User talk:Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive23

Archived Discussions

Archive 1: 39 topics. (27 November 2005 - 27 February 2006) Archive 2: 41 topics. (28 February 2006 - 15 March 2006) Archive 3: 40 topics. (15 March 2006 - 23 March 2006) Archive 4: 40 topics. (23 March 2006 - 5 April 2006) Archive 5: 42 topics. (5 April 2006 - April 16 2006) Archive 6: 38 topics. (16 April 2006 - April 22 2006) Archive 7: 40 topics. (22 April 2006 - 7 April 2006) Archive 8: 40 topics. (27 April 2006 - 1 May 2006) Archive 9: 46 topics. (1 May 2006 - 5 May 2006) Archive 10: 60 topics. (5 May 2006 - 16 May 2006) Archive 11: 65 topics. (16 May 2006 - 22 May 2006) Archive 12: 60 topics. (22 May 2006 - 30 May 2006) Archive 13: 119 topics. (30 May 2006 - 15 August 2006) Archive 14: 45 topics. (15 August 2006 - 24 September 2007) Archive 15: 24 topics. (24 September 2007 - 29 November 2007) Archive 16: 93 topics. (29 November 2007 - 31 December 2007) Archive 17: 75 topics. (31 December 2007 - 24 January 2008) Archive 18: 136 topics. (24 January 2008 - 24 February 2008) Archive 19: 102 topics. (25 February 2008 - 14 March 2008) Archive 20: 100 topics. (15 March 2008 - 23 May 2008) Archive 21: 100 topics. (24 May 2008 - 30 September 2008) Archive 22: 100 topics. (31 September 2008 - 10 November 2008) Archive 23: 100 topics. (10 November 2008 - 16 December 2008) Archive 24: 100 topics. (16 December 2008 - 28 February 2009) Archive 25: 100 topics. (28 February 2009 - 14 October 2009) Archive 26: 100 topics. (14 October 2009 - 7 February 2011) Archive 27: 183 topics. (7 February 2011 - 2 January 2013) Archive 28: 137 topics. (21 January 2013 - 12 September 2014)

If you wish to revitalize an archived discussion, please copy and paste all text, formatting included, to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks!

Top of Page

User:Secreatarian

May I ask on what grounds you think this user is a sockpuppet. I've been here a few months and watched User:Secretaria. He is a experienced editor who knows the rules from what I've seen. User:Secreatarian on the other hand is very arrogant, in my opinion, who doesn't care. I don't see anything linking them besides their name which would be a little dumb for User:Secretaria to want to make a sock and have nearly the same name.--WillC 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not know who this Secreatarian is though I have noticed him. I have nothing to do with him. Secretaria 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting something like that. The TNA Championship has been edited many times by both, I've seen Secretaria editing that thing since I began here earlier this year. Secreatarian on the other hand only gets on to add NWA World Heavyweight Champions that were in [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling] because he wants to go by the history on their official website which is revisionism since they are two different belts and one was just created in 07; Long story. Secretaria hasn't really shown any interest, that I can remember, to want to add those champions into the article. He should be on later tonight since he updates the reigns of most of the pro wrestling championship histories. If there is anything I can do to help then just ask.--WillC 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just saw it on my watchlist and felt compelled to find out what was going on. I don't want someone to get blocked for the wrong reasons.--WillC 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to check this guy again. I believe he has created a new account User:Lmeso. His controbutions are the same as Secreatarian's. I have proof as well. 1 and 2. I've never filed a checkuser so I just thought to tell you, since you seem to have more exprience than me.--WillC 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not really sure it is him yet. That is why I was going to do a check user, but your decision. Just felt like sharing.--WillC 06:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I need help. How do I add categories to pages? How do I make redirect pages? Am I dumb for these questions? Also, can you please adopt me? Sorry for bombarding you with questions. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

seeing double

at Euryalus RFA [1] I have taken the liberty of striking the duplicate[2]. Gnangarra 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Why did you unprotect United States presidential election, 2012 from being created? It is ridiculously early, nearly 4 years away. We don't even know how many electoral votes each state will have until 2010, it should be creation protected till then. CTJF83Talk 08:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it only says potential candidates, not for sure candidates. Also, like I said, we don't know how many electoral votes each state will get, because of the 2010 census will change that. CTJF83Talk 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just seems too early to me to start the page. Oh well....I won't AfD it again. CTJF83Talk 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I don't really care all that much anyway. Did someone just request to you to unprotect it? CTJF83Talk 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request concerning discussion board edit

I just noticed this as I checked through the Talk:Canada page history as requested by admin on my user page. I had posted a link to the 1RR admin report on the Canada:Talk page[3]. It appears that G2bambino removed this link, which I believe constitutes a blanking violation. It involves changing the context of one of your posts from a response to my post, to an original post by you.

1. 01:26, 7 November 2008 Soulscanner posts link to 1RR violation notice.
2. 16:40, 7 November 2008 Master of puppets posts link to 3RR violation notice (fair enough).
3. 18:02, 7 November 2008 G2bambino removes link to 1RR notice; replaces name of section. Changes the sense somewhat. I think that is blanking, with intent (consider the timing re the 3RR report) to mislead uninvolved administrators. Cute. Real cute. Pardon my exasperation, but this low-grade disruption happens all the time.

Could you please 1. Restore the original (if I restore, it could look as as the original blanking) 2. Apply these civility conditions. Also, please post a notice of this to User_talk:G2bambino; I wish to limit my contact. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A few requested restrictions here. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For your further information about this, if you're actually pursuing it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175#Personal attacks on talk page; please note the suggestion: "try doing as I suggest - politely remove stuff you don't want to talk about, and see how that goes." --G2bambino (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting AdventureQuest. Why must you say a few seconds in a week? Yeah. Good humor! How do you put a message up on a talkpage like yours?

You should say "Good evening", as my country's (Malaysia) time is GMT +8 and now is 6 pm. GOODNIGHT!

604800 seconds in a week. 60*60*24*7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Chung (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

--Mark Chung (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Official

How do you make the adoption thing offical? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let the Jonathan321 roam. For now. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Holiday

I have one non-Wikipedia related question. Do you have the day off like we do in America today (I looked at your userpage and it said you were Canadian)? Jonathan321 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Marvel Zombies

You're right, I probably just made the situation worse. I'm sorry for that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record...

