User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

User talk:Willdude123

Hmmmmmm, this username seem familiar to you? Willdude 132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Syrthiss (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely along with his master for block evasion. I'm not certain if it was originally an attempt at an alternate account (it wasn't exactly trying to hide), but evading the block on the master is not allowed. Thanks for pointing this out! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I guess the question is: was he actually compromised, or was he going off on a tear because we denied him rollback...and now that the original account was blocked was he trying to good hand / bad hand us. For example User:Ctfxcpacman, who he reverted for vandalizing articles that he has edited before. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've put his unblock request on hold while I fetch a CU. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically:Long Story, Ctfxcpacman, I know the person.She Saw That One Of My Friends (now enemies) that was vandalising(on my account) and thought she would too so I just grabbed the account closest to me (metaphorically) which was willdude 132 and I then reverted It ASAP by the way,she responded with this.I logged on to my account on a computer, someone else's because they wanted to see my talk page and next thing you know he'd vandalized before I could log off.The IP was a educational establishment.It's my school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdude123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Willdude 132

I saw you blocked this user as a VOA; he's back as Willdude123 (talk · contribs). Warned him for multiple account use, not sure what else you'll want done with him. Calabe1992 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Awww, shucks... I see I already missed a thread about him. Calabe1992 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Reaper Eternal (talk)

Hi Reaper Eternal, thank you for your interest in the UTRS tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.

As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.

When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.

If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.

Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. The Helpful One 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your hard work on Wikipedia :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

JS Bank

I see that you deleted the article JS Bank on the basis of advertising. Could you clarify what was being advertised/promoted? Is there any way of restoring the article? I would be willing to cut out the unnecessary sections. It's a major bank. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you there? Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted since the article was almost entirely a product review, and very little encyclopedic information was present. If you removed the product review, all that would be left would be a short blurb that would fall under A7, since there was no real claim of importance in the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of Mike085

Hello Reaper Eternal. Mike085 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering his unblock request. The way I look at it, if he's not a sock, he's served ample time for disruption. His unblock request is borderline acceptable. I don't think he'll ever be much at Wikipedia, but I think it's time to unblock unless there's strong evidence to justify keeping him block.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. The evidence now more points to meatpuppetry (as the previously reviewing admin noted), and meatpuppets can be subject to the same sanctions (in this case, a block) as the editor they are editing on behalf of. I would be fine with an unblock as long as he is willing to confirm that he won't make any other edits on behalf of LAz. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad image

In your edit at MediaWiki:Bad image list, did you mean to overwrite the file that was previously there? That file seems to still exist. Great edit summary regardless. Calabe1992 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that was good of me, I see you moved it further up (the filename, specifically). ;) Calabe1992 14:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning for speedy deletion

I'm not sure you understood why I want to delete David Copperfield (disambiguation). What I'd like to do is move David Copperfield (novel) to David Copperfield, and the latter to David Copperfield (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I had gotten confused by some of the redirects that were already present, and thought you wanted a dab page moved over the novel page. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about User:Willdude123

This person seems to be having some issues with giving out various erroneous warnings (See "Sorry I thought it was vandalism)" here and here. I see you've posted some on their talk page and that they had an old account (Willdude132/contributions that was compromised). I have some concerns about the sheer number of vandalism-reversion edits they have been doing using STiki. I see that you've posted on their Rollback request. I do understand about the compromised account but their old account was just established in December 2011 and only had a total of 145 edits, some of which were from the other user. What do you think should be done in this case? I'm not sure but wanted to bring it up here for discussion. Thanks for reading, Shearonink (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to deny or accept that rollback request, so why are you asking me? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help on the 3RR noticeboard :-) What should I do with this user though? Could you at least give him a warning? He has since removed my posts from his talkpage, accused me of spamming his talkpage, and refuse to discuss [1]. Ugh I don't know what to do...--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need. You already warned him about violating 3RR, and he removed the notice, so he clearly knows that reverting again will violate 3RR. Many editors do not like receiving template notices, and they are allowed to remove the templates. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm okay...but I still want to engage him. Sadly, it doesn't seem like he even wanna talk to me. He removed not only the templates but my attempt to discuss as well. Can you at least try to talk to him so he would at least start talking again? I don't wanna get into a nonsensical edit war because there is obviously no need for that.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of BestPrice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BestPrice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BestPrice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Red Cedar Technology

