidetracked on other random nonsense. I started off writing a bot then end up writing random patches, lol. I'll just wait until I get the other stuff off my plate before I bother you guys about it (or possibly a different bot) again. Sorry about that, and thanks again for all your help :) --slakr 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. If you need anything, you know where to find me. :) P.S.: Some very interesting stuff, you have there on your todo list. ;) --S ^up? 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Composite honeycomb

Please don't nominate article talk pages for speedy deletion like that... if someone cut and pasted a bunch of nonsense in like that, just delete the nonsense. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just figured that since the page was created with the nonsense that it would be appropriate to tag it as eligible for speedy deletion, otherwise I would have done exactly as you said. --slakr 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. -- :) Chetblong 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good one! :) --slakr 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No Vandalism

Hello Kurt,

I just wanted to tell you that I was not vandalized (MAP91). I just forgot to log in, and I was trying to create userboxes on my account, but I did it wrong, so I just reverted my page back to the old one. The IP 69.123.236.26 is ok, I just forgot to log in. Sorry for the discrepancy, and thank you for your vigilance!

MAP91 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Freakin' awesome! That's what I had hoped for :D. Sorry for any confusion, and have a great day =) --slakr 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Thanks for your excellent edits on the page. Could you please clarify the weasel word tags on Talk:Child sexual abuse? Is the issue that the number of states with such laws is not specifically stated? Thank you. -Jmh123 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! :) I'll go add the clarifications to the page in a second. In short, basically, I stuck the weasel tags on constructs that used vague quantifiers (eg, "many" without saying/citing which ones) per Wikipedia's guideline on not using weasel words. I'll go add some of the examples to the page discussion momentarily. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. :) Cheers. --slakr 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

No problem, if you see them back to their old behavior after the block expires, let someone know; if it's a vandalism only account, it will probably have to be blocked indefinitely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

look it up

my name is nicanor fulgencio that page was a joke made by a friend please stop putting it back up. if u dont believe me look up the name and see if i was ever a crime boss in the early 1900s cuz i wasnt pal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.171.165 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please nominate it at Articles for Deletion instead of blanking it repeatedly despite being warned not to. --slakr 09:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

??

3. Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.

why does my page not qualify for speedy deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.171.165 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The creator's version of the page is not clear vandalism, asserts notability, is coherent, and therefore does not qualify under Criteria for speedy deletion. Sorry. --slakr 09:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

?

so if i were to create a page about u being a crime boss in the early 1900s, it wouldnt be vandalism? wikipedia defines vandalism as:

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

i believe i told u this was a joke. and if u dont believe me feel free to look it up—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.171.165 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 July 2007

It's not blatant vandalism. Moreover, the page is also mentioned on Vito Corleone. Whether it's factually inaccurate is irrelevant. Factually-inaccurate information, that, at face value satisfies all other criteria, will receive proposed deletion procedures or an articles for deletion discussion unless it's blatantly obviously vandalism. Every minute you spend arguing about this is another minute the alleged fraudulent page survives; so, if you feel the page should be deleted, then I highly suggest you follow my advice and go through the motions of Wikipedia's deletion policy. Carefully read the links I've sent you and you might be able to have the page removed in under a week. Best of luck. --slakr 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  no, i only wanted to delete it because it was false and i was tryin to help wikipedia out. im not going through any more trouble, i dont care that much about it.... just tryin to help out. as a member of the "counter-vandalism unit" if you wanna delete it, be my guest

London congestion charge

Thanks for noticing the problems with the London congestion charge article. I did some further checking, and discovered that the version you saw and tagged for deleted was the result of vandalism. I reverted the article to the last good version. --Eastmain 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, that was a totally bonehead mistake I made on my part-- how embarrassing. I have no idea, but for whatever reason I thought it was a new page. My sincere apologies. *bows humbly*. Have a good one. =) --slakr 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ichiro Move

Hi,

Thanks for the heads-up! :) Just so you know, I'm not crazy... that move is supposed to happen automatically, but the wiki can never work seamlessly when one expects it too! Best wishes, Xoloz 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, and thanks for userfying Mandeep, an article I tagged with CSD A7. I wasn't aware of the userfy process, so thanks for stepping in. Best regards Tree Kittens 08:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no problem. Thanks for keeping a close eye on the new pages list =). Have a good one, and cheers =) --slakr 08:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Thanks for the wikifi but I'm not going to do the regx code just yet as I'm planing on using that sub to find out what type of tag needs to be added to the article. --Chris ^g 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Just keep in mind that you can use assertions as well as submatches to get either the custom reason (for db|reason...) or the subtag (db-bio, for example). I just figure it'd save a bunch of copypasting, but *shrug* it's totally your call. Anyway, it's lookin' great. Keep up the good work. =) --slakr 11:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Slakr I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SineBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --ST47Talk 21:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the heads up. Have a good one =) --slakr 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot seems to be malfunctioning

Your bot seems to be malfuctioning. It signs comments even when I've signed it myself. See. Please take a look. Sarvagnya 08:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that and undid its signings when possible. It most likely happened to you because of the highly atypical way you sign your posts (i.e., only using User talk, and also placing a colon in front of "User." Normally it is looking for the output of official signatures via signing tildes (~~~~), as well as some variations on it. Worst case, if it ends up bothering you again, you can always opt out. --slakr 08:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Did you write SineBot in Pywiki? No matter what language is there a source code available? Thanks and please respond on my talkpage by clicking here. Thanks and cheers! SLSB talk • contrib 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK

I hope you don't take this personally but I was kinda mad when I heard about SineBot as I was gonna make a SLSBot that does Hagerman stuff. :) Oh well! Cheers! SLSB talk • contrib 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to write it in Perl but I haven't ever. Can you help me write it please? SLSB talk • contrib 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Heh, thanks for your kind words. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

team x rated!!!!

how dare you disturb any thing that team x-rated posts! do you know who we are? the most notorious street racing team in the country and are connected all over the planet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teamxxxrated (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if you were offended by the deletion of your page. Unfortunately, Team x rated failed to assert notability and has thus been deleted as per criteria for speedy deletion. Please see our guide for starting your first article for help on avoiding this problem in the future. --slakr 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinebot

So what kind of a slacker are you, really, if you've gone and built something as useful as this? Thank you! —Steve Summit (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I suppose I do occasionally have my moments of productivity. :P Thanks for the kind words. Cheers =) --slakr 01:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinebot comment

While I like the idea of a signature bot -- might I suggest allowing at least a little more time after the edit? It was a little annoying to have made an edit -- only to realize that I left a small fragment below my comment -- which I promptly attempted to remove -- only to get stuck in an edit conflict with sinebot, which was trying to sign the errant fragment. older ≠ wiser 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the feedback, and I'm sorry if you got annoyed by the bot's timing. At the moment, it gives people around 1 min 30 sec to realize their mistakes. I'm currently experimenting with this, however, so we might end up making it a little longer (maybe around 2 minutes). The downside is that the longer the interval is, the more signatures might go unsigned, as the bot will abort adding a signature on an old revision if there's a newer one. However, for now, if the bot keeps bothering you, check out the bot's user page for instructions on how to opt out of having your comments automatically signed. Sorry again, and cheers. :) --slakr 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at HagermanBot's discussions you will see why it went for immediate signing. Rich Farmbrough, 08:46 19 August 2007 (GMT).

Yikes. Well, I do have to admit that's ironic to some degree. One of the main complaints about HagermanBot was the very fact that it signed signatures so fast that it didn't allow RC patrol to revert vandal signatures without also reverting the bot. Moreover, people didn't like that they didn't have a chance to add their own signature after realizing that they made a boo-boo. I originally designed SineBot to add signatures pretty much immediately and added the delay in after-the-fact (see its BFRA for more info). However, there is a list of pages that are "high-priority" pages (see here), to which the bot will immediately sign unsigned contribs due to the high likelihood of edit conflicts. So, the new version of the bot has the best of both worlds (hopefully). However, I definitely want to hear more about why you would suggest higher/lower delays on the bot timings whenever you get a chance, so that I can look into possibly finding a happy median. Cheers. :) --slakr 11:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight

I removed a courtesy signing by sine bot. I was signed in while editing the exterior of my own talk page Albion moonlight 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah cool. I was actually going to add a couple extra checks to the next revision so as to be much more lax on users editing their own talk pages. Thanks for the heads up. =) --slakr 11:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — E ^talk_bots 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Coolness. As always, if you guys have any further concerns, do not hesitate to contact me. =) --slakr 11:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Hey, your bot signed my comment on User talk:Frogacuda claiming that I did not sign with a date/time. The thing is, for my signature I don't use ~~~~ but ~~~. The datestamp is added using: <small>[[User:Jacoplane|<span style="color:#AE1C28;">JACO</span>]][[User_talk:Jacoplane|<span style="color:#21468B;">PLANE</span>]] • {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}</small>. Do you think you could get your bot to exclude me? cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-08-18 23:50

The main reason the bot is doing that is because your signature has a weird-format datestamp plus it doesn't have a timezone. I'll add the new datestamp in the next revision, if you would like, but for now if the bot is giving you problems, I'd suggest simply opting-out of automatic signing by following the directions on the bot's user page. Sorry 'bout the confusion. Cheers :) --slakr 00:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't notice the opt-out option. That's all that I really wanted. Thanks! JACOPLANE • 2007-08-19 00:33 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:33:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Argh! I guess it takes some time for the opt-out to take effect. lol :) JACOPLANE • 2007-08-19 00:40

Lol, yeah, it takes up to 5 minutes (the frequency at which the bot checks the opt out category) to take effect. Of course, by the time I leave this comment and you read it it'll already have updated itself. :P Cheers =) --slakr 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I experienced the same problem (diff). I think signing unsigned comments is great, but going after signed but undated comments is probably just a bad idea. —Piet Delport 2007-08-19 07:25

Your date format should now be accounted for as of 1.1.0. --slakr 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Opt out without category

I add pointers to subsections on my talk page for explanatory notes and related matters. I do not want bots signing these pointers, and I do not want to add a category to my user page merely to prevent it. What's the best solution here? — Athaenara ✉ 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind—I applied the instructions on {{bots}}. — Athaenara ✉ 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the categories are only for the bot completely ignoring you. If you only want the bot to ignore a specific page, use {{bots}}, instead, as you've already discovered.  :) --slakr 00:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates

I, and a few others, sign an date like this. Rich Farmbrough, 08:46 19 August 2007 (GMT). —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:46:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I noticed that a little earlier, and I think it's a cool datestamp (I especially like how, even in something as mundane as a signature that there's still a reference to pages within wikipedia). I'll add a check on the next revision to hopefully account for that. If the bot keeps annoying you unbearably, however, you might consider temporarily opting out by following the opt out directions on the bot's user page. Cheers :) --slakr 11:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick update: those sigs should now work as of 1.1.0. --slakr 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving.