...I have a life. I'm editing right now during some downtime at work. It's simply that I've been watching this vandal create sock after insulting sock and I couldn't stay quiet. I didn't mean to fan the flames, but I think that this Liebman guy has done a pretty good job of it himself. Sorry to have caused such concern, but I'd simply reached my limit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I understand what you're saying. I had quit the project over that sort of abuse on the part of people like this and I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved with these fools again, but here I am. Thanks for the reality check. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem! (I'll reply here due to you seemingly not wanting me on your talk page :P) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just a bit stung by your comment. I'm OK now and you're more than welcome to leave word on my talk page. I guess I need to be slapped by that trout sooner than later, no? PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How cool is this? We get a new fun template out of this! Many thanks for all the good work you do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) 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.

Malplaced disambiguation pages

Hello Master of Puppets,

Thanks for fixing malplaced disambiguation pages. I noticed that you deleted several redirects created after the moves. In most occasions, deleting them is unnecessary, primarily because they are harmless, but also because they can be used to link to disambiguation pages (see WP:INTDABLINK). As an example, the redirect Bones (disambiguation) you deleted was linked from Bone (disambiguation).

I've recreated several redirects that have incoming links, but it is possible that some of them had a substantial history that should probably be kept (i.e. if they contain an article or a disambiguation page that was later merged into another). In particular, I am referring to the following pages:

• 4th of July (song) (deleted history)
• Mr. Bones (hist)
• Arabstan (hist), Arab-estan (hist) and Arabestan (hist)
• Available Light (hist)

Could you please check their history, and restore them if appropriate? Thank you for your time. Best regards, Korg (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big issue, so if their histories aren't meaningful it wouldn't matter if they're not restored. I asked this because on some occasions, in addition to the practical considerations, there may be potential benefits: sometimes a dab page is merged into another, or replaced with a redirect when a hatnote can be of better use, then for some reasons recreated later; in this case, the old content could be easily restored; also, in the event that an article or a dab page was merged into another then replaced with a redirect, the old history should be kept for GFDL compliance. At least redirects from alternative spelling (such as Arabstan or Available Light) should preferably be fixed in the first place instead of being deleted.

Also, thanks for having fixed the page that linked to the "4th of July (song)" redirect. Such redirects are generally useful though, as they help to prevent the creation of articles with those names; please see WP:DAB#Incomplete disambiguation. Best regards, Korg (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Parser functions

Per your message, I do believe I could help there. I recently learned much about them, how to use them, any many other things. What do you need help with?(Also, don't ask how I learned them, I rather not return to that hell at this time(140kb of parser functions)).— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. If gender=male, then it displays words like he or him. If gender=female, it displays words like she or her. If gender is not specified, it displays them and they.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want me to change any of the specifics, just ask. For instance, it will take a bit more coding, but I believe I can fix it so |gender= is not required before the specified gender, meaning, instead of having to do {{subst: munch|~~~|gender=male}}, it would be {{subst: munch|~~~|male}}. It might be possible, but I would need to look at it a bit more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There, fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

User talk:92.235.185.127

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. It's possible I missed something, but it looks to me like they were trying to be helpful, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans, then. :) Thanks for having a second look. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the colors do fit nicely. :D Something just clicked when I saw that on a public domain clipart site, and soon enough I found myself designing the entire userpage around it... >.> Nice to see somebody else has a use for it! – Luna Santin (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is from WP:VANDALISM under "Discussion page vandalism": Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. FYI. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You told me that an IP user deleting another IP user's comments were not vandalism and said I was equally guilty. You were wrong. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You said an admin could block me for reverting vandalism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to go dig it up. Forget it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

templatre thing

Hi.. unfortunately that code didn't work :/ [roux » x] 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it did :/ Using that code makes the cat not show up anywhere. :/ [roux » x] 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your multiple supports for my RfA, which closed yesterday. I can honestly say no one cast as many !votes as you did, and your repeated backing was flattering, if a little disturbing. Vague images of a Daley-esque victory swam into my mind, before the votes were indented and it all came crashing down.

Just kidding. Thanks for your support and for the moment of humour in an otherwise nerve-wracking process. There's a fair bit to learn, so it'll be all quiet for a bit while I read the mountainous series of instruction pages, after which if there's any advice or guidance you think would be helpful, feel free to stop by and pass it on. Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (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. — Coren ^(talk) 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

BotPuppet

XXX-space for possible edit page breakage.

Breakage? Do you have an undo algorithm too? Franamax (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your editnotice is hopelessly long, you have way too much decoration on your talk page for the target of a bot making rapid edits, and I'll see now for the second time whether or not the edit preview is badly broken. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at least on IE7 - badly broken, text is squeezed to the right-side of your editnotice. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And please note my BON thread. Can we iron some of this out before you start running the bot again? Franamax (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a whole post here, but you already responded while I slowly typed, then I pasted before copying - arghh. Anyway, yes, my example was just you breaking a little bit more of a template someone else had already broken.

I'd swear that I saw you subst:ing SineBot, but it's way too late/early to delve into. And I don't buy the "server load" rationale, we're told to ignore that (unless "excessive" - and MediaWiki has those triggers); you're subst:ing templates that "should" be subst:ed (not "will be done by bot"), and the User warning templates "should generally be substituted" - I'm still not seeing the mandate, nor the rationale. However, nighty-night. :) Franamax (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism

Hi MOP, I hope you will recall the article Islam and Sikhism and the same amount of intimidation/manipulation is clearly visible on Sikh Extremism it seems apparent as well as ironic that these zealous editors clearly don't speak for the majority of Sikhs, because I feel the majority would rather root out those connected to terrorist activities, We have noticed edits by Singh6 who wish to delete Sikh Extremism have defaced the article with too much tagging. The article is well referenced with sources from the BBC, CBC The Times and New York Times - although these sources have been rubbished by another:'Sikh history'

There are 4 Admins who have voted to keep the article, (Flewis, DJ Clayworth, LeagleEagle & KnowledgeHarmony) I was hoping you may get a chance to read the article and perhaps vote without intimidation. Going back to Islam and Sikhism this article has also been vandalized by Singh6, his actions seem to speak louder than words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh_extremism

Thanks

update: Hi Mop, after much deliberation and many other things, the article has been chosen to remain, I would ask you to kindly consider Islam & Sikhism in light of the above, the same motley crue have twisted the article beyond fact and actuality.

