User talk:Beetstra - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supercopone (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 15 December 2009 (→COIbot question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:42, 15 December 2009 by Supercopone (talk | contribs) (→COIbot question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Dirk is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there
Dirk Beetstra


Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #250

I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

Responding

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.

ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL

There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
Add an appropriate linkfarm (you can consider to remove other links covered there).
Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel .

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.

Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert

I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda

This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.

Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive

Talk started 20/3/2006

XLinkBot

If there is any way I can assist you in the testing or development of XLinkBot's new reference reverting feature, please let me know. If we were using XLinkBot, rather than hard blacklisting, for these "sometimes spammed and usually unreliable" sites then my objections would be nearly entirely addressed. Gigs (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The feature is there, and it should work, it has a separate revertlist, User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. The list is empty except for email addresses. I am waiting for Hu12 to test some reference-spammers on it, we'd have to see if it then works properly. Feel free to add some you see fit and which are not blacklisted, and then keep an eye with me on the reverts.

But I am going to be honest, IMHO, these pay-per-view hosting sites should just be blacklisted by nature, just like we do with redirect sites and sites that contain malware. Not because they are unreliable sources (only), but because of their nature and the huge spam incentive. It sounds nice and friendly, but spammers are a different ballpark then vandals. As I said, spammers spam because they earn money that way. Vandals don't vandalise because they earn money that way. By far most of the documents on such sites are not suitable as external links, nor as references, whitelisting is IMHO the way to go, not XLinkBot (and that is what I suggested in a separate thread on the spam blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC. The way I see it, we have two questions of substance that can more or less stand alone. Even if community consensus is against using WP:RS as a factor in black and whitelisting, it still may be practical to blacklist user-generated pay-per content sites. BTW regarding ning, I'm confused, was the intent to blacklist the entire site or not? Gigs (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm answering on the spam blacklist at the moment, your representation seems oversimplified and misses the points.

I have no clue, it might have been, but I don't see a log item, and haven't found who added the broken regex. Maybe it was something else that needed blacklisting, you'll have to find the admin who added it. As far as I can see, there is no reason to blacklist ning.com, it is not blacklisted, Hu12 only blacklisted one spammed subdomain. --Dirk Beetstra 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Ning; Blacklisting the entire domain was never in consideration, re-read the request. --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Dishonesty

You have twice made an unfounded allegation of dishonesty against me on my talk page. User:Chelydramat has now acknowledged that the disputed material is in the source. This must be retracted unequivocally.

This allegation was allowed to colour the edit-warring allegation against me and several other editors who knew it to be untrue let it stand.

This is relevant text from Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source :

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial states that Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value violates NPOV. Compare the two texts above. How can it be justified to edit the source by excising the words whose group is funded in part by energy companies in the light of this fact? This isn't relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that's useful to fairly judge their value?

How was it 'contentious' to include the middle of a sentence the start and end of which were already quoted? A more than superficial examination of what went on would have lead you to conclusions opposite to those which you arrived at.

You acted quite wrongly in intervening as an administrator when your real interest was in a content dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You added the information 5 (five) times. READ WP:3RR. The information can be true, people may make mistakes, it is NOT worth pushing it 5 times. Next time, discuss on talkpages FIRST, and keep the discussion there until people are convinced. --Dirk Beetstra 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the sentence, I searched for the whole sentence you added the last times, and that was not there. You are right, and I am sorry I did not see that, that the information was there. However, as it was contested information, I a) would not have included it to defend your cause, I may have given a remark on the talkpage, and b) I would still have given you a warning to stop pushing the information. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 06:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept that this resulted from oversight rather than malice. I was more concerned that other editors who knew the dishonesty claim was inaccurate let the accusation pass without comment and let it colour the proceedings.

As you're engaging honestly with me, I'm going to apologise in advance for labouring the point but my concerns are intellectual integrity and my personal honour and dignity. I add the following not to badger you further or elicit a response but for the record.

I added a comment , added it again after opening a discussion on the talk page , then edited it so it was verbatim from the source .

At this precise point, consensus had been achieved... Look at the succeeding edits; Nil Einne was 'fine' with the new wording and dozens of edits were made (including by Nil Einne) before User:Arthur Rubin's revert and User:Chelydramat's baseless allegation of dishonesty.

Viewed from this perspective, the affair takes on a new dimension. How was I, at this point, to believe that the info would be contentious when it was a verbatim excerpt from the source? How could User:Arthur Rubin reasonably revert sourced relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value without even commenting in the discussion?

It was at this point that the allegation of dishonesty was made by Chelydramat and things fell apart: users who knew this to be wrong let it pass, admins started swarming from all angles, the edit-warring allegations started etc. We both know how this ended, and the allegations and interventions of 'disinterested' parties were critical.

You yourself were interested in the content dispute but did not mention this when you issued your warning. I abided by your ruling nonetheless, declared my intention to lodge an RfC and allowed User:William M Connolley's revert to stand (consider this revert in the light of the NPOV rules above and in relation to sourced, validated information!).