Are your pseudo signatures compatible with Shadowbot3's archiving code? Rich Farmbrough, 09:08 19 August 2007 (GMT). —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:08:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Ermm, I'm not sure-- I mean is there a specific requirement that you need from the bot? The bot will normally sign all talk pages, whether or not they're archive pages (all of which would, under almost all cases, be subpages). So, as far as I know, it would be compatible. The bot won't sign botflagged accounts (if that's a concern). Additionally, if more than one L2/3/4 header is in a contribution or if the bot detects multiple signatures already in a contribution, it will abort. Therefore, when it comes to archive bots, they should be safe. Of course, if there is something else that needs being done, definitely let me know =). Cheers. --slakr 10:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The date format it looks for may not encompass 09:08:37, August 19, 2007}}}}}} (UTC{{{Zone|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}}) }}.</small> Rich Farmbrough, 19:58 19 August 2007 (GMT).

Quick update: this is (hopefully) fixed as of 1.1.0. --slakr 00:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Your bot just added a long 'the preceding signed but undated comment...' message to the archive template I edited on my own talkpage (screwing up the formatting in the process). Cynical 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of editing every talkpage, your bot could only edit the talkpages of those users who have opted-in (as Werdnabot does for archiving, for example). This would avoid these sorts of situations. Cynical 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually the bot doesn't have problems when it comes to people archiving pages (especially if they use autoarchive). Additionally, the bot won't mess with template edits under most cases. However, in cases of highly-customized pages/talk pages, it might have problems recognizing what's being done inside a template if the template parameters are strange (i.e., the lines don't start with pipes '|'). I am going to add an exception to that one template you have, though, since it seems I might have overlooked that particular method of templating when designing the bot. In the meantime, for the overwhelming minority of pages that are like that and in case the bot gives you any problems on your pages, you can always use the opt-out methods listed on the bot's user page. You can elect to have the bot ignore you all together (the category method), or to simply ignore your talk page (the {{bots}} method). Sorry for any confusion/annoyance. --slakr 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick update: this is (hopefully) fixed as of 1.1.0. --slakr 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Signed, undated comment tagging

SineBot is still adding the "signed but undated" tag (diff). Is this really a good idea? Compared to signing actual unsigned comments, the benefit seems very slight; especially compared to the increased difficulty of reliably detecting dates/times. —Piet Delport 2007-08-19 23:49

Lol, I juuuust updated the bot to account for datestamps like yours (as well as a couple others). If you would like more details on this, check out the changelog. If weird datestamps continue to be a problem, however, I'll just disable the datestamp checking aspect of it. Let me know if the bot keeps giving you problems; or, if you would like, you can always follow the opt out instructions on its user page. --slakr 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (But what format are you calling weird? :) —Piet Delport 2007-08-20 04:47

Defeating sinebot

Sinebot is great. The problem is it's not great enough. If you comment in two different places on a page and save both at the same time or sign your comment in the middle of your post or make comment, sign it, then start a new section - then that effectively leaves an unsigned comment that sinebot doesn't recognize! Another user managed to troll me in this manner. -Nodekeeper 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it doesn't recognize complex edits effectively (at least, not yet), so it prefers to simply ignore them as opposed to accidentally signing in the wrong place, signing when it shouldn't be signing, or doing some other weird and unpredictable behavior. Hopefully in future revisions I will be able to work out some changes to its algorithms so that it detects complex edits more effectively without messing up. Definitely stay tuned and keep an eye on the bot's change log if you're interested in bleeding-edge changes. Cheers. :) --slakr 02:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I will keep tabs. I would think that it would be easy to make sure the end of the text should be signed wherever that may be (going from top to bottom of page). Maybe basic functionality at first, with a greater amount of time given before it autosigns. I left some examples of how I see the problem in the sandbox -Nodekeeper 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I saw some of those. I'll put them on my to-do list for after I get the bugs smoothed out of the current versions. Thanks again. :) --slakr 03:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot

Based on some threads I've noticed on ANI, there's apparently been a rash of false signatures - any chance the bot could be modified to detect and flag these? (say, the last userpage or usertalk link before the timestamp on the line is not to the page belonging to the user who wrote the comment) --Random832 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently it's not programmed or authorized to detect those. However, I had planned to implement that at some point in the future. If you happen to have some real-world diffs of some of these fake signatures, I'd be greatly appreciative. :) --slakr 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot mistakes