I would like to re-edit this with your permission, thank you. Satanoid (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid has LIED - Proofs:

• Decision of Afd is "NOT" keep but the decision is "No Consensus".
• Also, User Talk: Legaleagle86 & User Talk: KnowledgeHarmonypart2 are not administrators. User Talk: Legaleagle86 has infact told Satanoid that he/she is NOT an administrator. --Irek Biernat (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why substitute "unsigned"?

Why is BotPuppet substituting {{unsigned}} when WP:SUBST says this matter is under debate? Shouldn't you wait until the debate is over? --Dr Greg (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. And, even for the templates that clearly should be substituted, they still shouldn't be substituted on their defining page, such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace for {{unsigned}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it should be substituted (which is a matter for consensus, not because of a statement inserted in the template documentation, possibly without comment), it should only be substituted on talk pages (and other pages which are autosigned). It's a logical assumption that, if a page shouldn't have signatures, the {{unsigned}} template shouldn't be substituted, but is intended as something one could copy from editing the page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the bot (until we have discussed this), since the bot is substituting {{unsigned}}, for which there is not consensus. And the bot also does it on non-talk pages where the template is demonstrated or linked.

Since Legobot was doing the same thing, and I have blocked that bot too, and people already have started discussing it here, I asked the bot owner of Legobot to come discuss it here.

I have looked around at a number of {{unsigned}} and Wikipedia:Template substitution related talk pages and talk page archives. It seems there is a weak majority of users that wants {{unsigned}} to be substituted, but there is no clear consensus for it. But note that that is for substituting it when adding it. When it comes to later running a bot and do edits to pages only to substitute {{unsigned}}, then there seems to be a clear majority of users against. (But perhaps not a clear consensus.) The reason being that doing the substitution as a separate edit like that costs a lot of unnecessary server load and fills up the edit histories. So it costs more than any known gain from substituting the template.

My personal view is pretty much in-line with the above. That is: The template should perhaps be substituted, but do not do separate edits just to do that. If a bot does it as a side job while doing other edits to a talk page I personally have no objection. But, since there seems to be no clear consensus even for substituting the template in the first place, then this has to be discussed a lot more first. Since substitution is pretty much an irreversible action, since there is no easy way to find and fix all cases back to transcluded cases.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The response below is copied from my talk page. --David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would've been easier to just ask me to stop the bot instead of block it. :P Whatever though, I can appreciate the usage of force I guess. Anyway, I did read this. While discussion was split down the middle, I noticed that everyone against was saying "there's no reason to, so why should we", and the "it ain't broken so don't fix it" argument is lame. Besides, I still think that this drains a lot of power given how often it is transcluded (I don't care what WP:PERF says because that only applies to the small cases, I'm pretty sure). If we're substituting unsigneds now old ones should also be substituted because of the poor, poor job queue. For what it's worth, here's my reasoning against some examples from that talk page;

1. "Needs to be transcluded so that we can fix it easily if it breaks"; if that was how we ran Wikipedia we wouldn't even have subst: as a function. Besides, everyone substitutes it currently (SineBot as well).
2. "The developers said don't do it"; this seems to throw WP:BOLD out of the window. And besides, Brion himself said that they deny the server load claim only because nobody has tested against it. This is like storing corpses in the drinking water but not removing them despite all the deaths until somebody proves that it isn't healthy.

Reasons not to substitute from WP:SUBST, explained:

• Once a template is substituted, the result is no longer linked to the template, making it hard to find all pages displaying that text (though categories can sometimes relieve this). This problem can easily be worked around by including a link to the template in the template's code. Why do we need to find where the unsigned template has been used? You could always just pagesearch for "Preceding comments..." anyway.
• A substituted template will not be updated when the master template is updated. Unsigned is a stable template, so this doesn't really matter.
• If the template is used to standardize the appearance of something, you probably do not want to do a substitution. An example of this is a table of contents or navigation box. Doesn't apply.
• Substituting en masse — editing thousands of articles with bots — slows down the site and wastes server resources unnecessarily. Not really any more than day-to-day usage. What happened to WP:PERF? Besides, better to take them down then have them continually drain resources.
• Substitution increases the size of articles in the database and database dumps. By a couple of bytes; don't think we need to worry.
• A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically inclined. Unsigned isn't complicated at all.
• Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation. It leaves "Template:unsigned" in comments.
  • When a user tries to copy, for example, the warnings for vandaloids created by the templates described at Template:Test, from an existing page to another page where it is needed, that user receives no clue that the content on the existing page was created by a template! If the template has changed recently, then the user might find several undated versions of each warning. The user is left wondering what to do. It looks like each editor copies or makes their own warnings. Which version to use? Write my own? This whole 'subst' feature is weird. Null due to previous statement.
• If the template is just being used temporarily, it is usually better not to substitute. Substituted templates are much harder to remove or modify. Long-term template is long-term.
• When a vandalised template is substituted, it is more difficult to repair than regular vandalism because of the lack of links between the template and its incarnations and the lack of updatability. It won't be vandalised, so no worries.
• Unsubstituted deletion tags for trivial pages (such as categories and redirects) offer the deleting administrator a convenient, meaningful deletion summary. Example: "content was: '{{rfd}} #REDIRECT Wikipedia' (and the only contributor was 'Jimbo Wales')". A precise deletion comment gives onlookers (especially non-administrators unable to view the deleted edits) better insight as to why a specific item may have been deleted. If templates such as {{rfd}}, {{cfr}}, etc. are substituted, the "reason for deletion" field defaults to a blank line. However, pages deleted via {{afd}} and {{mfd}} should be deleted with a link to the subpage where the deletion was discussed. This also doesn't apply.

See what I mean? Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

End, response copied from my talk page. --David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't take this wrong, I do not mean to be rude even though it might sound so. I just don't know how to formulate this in a friendlier way, probably since English is just my third language:

I see that you are a brand new bot owner, it seems you actually got your first bot approval yesterday. That probably explains why you don't know some of the basics. I'll explain some of them here:

Regarding blocking your bot instead of asking you to stop it: That is the standard procedure with bots, the moment we discover something weird with a bot we are supposed to block it. Since just asking you to stop it means it continues to run, perhaps for days doing many thousands of edits, until you answer. And this case proves that point, since two users had already protested here and the bot was still running 11 hours later. And that is one of the reasons why bots run from separate accounts, so it should be no big deal that they get blocked, since you as a human user don't get blocked.