My concern is *not* warnings about the 3RR etc, it is the lack of attention and balance in the interventions that followed. Arthur Rubin's intervention was to revert without comment sourced information. This attracted no criticism, nor did the dishonesty claim which numerous (other) editors knew to be incorrect.

This was the context in which the edit-warring allegation was investigated.

All I ask is to look at it from my perspective. How you would feel if this had happened to you?Dduff442 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Something like this did happen to me once, where we did have a source which stated 9.5 clearly, and where someone else was putting in the number differently 'because the definition of the scale only supports whole numbers'. I ran into a block for defending the source, and that is correct. Edit warring is one, but 3RR is a bright line, sometimes one has to step back.

The article has a large number of edits (I guess 30-50 per day!), and consensus can change.

having a conflict of interest does not disallow you to edit, to engage in these subjects, etc. etc. You'd better explain why you do it, indeed, but remember that the people who have a conflict of interest are also often the experts (and in a way, some people who are strongly contending the information in a way also have a conflict of interest). Keeping NPOv is a delicate balance, and the remark (even when sourced) is discrediting the subject, and when contested it should be discussed and not being kept there, whoever contests it. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 08:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was at best in a gray area, I acknowledge.

What outraged me was that User:Nil Einne and User:Arthur Rubin (at least) knew the dishonesty claim was incorrect(see their edit summaries), could have corrected it painlessly but instead let it pass without comment, and continued to agitate for a block.

FYI, take a look at User:Chelydramat's contributions list. A scattered series of edits mostly relating to embarrassing material (Adult Swim) interspersed by interventions at very odd places. Compare the length of his edit list with the skillful way he employs Wiki markup. He's one to watch.Dduff442 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to mention to Beetstra that he'd made a mistake but it appears I don't have to since as I mention in my post on your talk page, when you took it up with him, he had no problem admitting the mistake. But since you're commenting on me here as well I feel it's only fair that I respond (although I expect Beetstra already knows this).

As I explained on your talk page, the thing is, you seem to think that for some magic reason we know of everything and anything happening on wikipedia. Sorry but we don't. We don't have a direct connection to the database enabling us to download every change and process it internally. We're not computers. Even in taking part in a discussion very often if it's a long one people are not going to read every single post (this often isn't a good thing, but it happens). In my case I made clear that I had decided against taking further part, so I still have completely no idea why you even expected me to read Chelydramat's post. I may have skimmed thorough it but since I'd decided nothing useful was coming from that discussion & in general it held little interest to me (& in fact had decided I had wasted too much time on it) it wasn't something I was going to worry about much.

Actually looking at it again and thinking carefully I may have noticed he/she was mistaken but you'd already challenged him/her on it so I didn't see much more to do. And he/she did acknowledge he/she was mistaken before I even finished my post & as I've also said my post effectively challenged his/her comment anyway even if not directly.

Since you also made a comment I feel implied I had reverted a sourced quote I of course had very strong impetus to say one final thing to ensure people who weren't familiar with the details understood my involvement. It should hopefully be no surprise to you that many people are much more likely to care to defend themselves then to defend other users (not always and not everyone of course). Since you also still seemed to be edit warring and still seemed to be rather confused over many aspects of policy, I decided to have on final go at explaining it to you something which I had tried to several times i.e. was already involved in.

BTW, I did not agitate for you to be blocked. It did seem highly likely to me you would be blocked based on your unfortunate continually edit warring and when I noticed WMC's post requesting a block I did think of responding saying I agreed it seemed the only course of action but I decided there was little point and in fact took no further part in anything related to that. (In fact IIRC I partially got distracted with other articles and related discussions.) When I noticed you'd been blocked, having mostly calmed down and agreeing with WMC that you seemed to be trying to help I decided to have a go from a different angle in trying to explain to you how I felt you were going wrong. In retrospect I probably should have waited to post it until you'd had time to calm down a bit as well, and apologise for that but I don't see how this counts as 'agitating for your block' given that you were already blocked.

As I've said when you have a problem with another user, your best bet of course is to take it up with the user directly which you did and Chelydramat acknowledged his/her mistake long before you were blocked. Some confusion apparently lingered with Beetstra, again taking it up as you did here would have resolved this a long time ago I'm sure. When you don't get a satisfactory response, there are plenty of avenues you have available. If you had wanted me to get involved (and I strongly suspect Arthur Rubin would feel likewise), if you'd politely asked us me may very well have done so. But we are all volunteers so there should never be any expectation that we have to get involved. And to repeat what I've said multiple times, you should not have any expectation we would automatically get involved in some random problem that you have with some random user just because we happen to be involved in the discussion.

P.S. As I've said repeatedly there is no grey area here. If you are edit warring adding challenged stuff back to the 'stable' version against multiple other users (several of who are usually on different sides of the debate) without anyone else supporting you on a recently coming off full protected article (in a very contentious field) where neutral/uninvolved admins have already warned they will block at the slightest sign of edit warring and that you need to get consensus before making controversial changes (which be definition includes all changes that someone challenges) all of which was I believe pointed out to you at the time; and you have already been given multiple 3RRs (even if one of them was by a user slightly mistaken something which of course you could and should have clarified before continuing when you would have been informed as you were here that it didn't matter) and have done it significantly more then 3 times that's no grey area. That's black and white. It doesn't matter how wrong the other users area. (Unless it's one of the exceptions none of which applied here of course.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly take it up here when I was blocked. The 'confusion' lingered until this morning and I was obliged to attend court, so to speak, on two charges simultaneously; this was quite wrong. It was extraordinary that so many users could participate without one of them countering the dishonesty claim.