Your bot is attempting to replace edits that I previously made into another user's comments. An anonymous user edited the talk page of Template:History of Vietnam, where they did not leave a timestamp, but their user ip adress. After I edited the page, the bot interpreted the edit as my own, and added "the preceding comment was signed but undated" etc. with my own timestamp. This creates false information, and the bot should detect the signature with the user and date. - Io Katai 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. Someone edited another user's comment, you reverted those edits, then manually replaced the comment the user originally left yourself, and because the original comment wasn't datestamped, the bot added an incorrect datestamp (that is-- the datestamp of your edit). Sadly, there's really no simple way to teach the bot not to do that other than completely disabling timestamp addition. However, for each individual edit, the bot will ignore signing on it if you place !nosign! in the edit summary. Alternatively, when replacing a signature, you might also consider adding {{unsigned}} or {{undated}} to it if it needs it, and the bot won't mess with signing on it. Also, you can completely opt out of autosigning of your contributions by visiting the bot's user page and following the opt-out directions. --slakr 04:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot

SineBot is going crazy, or at least for me. I sign with with 3 ~~~, but it still signs for me. Is it just a personal problem for me? Watch, its gonna do it here. -Yancyfry —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:37, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

All comments should be signed completely. Using only 3 tildes (~~~ produces "slakr") makes a user page link, so the bot adds an {{undated}} template. You should use four tildes instead (~~~~ produces "slakr 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)") which is a full signature, since it includes the datestamp. --slakr 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. All I needed to know. -Yancyfry 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sine and sign

On the sinebot, you state that sine and sign rhyme. To be anal about it, they are homonyms - which is more than just rhyming. -- Kainaw^(what?) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good call. I originally just wanted a creative play on words. Now I suddenly feel smarter. *pauses* Ermm, well, I mean, that's what I really originally meant, of course! Yeah... that's right... I just forgot to include it... yeah... ugh! How dare you correct me! You should know better! ...heh, just kidding. :P Thanks for the heads up =) --slakr 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

Can you program your bot to stop adding signatures after I do so with four tildes? It's getting really bothersome to the point where it's driving me nuts. Lord Sesshomaru 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear your bot is making an error as evidenced here. Can you fix it or shut it off until it is fixed? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't a bug, per signatures - internal linking guideline, which suggests that either the user page, the talk page, or both should be linked from a custom signature. However, if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, please correct me and I'll adjust the bot accordingly. For those who wish to ignore all rules, they can use the opt out methods on the bot's user page. --slakr 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On a further note, I recognize the bot is probably doing exactly what you programmed it to do, however i am unaware of a requirement that a signature should point directly to the userpage. In the above example, it points to the contributions instead of the userpage. Perhaps you could modify your bot to be aware of more possible cases that count as valid sigs? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I set the bot to follow the signatures - internal linking guidelines as I read it, but again, if I'm reading it incorrectly, please correct me and I'll adjust the bot accordingly. However, if editors would like to ignore all rules ( ermm, guidelines in this case :P ), they can simply follow the opt-out directions on the bot's user page. Cheers. --slakr 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even further, there can be no link. Like here. Maybe it would be easiest to check just by timestamp? I haven't seen people modifying that. Renata 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see signatures - internal linking guidelines. I read "At least one of those 2 pages must be linked from your signature" as admonishing against non-linked sigs. Moreover, it seems pretty newbie-unfriendly to force someone new to the encyclopedia to inherently "know" that one should copy-paste a username and prepend "User:" or "User talk:" in order to personally talk to an editor. However, if others still feel that autosigning of these types of comments is unacceptable, I would suggest that they simply use the opt out options located on the bot's user page. --slakr 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinebot bug

[2] here's a sinebot mistake that I reverted, I was adding a dif, not a comment, should be fixed. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• This paradoxically is and isn't a bug, as you made another addition (which is a significant change) after the original, older one. The reason it still signs it is for cases like this, where the original submitter is the same person adding diffs, but he does so at a later time. So, when an admin is investigating whether or not a 3RR report is valid and finds that more information is added to the report than from the time he originally saw it, he might wonder where it came from.

In real life, for example, if you submit something to court but after-the-fact realize that more information is needed or a correction should be made, you send an addendum. Similarly, the bot interprets this as a new addition (or a reply to a comment). Also consider: imagine if someone added bad diffs to your report and it got rejected because it looked like you had put bad diffs in it, when in reality, someone else did, but the bot didn't sign the comment.

3RR is also on the bot's high priority pages list, since it is frequently modified and is at a high risk for edit conflicts, so instead of waiting a short period of time for an editor to sign a comment, it instead signs comments immediately. Anyway, if this becomes a widespread problem on that page such that it needs a special exception in the bot, I'll be glad to make the necessary changes. For now, I'd suggest we see how it plays out for a week or so. --slakr 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot not following redirect on user talk page

SineBot added a tilde notice on the talk page of LeddyLover, but at the time it was a redirect (the user made an incorrect move). Attempting to clean this up was somewhat complicated by the history added by SineBot on the redirect. Could it be made to check for redirects before leaving the notice? --Pekaje 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.1. Sorry if that caused you any headaches. :( Lemme know if it gives you any more problems. Cheers =) --slakr 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot problem

See here, where you resigned a signed comment. I think the problem was some other previous user's contribution that required a nowiki tag. Spa toss 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

just reviewing, and it looks like it also signed a previously signed contribution here. Spa toss 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bug. On the first one, a nowiki tag preventing a signature from being added; thus, the bot was correct in adding a signature to the post. On the second one, this isn't a bug either, per signatures - internal linking guideline, which suggests that either the user page, the talk page, or both should be linked from a custom signature. However, if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, please correct me and I'll adjust the bot accordingly. For those who wish to ignore all rules, they can use the opt out methods on the bot's user page. --slakr 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to report two similar unnecessary re-signings here. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.1. Good catch-- it was because your signature had a main-namespace colon in front of the wiki links (ie, it was [[:User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic london]]), and that's a totally plausible mistake. Everything should be okay now. Lemme know if it gives you any more problems. :) --slakr 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock templates...

