Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 25 September 2008 (Signing comment by Rigamarole's Needle - "→Your Bot Signing Signed Posts: Sinebot problem"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago.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 :)

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

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

SineBot

I have given SineBot IP Block exemption. You shouldn't notice any change. If there's any problems, or other legitimate recognized bots of yours run on the same IP, they may need it too. FT2  23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• your bot is signing things I've already signed Jesse James Shoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Jaimes (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Any clue who do I report for Template bugs. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally the template's talk/discussion page. Though, some template talk pages aren't frequently watched, so you could also try opening up a thread on the help desk. Be sure to specifically describe the bug and a link to the template that is causing the problem. Cheers =) --slakr 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge Letters

I don't know if the recent change to signing in very large letters on the Ref Desks is deliberate or not. Personally, I find the text extremely distracting when it is this large. Can we go back to text the same size as the rest of the desk? Thanks for your help. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. There was a change to {{Unsigned}} recently, but I think it was reverted back to small font use. If you get a chance, can you provide a diff example of the problem? Thank ya =) --slakr 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As of today, the large letters are still showing for me (IE browser). Here's a link: Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article probation

Thank you for attending to the Bill Ayers article. I am wondering if it might be best to remove the NPOV tag I inserted there pending resolution, strictly as a procedural matter. My impression is that a protection notice itself is adequate to alert people that the article is under dispute. I have no objections either way and will defer to your judgment. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the protection policy, we generally won't make edits to protected pages while they're still protected unless there is consensus on the article's talk page to make a specific edit. Simply open up a new header on the talk page, ask if anyone objects to the edit, and if nobody does, simply place {{editprotected}} under that header requesting a change, and an admin should be by shortly to make that edit. Alternatively, you could simply wait for the protection to expire. --slakr 18:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of Adam James Williams

You have indefinitely blocked Adam James Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated creation of inappropriate pages; since he wasn't acting out of malice, I suggested that I wouldn't be opposed to reducing his block to one day should he promise to behave (and tried to educate him on the policies of Misplaced Pages). What do you think? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Sure thing. Cheers =) --slakr 21:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

USC

Could you protect the USC article? I would say something about a tag team, but its not worth the bother.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a tag team in place on the article just check the history of who was last to revert. BigDunc 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IndependentMedia

Do you mind refreshing my memory (since I'd requested speedy-delete for Betterstream): IndependentMedia made legal threats? Was he the person who said he was going to launch a complaint if we didn't stop standing in his way? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text was, "I am an attorney in a case against Misplaced Pages and "Orange Mike"." as well as "If any media gets in the way of this truth mission, they will be sued and attacked in every legal way allowable for the next five hundred years straight. That's right, we will reincarnate and continue the lawsuit over and over again."

Because the user is claiming direct legal action against the foundation and an editor on wikipedia in a manner non-conducive to harmonious editing, it's policy to block until they affirm that any and all legal action is concluded and/or all threats of legal action are withdrawn.

On top of that, the ambiguity of "attacked" as an adjunct to the lawsuit is ominous to say the least. --slakr 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I thought it was some other, less malignant, incident I'd come across. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flatterworld 3RR

Not even a warning to Flatterworld for his 3RR? CENSEI (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even check to see if he had received one or not. Usually I check the page first before the individual user, and since there were multiple people edit warring, I pretty much stopped there. Usually if it's clear that either one or two people were edit warring, I'd check their contributions, block, and warning history as well, but in the interests of wanting to do other things, I skip that if it's not needed. If an editor is close to violating 3rr but has not yet received a warning (or you think he should be reminded of the policy), then you're free to place {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. --slakr 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot on en.wikinews

For some reason sinebot is not reliably signing Comments: pages. --Brian McNeil / 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers protection

Thank you for protecting the page. However, it's now frozen to an odd version voerall, including a rather eye-popping lead paragraph. Would it be possible for you to revert it to a version that was fairly stable earlier? For example, a month ago before things went so far downhill: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bill_Ayers&oldid=237538604 Flatterworld (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no clear policy violations in the current protected content. It should stay as is. CENSEI (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Per our protection policy, if there is a content dispute on a particular page that requires full protection, we generally protect the page in whatever form it's currently in, assuming there aren't any serious policy violations (e.g., biog. of living persons policy violations) or obvious vandalism. If you believe that a page should be changed while it is protected, please gain consensus on the article's talk page for that change and use the {{editprotected}} template to signal an admin to make the change after it's clear that there are no objections to it. --slakr 20:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

New Signature

Hi there, i hope you're well. I've recently editted my default signature to add a little colour. It is currectly  Declan Davis   (talk) . I signed a talk page with this and everythign appeared as it should with all of the Misplaced Pages mark up. But then sinebot came through and autosigned my signed article. I guess there's either a problem with my edited signature, or there's a problem with sinebot seeing editied signatures. What do you think the problem is, and how can I/you fix it?  Declan Davis   (talk)  15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed in 1.5.5– You've got a bookmark in the internal link (#top), which I hadn't anticipated. Lemme know if it's still giving you any problems --slakr 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Super, thanks! I had to put the bookmark in: it didn't work without it. I have no idea why.  Declan Davis   (talk)  23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot

Sinebot keeps on signing my messages while I sign with "Jouke Bersma" most of the time. Will you let this bot stop doing so? Was signed,

Jouke Bersma

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page under "SineBot" #1. --slakr 03:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to examine this edit?