You deleted the following page: 13:59, 7 February 2012 Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) deleted "Red Cedar Technology" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: It is an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.) The article was proposed for deletion by an IP address belonging to a competitor of Red Cedar Technology. Is it possible to have the article reinstated, or do I need to recreate? If there were actual problems with notability and secondary sources, I'd have been happy to update the article to comply. At the time of deletion, there were numerous citations of articles in peer-reviewed journals already, so I thought it met the requirements already. Thanks for any help you're willing to give. - EndingPop (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored the article. The way a PROD works is that it is supposed to be uncontroversial (and thus not need to be discussed), so if anybody objects, it can only be deleted via discussion. People can object even after the article has been deleted, as you have just done. For future reference, if you object to a PROD on an article, you can just remove the tag. (Be aware, however, that you may not remove speedy deletion tags or AFD notices.) Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually didn't see the PROD tag until after the deletion had occurred. Thanks for your responsiveness and the explanation! - EndingPop (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Finger monkey wire

Hi could you please tell me why you deleted Finger monkey wire? There are other sites like mine such as Mobile Mag etc which have wikipedia pages in fact it was Mobile Mag that inspired me to launch a Smartphone blog for Asia. What makes Finger Monkey Wire significant is that its a site that gives female Muslim software engineers a chance to write about technology. As you know in our part of the world women are making very small by significant steps in every field but mobile software development is an area we're clearly discriminated against that's the siginificance of this website. If you could be kind enough to tell me where I went wrong with my article on Finger Monkey Wire I'd gladly re-write it. Awaiting Your Reply.

Reaper are you there? Please do take a moment to reply. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraan Javed (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hadn't noticed this message before since new messages are supposed to go at the bottom of talk pages. (Hence, I had though that all the stuff at the top was old business.) I deleted that page since pretty much all it said was that Finger Monkey Wire was a website with a name parodying Darwin's hypothesis of evolution. There was nothing there to indicate why the website was worthy of notice. If you can find enough reliable sources to pass WP:WEBSITE, feel free to recreate it with the sources. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Missed one

You may also want to revoke talk page for Acbd3791 (talk · contribs); that IP is his, based on the writing style and belligerent replies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I dropped him the {{2nd chance}} template response. Vandals don't ever bother, so it's as good as revoking talk page access. (Of course, if he starts spamming unblock requests without following through, he will lose talk page access too.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

Hi, do you remember Occupy Marines? A group of editors have been edit warring that speculative piece you removed back into the article citing the Raw Story as a "reliable source"? Would you have 5 minutes to drop by the talk page to give your opinion. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On fire

You are on fire today. By the time I go through the contribs of IPs at AIV, I see them already blocked! Way to go. Lynch7 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! A lot of it is because I am running Lupin's anti-vandal tool and have already reviewed (and commonly reverted) the edits of said IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Very Sorry, left my laptop open, if you look at all my previous edits, you will find they're all constructive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximuman (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER. Bad idea. An even worse idea was creating a sockpuppet vandalism-only account to continue your vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Reaper Eternal. You have new messages at WillNess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for unblocking me! The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your action. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thanks

Thank you for this! It's this kind of prompt action that I think will snuff out drama before it has the chance to spread. I hope the outbreak of swift, sensible decisiveness at AN/I continues! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Me at ANI

Thanks, that was a fast close at ANI over my adding "keep" to a !vote. I had 4 edit conflicts while trying to post that i have asked the editor in question to revisit their !vote. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ARS list MfD close

For heaven's sake! I was just in the process of composing a delete vote laying out the rationale! Please re-open it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to re-open it so I can leave my delete vote please leave some sort of note or tag that there is a vote pending in favor of deletion. Right now I am planning to go for a walk so I may not be on for an hour or so.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Honestly, given the reaction to the previous rationale, it is extremely unlikely that your adding a delete vote would have any noticeable effect on the MFD, and the nominator was already grilled enough for not having a policy-based reason for deletion. If your rationale is truly substantially different, a new MFD would almost certainly be the best choice to prevent the previous rationale from tainting viewpoints. Alternatively, you could take it to WP:DRV. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could finally drop that stick. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is done. See here. I also specifically raised a conduct issue concerning you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• OMG. I think its time to employ the rare EfD process.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW, Reaper, why did you put me out of a job? Were you not satisfied?

