| Revision as of 01:01, 4 January 2009 editExxess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,947 edits →Deletion -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:35, 4 January 2009 edit undoSlakr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 edits →Deletion -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan: +rNext edit → | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
| Thanks -- ] (]) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | Thanks -- ] (]) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :First and foremost, the closing admin, {{User|Aitias}}, is . As such, that's good enough for me to enforce his deletion closure. Whether or not the nominator is or is not an administrator is irrelevant to me as I'm not the closing administrator— Aitias is. | |||
| :The result of the delete discussion on the article that was being discussed was to delete it. Moving it to a new name doesn't reverse that decision nor does recreating it under a new name, which qualifies the article for ]. A lot of admins use an AfD closing script to automagically delete articles discussed in an AfD should the result of the discussion be to delete. Naturally, since the article had been moved in the interim, the script simply deleted the redirect left behind by he move, and I cleaned up. | |||
| :If, however, you feel that the article, under whatever name, should be undeleted, the dudes at ] should be able to help you out. I added comments to both the AfD and the deletes I made in order to help clarify what happened. My guess is it would be easiest to do everything as if you hadn't moved it, i.e., reference the actual AfD that closed as delete, then explain that the new name would be at "the new name". Also, be sure to state why the new incarnation fundamentally addresses the concerns of the AfD that resulted in delete. | |||
| :--]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 01:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:35, 4 January 2009
|
slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi? |
Ideally, please post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.Click here to start a new talk topic
| Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | |
|
Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :)Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)".If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
PLea from PL Wiki :)
Dear Slakr:
We, the me and the mouse in my pocket, would like you and your SineBot to bot the Sine, as it were, on our wikiterritory. The history of discourse will plainly show, that even today, wistful parlance has taken place at the Pl Wiki watering trough, Kawiarenka (the tiny café), at the (not only limited to the indecent, or when nuanced alternatively, not only limited to indecent) Propositions Table, .
Alas, it has come to be said, that you have refused (not ours, but our countrymen's) lent ears and entreaties b4. :(
Presently, the Polish Strategy is to wait until you relent and make the code public, at which time, we will steal it.
However, the time behavior of the above algorithm is best formally expressed, in Versed Polish Notation, as czekanie do usranej śmierci, which is highly nonlinear, and some even go on to allege, nondeterministically polypointless (one-to-one, and being stoned by the entire village while tied to a ten-foot pole).
So much for theory and diplomacy.
Before I take up threats and naked (penile jpeg) aggression, would you please consider just running the damn thing over on our site, like Sinebots do, much as, for example, User:Volkov runs his VolkovBot, but presumably with fewer moronic edits? :/
Cordially, Your Brother in Alms, --Mareklug 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I second every (second?) word in this plea - please, do consider allowing us, mere laymen from pl-wiki to use your code (it really, really is great!). You don't need to make the code public. All pl-wiki editors will be truly grateful to you! Pundit|utter 18:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, studies have shown that when deprived of outside input, humans slip into a 25-hour cycle... I know, {{fact}}, but in this case it doesn't matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumobserver (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 December 2008
- The real reason is probably because I'm still young and comprise the ~80% of youth that cite themselves more active+energetic+whatever at later hours of the day. Apparently what happens is that when you're young and when you're old, there's instead a 20%/80% distribution of evening-active to morning-active, but during adolescence and young adulthood, the trend is reversed quickly to 80/20, then gradually returns to the original 20/80 by late adulthood.