Regarding communicating with users as a bot owner: You responded to the comments from me and the other users on our talk pages, instead of here on your talk page. That means that users that come here wondering about your current bot run doesn't see the responses you have already written about it. I for instance didn't notice that you had answered the other users when I blocked your bot. I didn't realise that until you responded on my talk page, then I went looking. Although in this case the answers you gave the other users would not have changed my decision to block your bot. As a normal editor you can respond on the users' talk pages if that is your preference. But when it concerns your bot then I recommend you respond here, since that will avoid a lot of confusion and save you from having to type the same answer over and over again.

Regarding consensus: As far as I understand the bot policies, the bot approval is not a "consensus to do the action", but only a technical approval that your bot works as it should. You still also need a consensus for the specific tasks.

Your own description of the situation (now that you have seen the old discussion about transcluding the {{unsigned}} template) is that the "discussion was split down the middle". That clearly means there is no consensus. Then you should certainly not let your bot continue to run to enforce your will.

Another thing is that you fail to understand that doing the edits cost much more server load than letting the {{unsigned}} template be transcluded. Especially since you could "fix" most cases over time by letting some bots do it as a side job while doing some other edits to the page.

But anyway, it is not me you should convince. It is the majority of users that have discussed this that you need to convince. Since you need to have a consensus before doing a bot run. And as you yourself stated, the "discussion was split down the middle". But I don't blame you for starting the bot run, since at the time you did not know there had already been protests against substituting the {{unsigned}} template. But now that you know you have to either give it up, or try to achieve a consensus before you can start that task again.

So, normally for me to unblock your bot right away you would need to state that your bot will only do its other tasks, and not substitute the {{unsigned}} template anymore. Until that specific task has been further discussed. But I just took a quick look at the templates you list at User:BotPuppet and at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotPuppet. The {{nowrap}} template should not be substituted either. Note that I am the one who coded up most of the nowrap related templates used here at Wikipedia, except the old {{nowrap}} itself, and I wrote the how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling. So I know the nowrap templates better than most. By the way, I am aware of two discussion about substituting vs. transcluding {{nowrap}}, in both discussion all users preferred transclusion. See Wikipedia talk:Template substitution#Nowrap for more on that.

So, my conclusion now is that your list of templates to substitute needs to be much better vetted, by several users, before we can let your bot run again. Sorry about that. I'll try to squeeze in some time during this weekend to check your entire list of templates. I hope some more users can take a look.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we move the disscussion about {{unsigned}} to the bot owners' noticeboard. Thanks LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked around, the result of the discussions over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 57#Substitution, substitution and at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#User:BotPuppet seems to be that most users think that we shouldn't do extra bot edits to substitute {{unsigned}}. But I think that the template can be substituted at the same time as a bot does other edits to a page. So I have asked SineBot to substitute manually added {{unsigned}}, when it is doing its other edits to talk pages. That will pretty quickly fix most cases out there, without costing any extra resources at all. (SineBot substitutes the unsigneds it itself adds to talk pages.) I hope SineBot will take on this task, since I think that could keep everyone happy.

I see that you yourself unblocked your bot some hours after I blocked it. That is somewhat irregular, but I see that you haven't been running the bot since then so it doesn't matter.

I have been away from Wikipedia, and will be away for some time (busy in real life). So I have not had the time to check the rest of the templates that you list on your bot's page, and I probably will not get the time to check them. Sorry about that. So I can't ask you to wait anymore. So as I said before, I want you to remove {{nowrap}} and {{unsigned}} from the bot's list. Then I have no point of view if you can run your bot or not. That is, if you feel sure that the rest of the templates should be substituted by your bot then you can probably go ahead and do that until someone protests. So I just want a statement from you, here on this talk page, if you are going to remove {{nowrap}} and {{unsigned}} from the bot's list or not. If you remove them, then your bot is no concern of mine anymore.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your bot block link

When I blocked your bot today (see previous section) I noticed a separate but important thing: Your bot block link from the big red block button on User:BotPuppet is wrong. It doesn't unset the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used", so I nearly blocked you as a user from editing Wikipedia. And usually such block links should have the expiry time pre-set to "indefinite", since otherwise if we admins miss to set it we get an error message and have to redo the block action. To see how such a link should be done see for instance Legobot or most other bots. Note that I am no expert on this so you should check several bots and compare, since I don't know which is the best way to have that link.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the block link, it broke the imagemap template when I used it. I'll find a way around it eventually. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, you can simply look how the other bot owners have solved it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the block link. Also, starting a topic at the pump to get widespread consensus on this quickly; maybe I'll even snag Brion in for a bit. So consider this canvassing (oh, if you're reading this, you just lost the game). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for your prompt and helpful advice for this wiki novice. cheers.Aruhnka (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RFPP

Wanna stop copying me? Edit summaries are ok though. :P Just kidding, keep up the good work! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I noticed you did not notice that I overwrote your protection :P. I reverted back to yours though. My excuse is here :D. —— nixeagle 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This bot did something strange to Talk:Balanced ternary

This bot did something strange to Talk:Balanced ternary, adding a signature that appears to be malformed, -- Q Chris (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection

MP, thanks for protecting Maya Angelou. You're right, it's heavily vandalized, especially lately after the US election, mostly by anonymous IPs. And most of the vandalism is insulting, racist, sexist, ect.--everything that Dr. Angelou stands against. It's horrifying. Actually, I'd like to see it be permanently protected. It's fortuitous that this article is protected at this time, since I'm trying to get I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to FA in time for the 40th anniversary of the publication of the book. (It's in the middle of a copyedit right now.) Hopefully, it'll happen by the end of this year, and get on the front page, which is perfect timing! 'Cause ya know this article will be vandalized at that time, too. Actually, my long-term goal is to create a Maya Angelou featured topic. Again, thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a DYK article!!!

Master! I got a DYK article! And I've only been here for about three weeks! Jonathan321 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe that that article was nominated for speedy deletion? Jonathan321 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Writing

Maybe, maybe not. I have immense knowledge of geography (could name all world capitals when I was two, but don't worry I don't have autism or Asperger's) politics, civics, and social studies, so I can really help (in both editing and article creation) in those areas. I love to write, too. But I think the most fun thing might be being a WikiFairy commander. I mean adding templates to articles and stuff. But we'll see how it all plays out. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me, please

I am seeking your opinion as a third-neutral party.