Actually, I thought somebody had vandalized your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Small note

Hey, sorry to disturb you. I just wanted to ask you to review the decision you made on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashermadan. I believe you missed out the points I made below my original post, about the attitude of the master. Do you think blocking him for one week is enough? He has been repeatedly warned about it and has ignored it as well. And, just another question. Regarding the RFC I mentioned, should I strike out the master's opinion and vote along with the sock's, which I have already done? Thanks. X.One ^SOS 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One week is normally a good amount for a first-time sockpuppeteer as an attempt to ward off future misbehavior. (Further socking normally results in an indefinite block.) My block is unrelated to his attitude. The master's votes and comments still stand in a discussion; however, sock votes are stricken and noted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

David Copperfield

Hi, I saw you moved the page David Copperfield (novel) to David Copperfield and David Copperfield to David Copperfield (disambiguation). I didn't understand the reason: you said "Almost everybody will be looking for the novel". The novel is obviously more famous than its film adaptions, but are you suggesting that nobody cares about the most well-known magician in history? --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not intending to give that impression. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, why did you moved the pages? If the illusionist isn't less famous than Dickens' novel, it is false to say that "Almost everybody will be looking for the novel", so we should move the pages back. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I will move the pages back, but not for that reason. A user requested that I move the pages, and, since the move seemed uncontroversial, I moved them. Since it is clear that such a move may be controversial, I will direct the user to use WP:RM for wider discussion. Goodbye. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Salvador Tercero

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Salvador Tercero. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dcoetzee 03:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commission Breakthrough spam

I noticed your message at User talk:Versageek#Bot problem. FYI the situation is that a scammer (commissionbreakthrough.com) sells software to make the purchaser rich. It tells the purchaser to make a couple of junk websites, then put links to their sites in related articles at Wikipedia. There have been many new users/IPs who do nothing but spam links to their new site, and a pretty blunt response is required to keep it under control (fortunately Beetstra has developed some reliable techniques to detect and respond to the spam). The scam is described here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Reaper Eternal,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

feedback on feedback on feedback

Ever so nice of you to award 'It'sZippy!' with a barnstar.

May your kindness become a model.

--Fan Singh Long (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Boeung Ket Robber Field

I feel it does qualify as a test page because a near-identical page was created afterwards. Can you delete it under A10? Boeung Ket Rubber Field / Boeung Ket Robber Field (note slightly different spellings). Thank you. - Cloudz679 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done A10 does apply, given that another page was created. Most likely, the new user didn't know how to move the old page to the correct title. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to 'Userfy' articles Poolwerx and John O'Brien (PoolWerx)

Hi Reaper Eternal,

I am simply requesting that the articles Poolwerx and John O'Brien (PoolWerx) are 'userfied' to my userspace so that I can edit them for republishing at a later date once corrections are made.

Kind Regards, Shannon. Shannonob90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I restored PoolWerx to your userspace at User:Shannonob90/PoolWerx and User:Shannonob90/John O'Brien (Australian businessman). Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for restoring the User:Shannonob90/PoolWerx page. For some reason the User:Shannonob90/John O'Brien (Australian businessman) page has still not been activated on my user page. If this could be done shortly that would be great. Kind Regards, Shannon.Shannonob90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Hi, you userpage still has a red link because there is no page called "User:Shannonob90/John O'Brien (PoolWerx)". The page is instead called "User:Shannonob90/John O'Brien (Australian businessman)", so that is what you will need to link to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoru recent tweak to the Grawp filter (#58)

Hey, you very recently edited Filter 58, and it looks like something got fragged when you did it; there's a thread at WT:RD from an IP editor that seems to have been caught up as a false positive. I'm not sure what caused this, as I don't know dick about the edit filter, but if you could a) investigate this recent hit; b) see if it really is a false positive and if so c) fix the problem; it would be great! Thanks! --Jayron32 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the recent trip, BTW: [2]. --Jayron32 23:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

NawlinWiki appears to have fixed the filter already, since that edit no longer matches. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	reviewing eyes
	Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Template vandalism

Thanks for your fix! Does this mean that our vandal has a stealth template somewhere that he is using to subst his nasty code? If so, how do we find it? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that he has a hidden template, but I highly doubt that given the changing nature of the vandalism. Rather, I think he is just filling his edit with {{subst:Void}} (which substitutes nothing) or one of its many redirects. This would make an edit look like <di{{subst:^}}v style="posi{{subst:^}}tion:fix{{subst:^}}ed;z-i{{subst:^}}ndex:99>.... to the edit filter, but the actual code embedded in the template would be <div style="position:fixed;z-index:99>.... The former would not have matched the filter, but hopefully it now will. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I think he's doing it in a lot simpler way (although yours will keep him from doing it in the way you just described). See my last change to filter 56 - I don't want to say what it is here. What do you think? NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, see the email I just sent you. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March copy edit drive

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Article "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patricia Rae"

Hi I Was not sure where to contact you, so I thought I would try and post something here for you. I recentlyy Re-Submitted my Article ("Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patricia Rae"), I was working on for an actress I work for (Patricia Rae), but I received an Email saying it was going to be deleted, and then received another Email saying it had been deleted because of Copyrighted material I used from IMDb.