Do not need the bot to sign for the user or actually within the template if the user edits it again. [3] Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. I'll add a check for block templates in the next revision (and possibly a check for recently blocked users to avoid the bot wasting resources on them). Thanks for the heads up =) --slakr 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.2. --slakr 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your Recent Edits

I sign them, i just dont date them. Is there something Wrong with that. HIYO 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Per the SineBot FAQ at the top of the page, #1, all signatures should have a datestamp. Please see WP:SIG for more info. --slakr 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your bot got me good!

Although it was a mistake, I give him a A+ for correcting me, I woulda done it sooner. Hehe! Ellomate 23:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Dr Bala V Balachandran

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dr Bala V Balachandran, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dr Bala V Balachandran is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dr Bala V Balachandran, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot not recognizing custom signature

See here. I'm not quite sure what the problem is, but, as a first guess, is the bot expecting a standard-form UTC timestamp? Kirill 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. It's the &nbsp;'s you have in place of normal whitespace. I'll add a check to strip them out before the bot checks for timestamps. Thanks for the heads up =) --slakr 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.2. --slakr 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot didn't recognize another signature that seems valid to me. Check out its edit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free Software. And keep up the good work! RossPatterson 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene, but the signature in question was obviously missing timestamp, and SineBot's edit says just that: «…signed but undated»; also please see SineBot FAQ #1 at the top of this page ∴ Alex Smotrov 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DOH! RossPatterson 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heads on up SineBot

Hey, just a heads up -- SineBot seems to be signing TWINKLE vandal notice/warnings, because it appends a shared IP notice after the signature (see this diff). This seems like a recurring issue. Otherwise, though, thanks and good work! Cheers --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. How bizarre. On the upside it's not actually appending the message (the message was there before you added it), but strangely it did sign it. That's WeIrD, because it never has issues with that. I'll give it a looksee and hopefully have it fixed later today. --slakr 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.4. Twinkle and some others should now be excluded. --slakr 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Signing by SineBot

Why does SineBot sign user's unsigned comments on their own user talk pages? (Example: User talk:Kantochuks.) It seems like a user should have to opt in to have it do this, not opt out so a bot they've never heard of won't sign for them on their talk page. Just a thought. Picaroon (t) 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally wondered the same thing. The main reason I left it enabled is that I could imagine discussions getting complex or long (so that sure, the actual signing aspect isn't important, but the datestamp is). I could also see it being important for people adding warnings to user pages to be able to see when replies, if any, were made. Plus, it's suggested by WP:SIG, and it's good practice for newbies. Increasingly, however, I'm thinking that it could simply ignore it, since it seems to be causing some issues with people doing funky things to their user pages. However, I'm totally divided at the moment. What do you think? You probably have more experience than I do when it all comes down to it. --slakr 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion would be to disable this function of the bot, to eliminate confusion on the part of newcomers. People who know how to have a conversation on someone else's userpage probably know how to use the history tab, so they can find out when the comment was made quite easily anyway. Picaroon (t) 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed in v1.1.4. The bot should no longer sign user talk pages of the user himself. --slakr 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

I see you have edited on my talk page: "Automatically signing comment made by Cholga". What is this mean? Do it mean that those comments are edited by Cholga. It is because I think that he or she has mistaken. I don't know waht Richmond Medical Center is. I didn't do anything on this article. Hope you can give me some advise. Many thanks! (Addaick 01:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually, that was SineBot that edited your talk page. It was because a user with the user name "Cholga" added a comment to your talk page see here, the stuff on the right), but he/she forgot to sign it to say who left it, so my bot signed it so that you know who left it and when (see here, the stuff on the right). No worries, you did nothing wrong. :) --slakr 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! (Addaick 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Barnstar

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For the awesomeness known as SineBot. Fantastic job! Videmus Omnia Talk 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot tests

I was helping to test the bot. And it works well, except as you can see, the last two edits didn't get signed. The bot was still running (according to god mode), so I'm wondering if the fact that in the post were the words "SineBot" had something to do with it? By the way, SineBot is wonderful! What a super helpful thing you've done! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Lol, thanks for the kind words. By the looks of your edit, you added an extra space before a block of text, so the bot considered it a "complex" edit and opted not to sign it. I'll probably add an exception for something like that, since whitespace *before* an addition seems pretty okay to ignore. Thanks for the heads up. :) --slakr 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, well I know I did not have a space in front of the sentence (as that causes those non-format boxes, and I'm not an 'indenter' anyway), but my thumbs and my space bar sometimes don't get along very well, (if you're a girl with long nails you can relate to that lol) and I tend to occasionally (too often) put two spaces between words, and don't always catch them to fix, though I try. But looking it over I don't see any extra spaces, so I'm not sure why the bot choked, lol. As an aside, I did ask another editor to go test that by using the Bot's name, and it did sign their comments, so maybe SineBot just doesn't like me. (Plus s/he warned me!) lol. I really do think this is a seriously excellent project, and you rock for doing it. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