Please take a look at the history for 2008 Mexico City plane crash.

I reverted a few edits (manually, didn't use my RB) to a previous version because the new additions are derived from sources written in Spanish, copied into the article (possible copyvio?) to produce

  these ugly boxes.

The user has translated the Spanish into English, completely ignoring grammar, punctuation, or spelling rules. Another editor has suggested "building consensus". Though I am familiar with this policy, I have no idea how to start. The talk page? Won't that take forever? Please help.

(Oh, and while I'm here, how on Earth did you get your own custom message when you edit your talk page?! AWESOME! Please tell me!) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Help in regards to your talk page templates and others' talk page templates

I see that you have a message at the bottom of talk page. Unlike the message at the bottom of your talk page, as far as I can tell, IE, my perspective whenever I go there, this user has roughly the same thing, only, for his talk page the bottom message overlaps comments, making them impossible to read. I tried to tell the user about this, how it should be changed, and he gave me a rude response that he didn't have to change it, it worked fine for him, etc. I as wondering if you could find out why it precisely didn't work, and if you could perhaps try to convince the user to alter it so that it works for everyone. There is no way in hell he would listen to me, a past matter, and a current matter indicates he began to dislike me after I deleted a redirect he created. To clarify, by deleted, I mean nom'd for CSD, and when he objected to that, nom'd for an RFD, which got it permanently deleted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your article move to 2008 G-20 summit

There already was G20-summit in 2008 (in Sao Paolo), this irregular summit is the second one, so you should move it back or to for instance to 2008 G-20 summit in Washington, don't you. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough!

Thanks for the copyvio tagging on Commons. Think you might want to do something about this user (if you hadn't already got it in mind). Both blocked on Commons, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

G20 Washington summit infobox

Thanks for your efforts to tidy up this article. I like the info box but there is a problem with the date. I see from the edit page that you tried to insert a date of November 15-16, 2008. This however was not displayed in the actual box. We do of course need a date here but I strongly suggest you use November 14-15 (as on the White House site) or just November 15 when the actual summit was held. If you also saw this comment on the article's talk page, sorry for bothering you again.- Ipigott (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#ANI_desysop_discussion

Hi MoP - I saw your reply to Kurt. Just a note, but Bureaucrats can't remove admin rights - only add them. I think you mean "Steward". BTW I love the way you add the extra text when people click for a new section - I'm going to pinch that!!!Pedro :  Chat  16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I love that too...I just have not yet figured out how to steal it myself. I feel like a newb... ^^ SoWhy 13:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Help in regards to a few things,

Hello, this user doesn't exactly seem to understand civility, per his or her comments with me. It started out with this user templating another user who's user talk page I happen to watch. I then left a friendly note on this users' talk page, which was a template warning her or him against templating, in an obviously humorous, and ironic fashion(it says so right on the template. The user then responded, but not in a friendly manner to my attempt at good faith, and brought up a past matter which he or she obviously knew nothing about. I could bring fourth more diffs, but it could be seen as pointless, as the martial for the observed conversation can easily be found on my talk page and the talk page of the spoken user as listed above. I'm not asking you to take sides, I just want a third, uninvolved user to comment on this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:71.200.54.6 for vandalism

Hello. You just blocked 71.200.54.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism at Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obviously the user was edit warring but this was a content dispute and his edits we not vandalism; the inclusion of the section in question was contested on the talk page and I had previously advocated the anonymous user's version.

See also the report at WP:AN3.

I would have blocked all three edit warriors myself but I have edited the page's contents. CIreland (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In reply, what I would like is for you to reblock the IP for edit-warring and block BaldPete for the same. As it stands, this effectively says that I am advocating vandalism. Moreover, since I intend to remove the section myself in a while (day or two) if it still exists and possibly post to WP:BLPN I would really rather not be getting uw-vandal warnings for it. CIreland (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP was making his edits in good faith; edit warring is bad but he is not a vandal. BaldPete was not discussing his edits either; he hasn't edited the talk page since September and uses largely automated edit summaries. I cannot see any reason to treat them differently. Alternatively you could unblock everyone and protect the page. CIreland (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BaldPete should have discussed the edits because even if the IP wasn't giving a rationale for omitting the section, I was: [4] and yet he continued to revert. CIreland (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: A Favour

No probs. I'll add a full review to my list of things to do. All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick update. i've just been dumped with an endless pile of chemistry homework, so I'm not likely to get to this until the weekend. that said, I'll do so as quickly as I can. Sorry for the wait. Cam ^(Chat) 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

:D

Sup Mop! dunno quite right what I'm doing round here. Where can i get some feedback? I'll be pleased for your help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirummi (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey There and aren't you sweet

oops, thanks. I hope we can be friends.

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

Lock 'er up MoP

I've restored the consensus version of the Petey page. Mr soapboxer "Wiki-is truth" appeared on the scene about a year and a half ago with his over-the-top rantings and pov skewed soap boxing. Myself, Wiki-alf, Gwernol and several other dedicated editors beat the section apart... cited it properly... bashed neutrality into it... and came up with the version that is there now. If it takes a full lock up to keep the soapboxer at bay then go for it. Just make sure his skewed pov isn't in place before you do. I will speak to Wiki alf about it. Alfie always has a fine level headed approach especially since he is familiar with the first trolling attempts by the soapboxer. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Starczamora

I dont know anything with Starczamora, me and Bluemask were having a conversation about this image then I was shocked because he joined in our conversation while suspecting me those being a sock puppet, I told him that Im not aware of that, then he still putting sock tag on my userpage, I keep on reverting his edits but he still revert my edits also. I request you Admin to blocked Starczamora because of vandalisms on my userpage. Thanks. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re.