I truly do appologize for making that mistake, but we thought it would be ok to use that info, due to the fact that the we submitted the mini Bio to IMDb. I do not mind editing it if I have to so I can get a correct article out there, but I can't seem to find the one I submitted so I can change some things on it.

If there is any possible way I could work on the deleted material to make it right, or if I could re-do it, please let me know. I would greatly appreciate it.

--PatriciaRaeOnline (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you own the copyright to some material, and you wish to irrevocably donate it under the CC-by-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, then you will need to follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

amirite.biz

Just a heads up, but that site should be blacklisted on meta (which I did). This problem is unfortunately something cross-wiki, and if we want to discourage them, it should be done like this, I am afraid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Where do I let you guys know on meta? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikipedisveryveryracistt

I've re-autoblocked User:Wikipedisveryveryracistt, as you requested. Hopefully this will avoid any wheel-warring. -- The Anome (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Gee, this one is persistant and I've been trying to keep tabs on where he's been hitting. Looks like just the Main Page talk is his new target? Calabe1992 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

56 and 139

Just make sure that 56 covers templates if you merge them. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind, forgot about 422. As long as it's all covered! Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem! I just finished making one minor change to #422 to cover all the fixed-position content. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Double Exposure, Ltd. COPYRIGHT???

What copyright issue exists with Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory? I'm taking the logo for fair use. A company logo is used in practically every instance of a notable business entity on Wikipedia. Merely for being honest in typing the logo (see Eastman Kodak Dwaynes Photo for examples of improper image tagging with regards to copyright), it has been removed twice, the article has been removed (as not being notable).

It seems that every attempt I make to be honest results in my hard work being delted at two or three in the morning in amongst hundreds, thousands of others. Yet, the other articles that do this haven't been messed with in five years. I have modeled everything I've attempted in this regard off of properly-worded and formated articles that already exist here in similar sectors of photography.

I am not a master programmer, typist by any means, but surely a poorly worded article is better than none at all, for a subject that is noteworthy to half a billion people. That is the area served by Seattle FilmWorks. The company I wrote the article on is the only one left providing identical services. I only wrote an article on it, after seeing the one for Dwaynes, a company that was in a similar situation until Kodachrome was discontinued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.154.66 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment about copyright violations had nothing to do with you—I was replying to Meco. You added your complaints to Fastily's talk page in a section already started by Meco, which is what caused my comment to possibly appear to be addressed to you. Note that I added my comment above yours and right below Meco's, which indicates that I was replying to Meco and not you. There is a button marked "New section" at the top of the page to prevent different conversations from getting mixed up. Additionally, as far as I can recall, I have deleted no articles or images related to "Double Exposure Ltd." Finally, I don't know if it is your intention, but your edits and posts appear highly aggressive. Regards. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to say I sound pissed off because an article I've worked on over a year is deleted without trace, you're right, because I am. Anyway, it looked as if you were talking to me. Your comment appeared below mine, not sure if that was your edit or someone else's, but it now appears in the correct spot. I thought it was addressed to me because it appeared below my commennt originally.50.4.154.66 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because you moved it, then I put it back. Anyways, no harm done. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ushuaia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ushuaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Sherry Theater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Sherry Theater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sherry Theater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected page

Hello,

I was wondering if you could extend the protection on the page circumcision until we finish our RFC? I'm really not looking forward to another revert war and there are some signs of Tendentious editing. Gsonnenf (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done If revert warring continues against the consensus of the RFC, then you can go to ANI and blocks or topic bans may be imposed on the edit warriors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC

It's not reasonable to remove month old comments [3] -- please just strike through them if you wish to signal withdraw or change of mind. Nobody Ent 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody Ent 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No more vandalism from you.