Check out my sig! --AR Argon 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool :) --slakr 07:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

EEK! I should be ashamed of myself-- told off by my own son. I'll go sit in the corner now. --slakr 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

:-D Paolo.dL 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Monkey proof message for inexperienced users

This is a copy of a request I posted to User talk:Hagerman. Would you mind to consider it, please? Paolo.dL 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Background. A few weeks ago, when I didn't have a cue about wiki interfaces, I edited for the first time a talk page. The HagermanBot warning appeared:

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I did my best to follow that suggestion and just manually changed the line as follows:

• Paolo dL 85.20.234.61

I kept signing like this (by copy and paste) for 5 days! I thought it was OK, and only 5 days later I discovered it wasn't. Notice that I am an experienced computer programmer, but the editing interface appeared primitive... HagermanBot is great, but the message it automatically prints may not be effective enough for inexperienced MediaWiki users.

My Request. Please include a monkey proof clue (e.g. a clearly labeled link) about how to sign properly. Consider that those who read it are deemed to be inexperienced users, possibly without an account, who most likely don't even imagine the existence of a "user talk page" for their IP address... Please make their life easier, and make your warning just a bit clearer. For instance:

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (please read this note) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC). or
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC). See how to sign properly: Full help, or Short help

Would you mind? Thank you. Paolo.dL 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea. I could have sworn there was a template out there that had superscript on it with something along the lines of "please sign your comments" with a link to WP:SIG. I'll go fish around to see. Personally I think that something like "...unsigned (?)..." might get the point across without cluttering up things, but *shrug*, sure enough someone might complain about redundancy :P. Though, technically that's what the {{tilde}} warning is for-- people who, after 3 times, still don't get signatures right. I think it's at least worth some sort of discussion, though. Thanks for the suggestion, and cheers =) --slakr 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. My main points are these:

• Newbies, most likely, don't even imagine the existence of a "user talk page" for their IP. Thus, the {{tilde}} warning unfortunately doesn't work for them. It didn't work for me. And newbies are the only ones who would need to read it!
• The link to unsigned didn't work with me. Newbies passionately participating in a discussion are not interested in an apparently obvious explanation of the word "unsigned"! We need to warn them explicitly about the need to "sign properly".

And both points are particularly true for those who don't have an account yet, and are only (partially) identified by their IP. For these users, a link to their IP's talk page sholud be explicitly labeled as something they should read. The link labeled "talk" means absolutely nothing for them! It does not arouse their curiosity.

Thus, after posting the {{tilde}} warning (possibly without waiting for the third unsigned or unproperly signed posting), please permanently switch your bot to a message like this:

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC). Please sign properly (see this note)

Thanks for your attention again, :-) Paolo.dL 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to horn in on the conversation, (but doing so anyway) I would actually agree, I first came to Wikipedia in ... hrmm, late 2004 I guess, and didn't start even editing until mid 2005. And after that, (before making a username) I had no idea a talk page existed. For a new user, I think that the words "please read your talk page" with that linking to their talk page, might be extremely helpful, or even a shorter "see your talk page". Of course, on the opposite side of the argument is the fact that if they do it three times, our Bot buddy will warn them, and that big bright gold bar at the top is pretty tough to miss, and it says "click here" basically lol. So, perhaps something simpler like

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (User's messages) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really "grab" me, but it does get the point across easily. Of course, the other thing to note is that most users who don't sign their posts either don't realize that's something they should do, or don't see that a bot signed the post for them, so either way, they may not "get" it until they're notified on their talk page. Interesting conundrum, though! I'll be watching to see the result, I don't really have an strong opinion one way or the other, I just think it brings up valid points on both sides. ^Ariel♥Gold 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think that there's also a third possibility that we should consider: the user reads the signature added by the bot, understands that Wikipedia requires a signature, and starts signing manually, without knowing how to do it properly in the apparently primitive editing interface offered by MediaWiki. This is what happened to me. I thought that adding my name and IP at the end of my contribution was good enough. And I did it manually.

I didn't know about the "big bright gold bar at the top"!. That's a good idea. However, I didn't notice it some months ago, when HagermanBot posted its warning on my IP talk page (was HagermanBot programmed to display it?). Is it possible to keep that bar visible for an infinite number of sessions until the user "clicks there"?