- Some evolutionary psychs have posited that it might have something to do with it being advantageous for youth to break away from their "loser parents," which presumably would increase the chances of mating (through increased chances of buttsecks). Some social psychs say it might just be due to the pressures of traditional 9to5 jobs to establish rigorous sleep schedules during early adulthood. Don't have cites for it all nor do I remember what the technical terms are, but I'm almost certain we have it mentioned in an article somewhere on here. :P
- But anyway, going with the vampire story is much more fun. :P --slakr 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
FAQ
Slakr, your bot Sinbot has sent me a message that I should sign my posts, yet I already do. I have discovered that my signing button is broken and so is the 4 tildes. Help out please. Just look at the end of the comment. Dennisman 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisman (talk • contribs)
See. Reply to me at this link. User Talk: Dennisman. Dennisman 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC) --Dennisman 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting the problem out Slakr. I'm still relativly inexperenced on Misplaced Pages. Still, thanks. Dennisman (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
bring sinebot over
please come over to our wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 大天王皇子 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Your Bot
I think that your bot's messages were very convenient and helpful, but not as sexy as they could be. Please improve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'll look into that. — preceding comment was screamed wildly by a sexy user with a cute ass as the resounding echo in the waves of pleasure tolled the grim reminder that, while the embrace between the nubile lovers felt that it could endure an eternity, 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC) had approached.
The bot's message
For the record, here's what your bot writes:
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (...) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In general, I'm not a fan of WP bots, but your bot actually does something useful. One suggestion though, you could improve your bot by making the message less condescending. The current text assumes that the poster doesn't know about signing; when, in fact, they probably just forgot. Why not reword your bot's message along the following lines:
Hi there. I noticed that you forgot to sign a recent post you made to talk page XXX <put a link to the page there>. I have taken the liberty of signing your post for you. In case you aren't familiar with signing talk pages content, here are a couple of tips: you can sign entries by typing four tildes (...) at the end of your comment or by clicking the signature button located above the edit window. Signing talk pages content is useful because other contributors are able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Christopher Rath (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- It performs a {{subst:Tilde}}, a template that other editors also use. So, basically, if you think that
{{Tilde}}could use for a change for the better for the bot, chances are everyone else would benefit, too. I'd say open a discussion over at Template talk:Tilde so that others can possibly improve upon it too. Cheers =) --slakr 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Modification to the Bald Headed Woman Article
Why don't you add the new Jimmy page section in the Bald Headed Woman Article? Please watch out from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bald_Headed_Woman
I'd extended to the talk page with authentic sources:
Role of Jimmy Page
According to The Who's Official Website and various rock magazines, Jimmy Page has been credited for lead guitar work on the B-side of Bald Headed Woman.
References:
http://www.jimmypage.co.uk/biography.htm
http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/page_jimmy/4682556/lyric.jhtml
http://www.thewho.com/index.php?module=discography&discography_item_id=90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.96.182 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for deleting Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. You are right, that mistake was caused by my script. Thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deletion -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
While the deletion debate raged, I moved this article Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło to
Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan.
That was an attempt to fix what I considered surmountable problems within the article. SEE:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination)
The administrator who made the original deletion nomination has two recent arbitration cases against him, and he has since lost his administrator privileges.
My point -- I want a deletion review on the newly rewritten article "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan", but it's probably pointing to the old article "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło."
Everything seems to be mixed up. Any suggestions on how to proceed?
I can't see the old article, so I don't want the old contents reviewed.
Thanks -- Exxess (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- First and foremost, the closing admin, Aitias (talk · contribs), is is an administrator. As such, that's good enough for me to enforce his deletion closure. Whether or not the nominator is or is not an administrator is irrelevant to me as I'm not the closing administrator— Aitias is.
- The result of the delete discussion on the article that was being discussed was to delete it. Moving it to a new name doesn't reverse that decision nor does recreating it under a new name, which qualifies the article for speedy deletion of an already-afded article. A lot of admins use an AfD closing script to automagically delete articles discussed in an AfD should the result of the discussion be to delete. Naturally, since the article had been moved in the interim, the script simply deleted the redirect left behind by he move, and I cleaned up.
- If, however, you feel that the article, under whatever name, should be undeleted, the dudes at deletion review should be able to help you out. I added comments to both the AfD and the deletes I made in order to help clarify what happened. My guess is it would be easiest to do everything as if you hadn't moved it, i.e., reference the actual AfD that closed as delete, then explain that the new name would be at "the new name". Also, be sure to state why the new incarnation fundamentally addresses the concerns of the AfD that resulted in delete.