Do not remove more valid content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukfittrovas (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the invalid content. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenny Marchant

Hi Reaper Eternal; In the interest of transparency, I want you to know that I reverted BLP violations and other inappropriate edits using two 99 IPs, and a registered account which I rarely use anymore, in order to clean things up after the page was locked. None of this constituted an attempt to avoid 3RR guidelines, nor an intent to appear as if I was several different users. My only interest, which is perhaps ironic given my own political inclinations, was to remove disruptive edits from a BLP article. Thanks for protecting the article. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You (and your account, which is pretty obviously the same person as you) weren't one of the "multiple puppet groups" that I was referring to on DeltaQuad (talk · contribs)'s talk page. ;) I was referring to Spanthegeorge (talk · contribs) and HornedFrog2012 (talk · contribs) as comprising one sock group, Winstontx (talk · contribs) and Patriotbuddy (talk · contribs) as comprising another group, and S2kguy133 (talk · contribs) and Dsparks53 (talk · contribs) as probably related to one or the other. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood--wow. Much appreciated and best wishes, 99.136.255.180 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article: Juergen Fitschen

Hi there,

Please could you give us more details as to why you deleted the article we submitted on Juergen Fitschen - apparently for copyright reasons? The article you mention was not one of the links we submitted and is anyway (as far as we can tell) an article openly accessible to the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/J%C3%BCrgen_Fitschen

Would be grateful for your feedback, so that we can adapt as necessary and get the article resubmitted as quickly as possible. If you could reply to us by e-mail that would be great: (Redacted)

Many thanks! Social Media Team, Deutsche Bank160.83.30.193 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the article since most of it was copied word-for-word from here, which has a copyright claimed by Forbes LLC. Wikipedia cannot accept text copied from other websites (unless they have a license similar to the CC-by-SA 3.0), so if you wish to rewrite the article, you need to do so in your own words. Thanks. (By the way, I removed your email address to prevent you from getting spammed by spambots.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Pest update

Hello. It looks like the pest that you blocked earlier has returned in this form ANTIWPBLOCK2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Im headed off to cleanup their trolling but I thought I would let you know for blocking purposes. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick action and now back to normal (if their is such a thing) editing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a favor

As I'm not really confident enough to try a rangeblock, would you take a look at the latest IPs I've blocked? They're all 198.228.201.xxx, and clearly the same person (this IP-hopping person has been dicking around with various kana articles since August). Thanks in advance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd recommend blocking 198.228.201.128/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for like 31 hours.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) It's an AT&T cellular connection, so you won't be shutting out anyone who has traditional landline Internet service. Though I dont know if there's any firm standards of etiquette regarding whether longer blocks are OK if it's cellular, and there do seem to be a few edits from that range in February that would be stopped by a rangeblock. By the way I used http://toolserver.org/~chm/blockcalc.php ☮Soap☮ 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • 31 hours, then, seems appropriate, considering the individual addresses were all blocked 3 months each.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• OK, thanks; I'm bookmarking that tool, Soap. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

re CHSLD

I was about to add this entry before you speedy deleted the article.

• Comment: Potentially notable topic, but its just a piece of a bigger picture. CHSLD has a subsection currently in the retirement home article on the French wikipedia, see fr:Maison_de_retraite#Qu.C3.A9bec, the paragraph on "Les CHSLD" describes that care level. fr:Centre d'hébergement et de soins de longue durée redirects to it as well. Clearly the topic deserves coverage somewhere within the context of our coverage of Quebec's healthcare or retirement care infrastructure[4]. I am sure the nominator is familiar with the healthcare industry in Quebec and can help here."

I'm sure you knew all that before you speedy deleted this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Montreal Gazette reference was added after I looked at the article to determine if it met A7. I then went to read the AFD, found further arguments for speedy deletion, and closed it as speedy delete. This resulted in my deletion of the article without knowing about the reference added a couple minutes before, since the content of the article did not indicate importance of the subject. Since the reference indicates some measure of significance, I will restore the article. Thanks for letting me know. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess timing is everything? I'm sure the nominator is unfamiliar with the Quebec healthcare system, as he/she would have known that a CHSLD is not just one single business. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jordan McKane

Regarding your declining the BLP prod on Jordan McKane, could you please explain which of the sources on that article are reliable? The subject's Tumblr and (what I think is) personal website are definitely not reliable, and the last.fm page is a user-submitted site. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The last.fm most certainly is not reliable. However, WP:BLPPROD requires that the article be unsourced, not poorly sourced, which was why I removed the BLPPROD and added a {{BLP sources}} tag. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the "absolutely no source, reliable or otherwise" criterion only applies when initially nominating an article for BLP prod; said sources must be reliable only in order to remove/contest the nomination. In theory one can add sources ad nauseam but if none of them are reliable sources that verify at least one claim in the article, the nomination can't be contested. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true; however, a person's personal site is usually considered a reliable (but primary) source for information on the person. On the other hand, the person is clearly not notable, and the article should probably just be given a regular PROD on that basis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with your interpretation of the BLP prod process, but I think that instead of whining about it on your talk page, my time would be better spent prodding it and moving on. Cheers. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I already PRODed it as non-notable. Perhaps I should just IAR and delete it, but IAR deletions tend to arouse a lot of controversy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe revdel over at BLPN