I think that your suggestion is good; much better than the original warning. But I'd rather add an explicit invitation to read the warning on the talk page. Something like the red warning "you have a new message", another warning that I didn't see (I have two hypotheses to explain why: see my User talk:Paolo.dL). If a similar message had been inserted in the automatic signature, I would have seen it for sure! "See your talk page" is probably enough, I agree, but if we want a monkey proof message, we should rather say explicitly that an important message has been posted there... For instance (notice that the link includes the specification of the #header of the warning posted by the bot):

• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (talk). Please read this message. 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.20.234.61 (please read this note) 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Paolo.dL 15:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good thing for circumventing the infamous bug 9213 --slakr ^(talk) 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Paolo, the gold bar "new messages" at the top is a part of Wikipedia: Any time any user receives a message on their talk page, the gold bar will (well, is supposed to) show up at the top of their page the next time they perform an "action", (reloading a page, going to a new one, doing an edit, previewing an edit, etc.). It stays there until the user goes to their talk page. So that's (technically) automatic. But as Slakr mentioned, there's some sort of bug with that related to IP users. However, I agree that some people genuinely don't know how to sign, and thus do it manually, I've actually seen many people do that. Nothing really wrong with that, except that it doesn't link to their user page, unless they've figured out how to make it do that. I think the problem will be to find a "short and sweet" message that conveys all the issues surrounding not signing posts, not seeing message bar, not knowing how to sign, not knowing there is a talk page, etc, lol. So, rather than state all those things, I think Slakr should look at it more from the point of "What is the single most important concern" to get through to a user with some, or possibly all, those issues listed? Is it to get them to read their talk page? Get them to read how to sign a post? etc. Obviously, just a "talk" link after it is a bit ambiguous, so some other form of direction is needed. However, I have no doubt Slakr will figure out something short, uber, and effective! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please also remember that I did not see the "you have a new message" bar at the top of the page. May be because of:

• the infamous bug 9213.
• the fact that I was passionately participating to a discussion and was focused on the editing window.
• the fact that I was using two different IPs (one rarely at home, the other more frequently at my office)!

Thanks for your answers, Slakr and ArielGold. Greetings, Paolo.dL 11:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Three tildes

bot is a great idea.. but make it understand that three tilde's is just as good as four. I accidently typed three and the bot left me a message and "signed" my post.. kinda annoying seeing my username is still on there. -Tracer9999 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bug. Per FAQ for SineBot, #1 at the top of the page. --slakr ^(talk) 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot signing sandbox

Here's a link to the history of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crohnie/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=153167011 Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC):

Not a bug. Ah, that's because it's in the "User talk:" namespace. Most sandboxes are in the plain-old "User:" space. If you'd rather the bot not sign that page, you can do one of several things: visit the bot's user page for opting out methods ("entire page" might be what you're looking for); or, simply keep non-talk pages in the "User:" namespace, since the bot will automatically sign all pages and subpages in the various "talk" namespaces. --slakr ^(talk) 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Being a slow user I'll leave things like they are and just sign like I do on articles. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Made User_talk:Sinebot into a redirect to User_talk:SineBot

Hello Slakr. Since I noticed that User_talk:Sinebot was collecting some issues that probably should go elsewhere, I made this user talk into a redirect to User_talk:SineBot. You can revert it back if this is not the correct thing to do. I doubt that anyone will want to register 'Sinebot' as a user name. EdJohnston 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks a million =) --slakr ^(talk) 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot malfunctioning

I have temporarily blocked SineBot as malfunctioning as it mysteriously just blanked half of AN/I. =/ --Krimpet 05:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was on my way around here to report that, but Krimpet got here first. Yeah, the bot nuked everything below a signature issue. It looks like the thing it did was substitute a ~~ (two tildes) with a signature, despite there being a signature there, and then stopped parsing below that. Anyways, good luck fixing it. Georgewilliamherbert 05:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed / reverted back to 1.1.5. Ick. It was because I had just updated the way it looked for blank row additions (v1.1.5), so I think it just got confused as to how to calculate what lines were being added/changed, so it barfed. I reverted back to 1.1.4, so everything should be good, so it's safe to unblock it. I'll go hunt down the logic fallacy offline before updating it with that one change (which was a trivial, low-priority one anyway). Thanks for the heads up, and sorry about the confusion. :( --slakr ^(talk) 05:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a quick turnaround time :) Bot unblocked. --Krimpet 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's funny, because every time I make an upgrade to the logic aspects of the bot, I'll sit and watch all of the debugging output live until I'm satisfied that nothing bad is happening. Everything (including the sandbox test) seemed to be working normally, and I literally got up to take a shower, and *bam* :P Again, sorry for the headache. If you have any other questions/concerns, feel free to let me know. Thanks again, and cheers. :) --slakr ^(talk) 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: SineBot

I'm confused rather, which category do I place on my user talk page to keep it away from me? I'd like an answer directly from you, not another automated message. Lord Sesshomaru 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Question. Please see single person opt out instructions. That's as simple as I can describe it. --slakr ^(talk) 04:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SineBot's Bot Flag