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Blooded Edge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Blooded Edge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyvios on ITN

Sorry to see this. Don't worry though, my first edit to T:ITN was to unintentionally put up a copyvio. I've resolved only to put up US Gov photos from now on ;D. Anyway, don't worry, Spencer^T♦C 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Slemcal1

Its better not to unblock him/her because he keeps on making new accounts aside from Slemcal, Slemcal1 also created this account, Samsterzai which is now blocked and even if you unblocked him still he will not changed and still he will stil put fannish statements on Sam Concepcion, its better not to unblock him anymore. Its my opinion! Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Slemcal1, round 2

I'm really about that! Anyway, I'll just try to forget him and move on and just focus on my work. Thanks again and sorry for dissapointing you. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want you to know that I never vandalized the page of Sam Concepcion, In fact I was the one who improved its article. And I can't ever vandalized any page especially if its Philippine related articles. I'm a good wikipedian. My conscience cant do that. I'm just only here in wikipedia to contribute good faiths like you. Again Thanks! I hope you'll not be irritated at me. Thankyou and God Bless You! Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

User:VirtualApplesauce

VirtualApplesauce will be in hot sauce unless he changes his username, since it is the name of a website. You forgot to inform him about that. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Kivu

I removed that for the reason I typed at the edit summary. And was unsourced, too... You might move Kivu conflict to War in Kivu, but the name fighting fits very good because it's just a part of the overall conflict. See example Iraq War -> Iraq spring fighting of 2004: you see, fighting, not conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

only if you find me an instance in wikipedia where an upsurge of fihting in a war/conflict is called conflict--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you didn't understand my question. I requested ???? conflict is part of ???? war. Turkey-PKK conflict is not part of anything --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe my english isn't that bad --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll messages from User:Wynchard_Bloom

You may also want to look into these uncivilized messages from User:Wynchard_Bloom. I no longer reply to them as I do not want to ruin my beautiful day. Thanks! Starczamora (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Slemcal1

Hi, I am an editor in wikipedia and I always practice to be bold. I have written my 2 cents regarding this user, I hope that is of help with him. Thank you. Axxand (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much, This is my very first thank you after my unblock. its really great and that frustration is nearly so much gone now, but still i need to clarify a few more things with you and fix up Articles. From looking at the user name, Samsterzai, it is evident that s/he is another supporter as "samsters" is what "collectively" the fans call themselves. In my case, I am not a Samster, but i am only there to give his article justice from now who is a Banned user. It's ironic how Wynchard repeatedly kept saying I'm a sockpuppet of Samsterzai and yet he has been filed with so much charges for sockpuppetry and there is a handful of evidence that supports that. With my block, there was only an assumption in regards to sockpuppeting and yet my block was moved indefinite however now seeing that we have switched positions (him being blocked and me being unblocked) i just wish to revert the changes he has done to Sam Concepcion page. Going back to how you stated that the edits i have been protecting is questionably NPOV, Would it be possible for you to revert it back to my revision and perhaps have a {{POV-check}} tag up top. That will hopefully induce the past contributors to revise the article and i will be doing the same also. I just feel that Wynchard bloom should've just have done this if he really wants to contribute and perhaps given an explanation why he thinks it NPOV instead of doing a major edit on someone i don't think he is quite a fan of and has probably no knowledge of. Like he said, he is related to Angel Locsin, who is another celebrity in the Philippines and perhaps there is biased opinions there. So would it be possible to revert the edits back to the old revision and give the people time to review it? Thank you and thanks again for the unblock approval. Also in regards to my page, Would it be ok if i edit it and add a few information about myself? Slemcal (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, You could still probably keep the Semi-protection to prevent other people from edit warring and maybe also Wynchard Bloom and perhaps probably give me a right to editing the article. I'll try my best to gather all the information up from fans as i can quite readily communicate with them and I'll do my research also so that i won't be like wynchard who just takes everything off that he doesn't really know about. I have decided that I'll be contributing to wikipedia and i hope to see improvements and not just what Wynchard Bloom does and preaches where he depletes articles from useful information. Thanks Slemcal (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that you are going to be biased, but from what Wynchard Bloom has proven, he is an invalid and is now blocked indefinitely. He has probably done those edits just for the sake of being able to say that he has contributed an like i said, what he did isn't beneficial. All im asking for is that the article, which was basically edited by a person who now has proved himself to be unqualified, be reverted back to its state and be placed with {{POV-check}} tag. I can't work from his revision now as he has worked backward and from looking at the size of the page, the content has been obviously depleted. I just can't see how you can regard wynchards edits when he has lead himself to his block plus isn't it considerable that with wynchard being blocked, his edits won't be validated aswell? I will try and do research (my research would be finding people who has heavily contributed to that page) with it being semi-protected, however i was hoping to get rights just like the rights Wynchard has received even though he is proven to be a joke. I don't have any intentions of owning the article, but i do want it protected from Vandalism just like wynchard's version. He was given the opportunity to do the edits and has basically reported all the users out there that are contributors as Vandals which why he has been always advantaged all this while.Slemcal (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been a nuisance to us, especially to me as i was blocked for so long due to the false accusations he had filed against me, while at the same time misleading you guys into believing that im guilty. Although if he does have a valid reason, he could perhaps, state his reasons in the discussion page and work back from to what i call the original revision. It's hard working from his revision as it is like starting from scratch. To be Honest, he didn't edit the article by making it brief and straight to the point and summarizing it, but instead deleted information from the page. how is that valid? you can see that with the Achievements section as well and even more so he is the one blocked. Slemcal (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is[5]. that should be it. Thanks Slemcal (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the violations that the previous article contravenes. I'll try and get this across to the major contributors and I'll do my my best in improving my article without violating any of the rules. Is it ok if i work on that article? Thanks Slemcal (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Account

I appreciate your offer to work together. But I can not register, because I had already been a registered user but I tried to help a user who had been blocked indefinetly because of copy-paste violations and they had blocked me also indefinetly for trying to help the blocked user, so now I am keeping a low profile and staying out of the spotlight. But, if you want, I'll work with you and help you in any way possible. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.236.45 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

After he was blocked he asked me to keep some articles, that he was the only one updating constantly, up-to-date. Like List of insurgents killed in Iraq or List of Iraqi security forces killed. But when they found out that I was updating those few articles in his name they blocked me for helping an indefinetly blocked user. That's the story. I didn't know there was a rule against it or I wouldn't have done it. Anyway. I'll be keeping an eye on the Kivu war. I myself personally update greatly the Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan and Sri Lankan war articles. Also I get involved when any large war comes into the spotlight, like the South Ossetia war and the Lebanon conflict that happened this year.89.216.236.45 (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Gilmour

erm you deleted my name ... mark gilmour ? whys that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuninviteduk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Joslyn Pennywell deletion