May I ask you to please examine this edit?

I do not think that anyone disputes that Robertson did publish "the Free Zone decree", that he did claim the provenance for it that is stated, or that the use of "Free Zone" as an umbrella term evolved out of its use to designate this one group. So I tend to think that you may have simply acted in too much haste when you reverted all changes made by IP editors, rather than those which were vandalism. I wished to alert you to this at the time, but your talk page was semi-protected.

I would appreciate your attention to this matter. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I'm not well-versed in the topic and usually stay out out content disputes/issues; and, my revert on that page included some sock accounts as well. If I made a mistake, since the page is currently semi-protected, you can either log in if you have an account or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to request an edit be made. --slakr 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:69.122.210.59

This user continues to leave unsigned comments on my talk page (his first on my USER PAGE), telling me to stop making what he considers "erroneous edits" to pages I originally created or have long helped maintain, and harping on a single point I have "completely ignored", in his view. While I concede that he may be right about this single point (I would need to recheck my sources, and nobody's complained up to now, in over two years editing the pages in question), he appears to be basing his conclusions on a single, possibly noncanonical source.

Meanwhile he himself ignores wikiquette, style norms and general manners, a string of automated warnings on his own talk page about making unsigned comments and unexplained edits (dating back to 2006), and several revert notices regarding nonconstructive edits (likewise). When I pointed these warnings and notices (including those from your SineBot) out to him, noting that he was disregarding their intent in his ongoing actions, his response was to first erase them all from his talk page (isolating my replies and wikiquette reminders), then blank that page completely. I showed him links to MoS and editing standards, and asked him to stop leaving unsigned comments on my talk page; I told him I would approach an admin if he continued. He of course left yet another unsigned reply, on my talk page. I've heard enough. Could you please look into this matter? Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, a string of cut-n-paste, also-unsigned comments - with no edit explanations - on related talk pages appear to support his conclusions. They read like the work of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have to wonder?) Zephyrad (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Milk Morinaga

Since you deleted the article Milk Morinaga, can you close this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Two articles still open

Hi, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J. J. Thiel has two saved articles and they seem to still have the AfD in process. -- Banjeboi 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops. My bad. I'll fix momentarily. --slakr 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper)

I accidentally overrode you since my closer script didn't realize it was already closed. Anyway, I reverted myself, so hopefully nobody notices. :P Cheers, =) --slakr 09:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have liked to delete it, personally, but I think the decision wouldn't survive a DRV. We'll have to get Mr.Z-man to put in something so that the script doesn't close-conflict ;) Stifle (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Signing a revert

Thanks for maintaining SineBot! However, I want to report a false positive. A comment was removed from a talk page, which I then reverted. SineBot went ahead and incorrectly added my signature to it. Note, the revert comment did not contain the standard revert template, so maybe this is why it was confused. FAQ #4 says to report these things, so I thought I would let you know. Thanks! --Mosquitopsu (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion help

I saw your name as someone who decided on a deletion.

Belle Vista and Robert D. Booker are two articles that I think qualify for removal.

Belle Vista is a neighborhood. There is no indication of why it is special. Unlike cities, which probably qualify no matter how poorly the article is written, neighborhoods are not afforded similar consideration.

Private Booker was probably heroic but this is not a reason to keep it. I think I read somewhere that "Misplaced Pages is not a memorial" and that 9/11 victims are not automatically guaranteed an article.

If you agree that either one (or both) of these articles should be deleted, would you submit the request? I will study very carefully how you do it so that I can do it myself in the future. Since you decide on these things, you are probably more familiar with how to write a request in a convincing manner. Thank you. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! You have a robot/ non-human

Cool! How did you get a non-human/ robot? He went on my disccusion page and told me I had to sign posts.

It's SOOO cool how you got an online robot!

I'm shocked! O_o

--Blacky98 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at some obvious block evasion?

Hello, Slakr. I saw that you declined to unblock some editor. I think that the other party, Propastop (talk · contribs) who has been blocked for 24 hours today for his 3RR violation is currently evading a sock, Newmenber1 (talk · contribs). I filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa because Propastop's activities are almost identical to Pabopa's multiple socks.. The newly registered editor (just 30 min ago) targets to the article with similar edit summary with Pabopa's. The RFCU procedure would take two or week, so if I'm asking you to look into the case to see if my concern is right. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Bot Signing Signed Posts

Why is your bot signing my posts? I sign them with four tildes, but it signs them again anyway.--Tree 'uns 5 (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree 'uns 5 (talk • contribs)

The same thing happened to me just a minute ago. Is it a bug or something? Rigamarole's Needle (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigamarole's Needle (talk • contribs)