Just had a thought, because bot has a bot flag it means it doesn't show up in my watchlist (and im guessing most people's watchlist also). If a comment is left somewhere and then sinebot signs it (which it tends to be doing pretty quickly) the comment won't show up on my watchlist and so I could miss it unless I knew to look. Maybe you should consider getting the bot flag removed? Make sense? :: maelgwn - talk 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly. But, on the other hand, it would seem that an unsigned comment would be trivial-- that's why the bot signing it doesn't show up in the first place. After all, "so what if I forgot to sign that one time?" Second, Mediawiki has stricter rate limits for non-admins and non-bots, which can cause api.php to get ancy. Also, in less than a week the bot has made over 7,000 signatures, which would likely clutter RC. With regard to the signing time, the bot waits at least a minute and a half before signing an unsigned comment on infrequently edited pages, and as fast as it can on frequently-edited pages (in order to avoid edit conflicts). I might increase the low-traffic delay, though. --slakr ^(talk) 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, that "poser" userbox made me giggle :P --slakr ^(talk) 09:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot's edits shows up on my watchlist, so I don't think it has a flag? You can go into preferences, and set if you want it to hide or show bot edits. Default I believe is hide, so that may explain why it does not show for some. ^Ariel♥Gold 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just logged in to a bot account I created the other day and it looks like "hide bot edits from the watchlist" is off by default (actually, all of the checkboxes in that tab are off by default it seems). Good thinking :) --slakr ^(talk) 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, off by default, check. Well, I think that's why it isn't showing up, because I'm nearly positive it shows up for me. I'll go over to sandbox and test if I do see them. ^Ariel♥Gold 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Y mb User:SineBot/Sandbox‎; 05:41 . . (+273) . . SineBot (Talk | contribs) (Automatically signing comment made by ArielGold) -- Showing up fine for me! ^Ariel♥Gold 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ymb Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎; 05:43 . . (+329) . . SineBot (Talk | contribs) (Automatically signing comment made by 68.146.125.214) -- Checking to be sure it isn't just sandbox it shows up on^Ariel♥Gold 09:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User boxes should make you giggle occasioanlly :-). I should be able to do some more pretending soon, yay for toolserver. Back to the topic, it is no different to date tags being added to maintenance templates or talk pages being archived. I think ill just turn the bot showing back on in my watchlist. :: maelgwn - talk 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please enable simpler communication about all of this {[??]}:

Right now, these searches do not work:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/_sinebot >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/_signbot >.

Please try to create a primary article, that would conform to those searches, such as:

sinebot ;

signbot ;....

or, alternatively, a redirect variance exemption , to whatever.

Today, I had added a comment within a comment that I had just previously written. Your bot signed the dependent subcomment . That is fine now; however, if spacing is crucial to a comment, that could be problematic.

Please set the robot that if someone adds a character, word or paragraph, & a signature which matches is below, within say thirty to forty textlines, & that signature is within the past six edits, then it would let the edit alone.

I have actually set my signature to make it simpler f/ me to copy & paste my impression of edits where the signature is neither above, nor below, nor otherwise where I could locate it.

Please try copying it into the addressbar.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is from screenname : "hopiakuta", in order to see what it would do,....

So, it did nothing.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm having trouble understanding part of what you're asking. Please clarify and use diffs for adding examples of the problem. Also, please try to avoid unnecessary [[wikilinks]]. --slakr ^(talk) 03:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bug. The bot isn't programmed to look for 'n' revisions ago. Please use the [[Help:Show preview|show preview button]. Also, please do not test the bot here-- instead, please use the sandbox instead. --slakr ^(talk) 03:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

9213

Is there a page that describes 9213 f/ us ignorami, particularly in wikipedia?

&, the name:...

slakr

lacquer

slacker

slack

pant

panter

panther

pantser

pancer

paint , lacquer

---

hagermanbot

hager

hager slack

hagar_slack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopiakuta (talk • contribs) 20:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

hagar horrible

Ted Haggard

Mike Jones

That's my microbrainprocessor .

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm having trouble understanding part of what you're asking. Please clarify and use diffs for adding examples of the problem. Also, please try to avoid unnecessary [[wikilinks]]. --slakr ^(talk) 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot mis-signing (mis-sineing??)

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest, your bot signed an addition to the RfC. Please note that additions to RfCs in places like this don't get signed. Signed discussion goes on the talk page, therefore you need to somehow program the bot to not sign Wikipedia namespace which isn't a discussion page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The reason the bot signed on a non-talk page was because the primary page WP:RFC is listed in Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed per the bot's info page. I could technically try make an exception for this if you want, but there's another important point to be discussed before doing so: is it better if the bot really does sign that? Consider: requests for comment endorsements are done for a certain incarnation of a subsection. Now, if someone comes along and adds something, the people who have already endorsed the grounds for dispute may not be aware that they're endorsing a modified version of the the original grounds for dispute, and it would make sense that some sort of bot or person should make it clear that it's been modified from its original form. Thus, it might be a better thing if the bot does sign. Please lemme know what you think. --slakr ^(talk) 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can see your point, please also be aware that the last section in an RfC states, "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." (emphasis on "all" is in the original). In other words, except for signatures of endorsements, there is not supposed to be other signing in the body of the RfC. If you want the bot to do the kind of signing you've mentioned above for the reasons above, you'd be welcome to suggest such a change to allow that in the appropriate place, but while the RfC is set up as it is, I don't think signing there is a good idea. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cool, well, in that case, I'll remove Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment for you guys. Not sure who added it in the first place, but it shouldn't be an issue now. Since the discussion page is in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, those comments will remain autosigned by default. If you have any other problems, please don't hesitate to contact me. Btw, fun header :P --slakr ^(talk) 04:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great...many thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)