I'd like to ask you to undelete Joslyn Pennywell. I read the rules for notability and I think she meets the requirements. She has contributed to entertainement in an unique way (she holds the record for ANTM auditions, won quite a few pageants and was a victim of a scam which was talked about on msnbc), there are quite a few third-party sources talking about her such as: http://www.azurepageants.com/Joslyn.htm http://www.tftj.com/db/delegates.htm/783/Miss/2006 http://www.msusaonline.com/miss.php?model_id=833 http://media.www.thegramblinite.com/media/storage/paper926/news/2006/04/12/Focus/Kappas.Next.Top.Model-2665418.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425209/ http://www.ebonyfashionfair.com/assembled/history.html http://blogs.louisianasotherside.com/Tarah/post/2008/09/Chimp-Haven-Discovery-Day-Cancelled-Due-To-Ike.aspx and so on. Also on the discussion page no consensus was reached which means that she was at least considered to be notable by some users.--Whadaheck (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker

Some additional discussion there in case you haven't be following it. I agree that, so long as he's stopped performing the edits there's no reason to block, but he seems to be getting the impression that a lack of action is an authorization to continue. As you closed it with "No action taken", I wasn't sure if you'd still be following it or not. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has resumed his date delinking activities. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: Firstly, someone's being a nasty little snitch here. I'm not deliberately delinking dates, I'm primarily cutting down overlinking, and putting all dates into dmy format for certain category of articles. E&OE, there are no cases of deliberate date-delinking going on. Secondly, the RfC is well under way, and is headed for a landslide against Cole's side. Following his inexcusable attempt to bury Tony's RfC, I assert that Cole is totally lacking in good faith (and has been from the very start). Ohconfucius (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering...

What are Huggle and Twinkie? I have been revertin' some vandalism and I wonder what those things are supposed to do. Also, how do you make your signature all cool? Jonathan321 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nord-Kivu

The fighting in Nord Kivu is an offensive by Nkunda's troops in the Kivu Conflict, the fighting is not a seperate war from the war Nkunda is fighting in Kivu, it is simply an offensive of that war. Thats why there is a campaignbox for the Kivu conflict and the Nord-Kivu offensive is placed as a subset of it.XavierGreen (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

45Factoid44

You have mail from me. I'm confused at your last reply. If you reply reply on my talk page. VandalismWatcher3533 (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Messages again! 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

45Factoid44

Come back once more. I think this clears up the confusion on both our parts. 45Factoid44 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV reporting message (response)

• Response from User_talk:Sljaxon - I do that just to prevent duplicate reports/mistaken further warnings. Sljaxon (talk) (contributions) - Fighting Vandalism Since 2006 06:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi MoP, my adopter. In my editor review, they said that I should contribute. However, I rarely do that. Can you help me? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I feel like contributing Formula One and anime related articles. HEre are some I am thinking of improving

• Ginban Kaleidoscope
• Gakuen Alice
• Kin'iro no Corda
• Futari wa Pretty Cure
• Kimi ga Nozomu Eien

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

BotPuppet

BotPuppet recently corrected a double redirect on my talk page (which, oddly enough, corrected on of your edits O_o). It corrected the double redirect by replacing the original link with the new link (see here). This isn’t really a problem as much as it is an observation, but I think it would be better if the bot replaced the link with a pipe instead of all together. This would not interfere with the context of the link, which is esapcailly important in a talk page setting. See my follow up edit to see what I mean. – Zntrip 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What up with this

Huh? What's with this bad(?)advice? Jonathan321 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I was a little confused myself. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me, Master!

How do I put an AFD entry on the main AFD page for today's date? Jonathan321 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

National Institute on Media and the Family Page

Hey, I just wanted to give a quick thank you for catching what had happened on that page. When I loaded it most of the headlines were: sucks cock etc. I deleted that, and now everything look great! Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazzig (talk • contribs) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much. (I am a total newbie). Please vote at the AFD I created. Jonathan321 (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Me Get The Mic Check (Rapper) Page Aproved

i saw your comment i am a label A/R for mic checks label in charge of getting his wikki and other sites made/cleared if you can help me get this paged approved i'd do what i can thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by MicChecks89 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiFauna

After researching WikiFauna, I have discovered that I am a total WikiImp. Jonathan321 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Helpme

Any articles about amusement rides, food-and-drink related articles, and famous people such as composers, artists, writers, and presidents. HTH, MHLU^talk 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Jonnykean

Hi Just was wondering what you had me blocked for ? And why blocked for 31 hours ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnykean (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant CHU thread

Check out WP:CHU#VirtualApplesauce → TunaToothpastePie123 at your convenience. Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page restoration

Hi,

I requested that a set of talk archives be restored for the purposes of a user conduct RfA. However, it looks like you've deleted them again under U1. Can these be restored? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping me fix up my signature! Vandalism Destroyer 09:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archives

I have no choice but to re-request that they be speedily deleted. The request to restore them is being made by a user with a history of hostility against me and serve no constructive end that could possibly trump not wanting my real world harassers to identify me by my old username. If that was not a concern, I would not have bothered to be renamed as something totally anonymous. Anything of value is still in my current talk page's edit history anyway. It is not right for someone who has acted aggresively against another user to make such requests as restoring stuff that was deleted due to real world concerns. I just want that user to leave me alone already. I have not commented in many deletion discussions since returning. And when I did I made my argument and leave or only reply to those who replied to me. Who replied to who as well as to others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blah (2nd nomination) or how about to multiple editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits a discussion for an article I created nonetheless? That user left some bullying rant on my talk page that I'd rather not dignify suggesting that I made a personal attack by calling a nominator in AfD of an article disruptive. Well, laughing at someone else in a discussion is hardly productive/constructive. No reasonable editor could see anything even remote in my most recent AfD comments that could possibly justify an RfC. The only way someone would start such a thing based on these examples of my recent participation could only be doing so out of bias and to again in effect bully someone with whom they obviously disagree. And think about who is trying to make something out of nothing? In most of his recent AfD comments in the past couple of days, he has made four edits in the one for an article I created and made several critiquing me in another one. I didn't comment on his or anyone else's initial "vote." And then there's the talk page rant, and then there's these plastering of my old username on PhilKnight's talk page even though I explicitly state that I do not want my old name bandied about. As you can see if anything others including that individual are being far more confrontational, and disagreeing with someone's arguments is not cause to risk allowing for real world issues to be exacerbated. I would much rather this user just leave me alone already and just ignore me if he doesn't like my arguments. If I can do that, why can't he? If any of my arguments are weak, then let the closing admin decide, but we shouldn't bully people who disagree with us and arrogantly say that just because we disagree they must automatically be disruptive. I think doing incivil things like laughing at others is disruptive, but seriously, citing sources found on Google Books...? Please! As you can see above, I am not commenting on everybody's arguments I disagree with and I certainly am not threatening them with admin boards or making some big effort to restore anything from their userspace that was deleted due to real world harassment issues. I need those pages to remain deleted due to such concerns and no vendetta any individual has against me should possibly trump that. --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, talk page archives shouldn't be necessary for an RFC when everything is preserved in the history of User talk:A Nobody [6]. With that in mind, the U1 deletion should be valid. Could you re-delete them on that basis?--chaser - t 17:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this line on some article