Hi, good job wiping that nasty Pakistan murder article, maybe you could/should revdel this BLP notice and discusssion. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is already too well-buried in the history to hide the revisions. I'd say let the people at WP:BLPN deal with it, since they no doubt no best what to do. In the meantime, you could blank the discussion the same way I did to the AFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

Hello Reaper Eternal. Interesting name. Would you be so kind as to close the RFC as "no consensus" and check the history to restore the medical summary that has enjoyed consensus for the last 10 months? Garycompugeek (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't request closures with a specific result in mind, as that could be considered adminshopping. You should make a neutral request when asking admins to close discussions. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry the results are easily verified. You are the admin who last protected the page and commented on the rfc in your edit summary, therefore it seemed natural to ask you to endorse it. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a no consensus closure is incorrect. Unfortunately, I do not consider myself objective enough on the topic of circumcision to be able to make a fair and unbiased administrative decision with regards to the RFC. You should see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to get a neutral admin. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate your honesty and candor. I will do as you suggest without any of my own conclusions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This AFD

Would you care to justify why you claim I moved this article to an "inappropriate title" when the man actually admitted the murder? Or is it perhaps politically incorrect in your eyes to class an "honour killing" as a murder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the sources present, he has not yet been found guilty by a court of law. It is therefore a BLP violation to brand him a murderer. Additionally, admitting guilt does not make him guilty of murder (he could be lying, have been insane, etc). See WP:BLPCRIME (people are not guilty until convicted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) (the article and the AFD were both moved for the title being a BLP violation), and this BLPN discussion for further information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

template:TOC top

Hi,

Do you mind unprotecting this? I'm not a big fan of templates being preemptively protected, as it discourages non-admins from getting involved in templatespace. It's already resulted in one editor who had made edits to the template just the day before now being forced to raise editprotected requests to keep working on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I initially had fully protected it because it had 48,000 transclusions. I have reduced the protection to semi now. (I would strongly advise against completely removing the protection due to the template vandal having been active recently.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WT:AF

Could you review my request for the Abuse Filter Editor right on WT:AF. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

...which was already declined by the time I got round to reading it, a decision I agree with. I find it irritating (not really the right word, but the best I can think of) that you would request EFM for yourself and try to encourage admins to decline a more experienced editor's rollback request. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh!

You beat me to all three of the requests on the rollback page...I edit-conflicted with you on all three! :D Ha ha, good work. :) (Oh, and your decisions were what I was going to say, too, so I agree with you!) Acalamari 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh! That's better than what occasionally happens to me on the WP:RFPP page, where I will protect a page, come back to mark it as {{done}}, and find out that another admin had already marked it as {{not done}}. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there

HelloTheanonymous3 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Check an edit filter

Since you can see what's happening behind-the-scenes, it may be good to see whether the triggering of a "Long-term pattern abuse" filter on WT:Articles for creation/EpicCraftGo (I can't see the filter # nor the details) is a false positive or not.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That was almost certainly a false positive. Are non-admins no longer able to see edit filter log entry details? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep - I opened a thread at VPT about it; wonder whether becoming an edit filter manager would help.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary rollback

Hello Reaper Eternal, I noticed your rollback and null edit at Articles for Creation/Redirects. Just in case you aren't aware of their existence, there are several scripts that permit edit summaries with rollback. Personally, I found User:Gracenotes/rollback.js to be fairly useful. It adds an extra "sum" link next to rollback, and prompts for an edit summary before rolling back. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

&summary= can be appended to the end of the rollback URL, to allow a custom edit summary. →Στc. 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I put the Gracenotes script in my monobook file, and don't see anything different. Something I did wrong? Calabe1992 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you refresh your cache? Did you put it in the right .js file for your skin?--v/r - TP 22:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears he copied the full script into his monobook.js. He probably just needs to clear his browser cache. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was that I accidentally clicked the [rollback] button rather than the (undo) button. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)