It says "And so begins their Olympic journey...". That seems out of place... And I think it should be replaced by some other paragraph, unless it is bad grammar. I am thinking of editing it, but I don't know if that is out of place (even if I may have the mos knowledge of this article on Wikipedia). So please help!

PS, teach me how to contribute the right way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Elections

How do these "ArbCom election" things work, anyway? Just wondering. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, the ArbCom is kind of like the Supreme Court, only with Wikipedia. Shame I can't vote though, I love every kind of politics.

Balance

I am on the same browser, Vista, LCD widescreen monitor. Now MP is in more or less perfect balance on mine. But I hate to be selfish, so revert if you must; I will try not to look at the balance factor for a while... --BorgQueen (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw your talk page is so cute --BorgQueen (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess we should follow the majority standard then. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page seems appropriate for a starting point. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, too. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I am working on something now; you're welcome to go ahead and post. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

re your deletion rationale

Your logic is flawed on the deletion of List of Universal Century technology-- no proof has been provided that they are not third party sources. Just because the owners of Gundam sanction it afterwards does not make it a primary source. I insist you explain your line of thought on this, and am here to let you know that this article is most definitely headed for DRV-- all of the Keep arguments were just brushed aside. Moreover, your deletion message in the log itself indicates you speedily deleted it under G6, which is clearly incorrect. The very fact that there was an AFD makes it clear that the deletion was controversial. Jtrainor (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, G6 was perfectly appropriate. The G6 is the routine admin followup to a "delete" closing of an AfD, by doing the actual deletion. What is unquestionable was that it was closed as delete. That does not mean I think the delete closing was correct, and I will certainly support changing it or if necessary overturning it to "no-consensus". DGG (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My Consistency (or however you spell it)

Well, I haven't been on lately because I've been watching the Boston Bruins a lot and I've gotten obsessed... I will be on, just not as much as usual. Over the summer 500 more edits will be more than likely!

  See Ya,Wikidude57SBC 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Please explain this edit. Some people here think that they alone posses the right, capability and morality of implementing Wikipedia rules. As such, that rule is a subject of intense debate and your edit would raise even more eyebrows. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

I recently downloaded Twinkle, and I can't figure out how to change the settings on it so that I don't watch every user's talk page that I warn. Jonathan321 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi! Just checking in. I wanted to know if you think I could Graduate now. I don't want to graduate if I'm not a good enough editor yet.Wikidude57^S_BC 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I'll Go with the quesstions!Wikidude57^S_BC 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I need help with making an archive; my only thing I struggle upon.Wikidude57^S_BC 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vibroblade.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vibroblade.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Adopting

Imaging, no doubt.Wikidude57^S_BC 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidance please?

At the oft-controversial Talk:Cold fusion we have a dynamic IP editor claiming to be a specific person. Behaviour suggests he is that person. He "signs" each post with the name claimed, but refuses to sign with four tildes, leaving it up to others to do the {{unsigned}} entry for him. The claimed name corresponds to a deleted username: [7]

It doesn't seem to be a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry, but it's not upright behaviour either. What to do? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ps, I should have pointed out that he reappeared at the article during an ongoing Arbcomm case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. The article itself seems to finally be making some headway. Of course anyone can edit, but it's not the most rewarding article to work on due to the POV wars.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adopt

Well, I know %0 about imaging and talk page archives. And, speaking of archives, I need some help with archives. Wikidude57^S_BC 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to creat them OR how to licence them. And with Talk Archives, as simple as possible.Wikidude57^S_BC 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive23's Day!

User:Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive23 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive23's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Master of Puppets/Talk/Archive/Archive23! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Master of Puppets Day question

I was curious about the notability of Promotion in Motion. What am I missing?

I hope you have a very happy Mater of Puppets day!ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes 'blatant advertising' is not blatant advertising

My Article describing Evidence Illustrated: Cases to Illustrate How All The Rules Work was an important, unbiased resource for law professors planning texts to accompany the courses they teach at law school. Any accountant can pick up a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and simply decide "the words mean what the words mean". That is not what the law is about. If you read my Article, you would know that, and know why so many CPAs are heading to law school.

Yes, to begin with, Prof. Scott's book simply cites and quotes the Federal Rules of Evidence; but it is the precise caselaw and caselaw content that is important to law professors and law students that give the most effect to learning. And, which caselaw demonstrates the application of a certain rule and under what circumstances that rule is applied. This is what is of concern and interest to law professors.

Your pathetic little act did violence to my academic integrity, that of Prof. Scott, and to the reputation of Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Stop interfering with academic freedom--the most antithetical concept and act conceivable against a non-biased, non-commercial source such as Wikipedia--and undelete my Article immediately.

John Paul Nelson Gill, D.Jur. 68.56.90.231 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 8 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2008 Greek riots, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 23:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Ashbey ₮ 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ashbey ₮ 01:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

wold

i was just wondering why you deleted the Wold band page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.17.39 (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Oops! When I said that the main thing I wanted to do was add templates to articles, I actually meant tagging articles for maintenance, with templates like {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}}. Thanks! Jonathan321 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How?

How did you put an army of rabbits and a sheep at your user page? It seems like following my browser! Also, why I don't see any buttons for formatting (like nowiki wrap)? Now, I have to type the four tildes myself. Mark Chung (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Random Page

Depressing as that is, I actually find articles to tag with Special:RandomPage. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

~*crunch*~

Ashbey ₮ has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Barnstar

Thanks! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)