Indeed the 'confusion' lingered together with your 'advice' during the block appeal, hence my statement about you 'agitating' for a ban. You certainly did not object to the ban exactly, did you?

Let's just get back to the core issue: "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value". You had no objection to edit warring in your favour, starting with Arthur Rubin's revert. At that point you re-discovered objections you'd previously shelved.

Aggressive and disingenuous (e.g. the WP:UNDUE and hilarious WP:BLP objections) mob editing created a false impression of consensus. The transparent dishonesty of these objections went without comment from you or other editors. Go to the talk page right now to see the real consensus. How four or five people ever thought "concealing relevant information" was a good idea is beyond me.

It is imaginable that a reasoned investigation, ignoring issues such as user prominence and mob sentiment, might have arrived at the same conclusion and banned me anyway (though I think I'd have every chance given the real 'zero point' of Arthur Rubin's revert rather than my first edit). What was unendurable was the travesty that actually transpired. I think you know this deep down, given the masses of type you've devoted to the issue today.

I believe -- with a rather greater certainty than in Arthur Rubin's case -- that you did not notice the dishonesty allegation but would question why you participated if you were paying so little attention.Dduff442 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm losing track here. Who is asking who questions and who is answering to who or who is making remarks to who? --Dirk Beetstra 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne -> Me -> Nil Einne. I didn't ask any questions.

Incidentally, the 'consensus' invented by Connolley and Rubin has reversed. It still seems like 'sorry' is the hardest word for them, but I take great personal satisfaction from this vindication.Dduff442 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Nil Einne -> Me -> Nil Einne: take it to your own talkpages.

I am worried about that last remark of you: Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. You give me the feeling that you think that you, because you are a worker of the TRUTH are right, and that you don't do anything wrong, and expect others who make mistakes to be sorry. Cool down, Dduff442. --Dirk Beetstra 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the victim of a mistake, I was the victim of an attack carried out with deep cynicism by Connolley and Rubin. Count how many edits these guys trash every single day.Dduff442 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Count how many edits these guys made since they started. Stop with the battle. That article is a contentious area, discussion is the way to go, not pushing the info, however right you may be, and however wrong they may be. --Dirk Beetstra 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting

Hmm, I did not realize blacklisting didn't leave an audit trail like the edit filter can/does. Perhaps it should. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not. Not sure what it would say, anyway. You would see one attempted addition by a user, and because the first does not save, they will not try again. So it would never show evidence of 'attempted spam' .. so even with audit trail, I would not de-blacklist because of that. I haven't put the examples in there, but there are nice examples of link which got de-blacklisted upon request, and where the spammer nicely goes on soon after (aboutmyarea.co.uk showed that nicely .. socks spamming it, it got blacklisted, deblacklisting because someone needed one instance, and new socks appear who nicely go on spamming the site .. ). As I've said a couple of times, spamming pays, and people get paid to spam. It will not stop, editors go through serious efforts trying to spam what we blacklist. Even a reverting bot is not going to help. It pays to have your link here, so they will revert. It is just a hurdle. --Dirk Beetstra 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF, etc

Regarding the addition to the facts section, those were your words. I put them there to clarify the difference in application between black and whitelisting.

Regarding Hu12, his behavior is completely over the top. Accusing me of using this RfC as some kind of personal vendetta is a clear assumption of bad faith. I have been very generous in the formulation of this RfC, as you are well aware, engaging the blacklist regulars for input. Hu12 has no basis for his accusations. Like I said, he is, by far, the worst offender when it comes to unsupported black and whitelisting decisions, and using the blacklist preemptively may very well be considered abuse. I don't think my comments are out of line. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

abandoned comment

As a side remark, I wonder if Misplaced Pages and the New York Times are wrong, if Stanford is wrong, or if this is another accidental overlap in name, but actually a different person? Linking is fine, Keith, but we can gain so much more from these archives, and vice versa. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a conflict between the Stanford materials and the NYT? Keith Henson (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The date of birth are different ("Tillie Olsen was born in Nebraska in 1913 and has lived in San Francisco for most of her life." vs. "Tillie Lerner Olsen (January 14, 1912–January 1, 2007)", the latter referenced to a NYT article.). For the rest it seems to be the same person, I can't believe they are different. I think the Stanford article is wrong.

This exemplifies a bit what I mean, Keith. Archives do have more to offer than just external links. Here in this specific example Misplaced Pages has something to offer for them (I presume that their database is wrong), but on another occasion it can just be the other way around. That is why I am against blind and pushed link additions (this specific link would be a violation of WP:EL, linking to factually incorrect information). However, if an editor takes a little bit more care, then there is no problem. To me, it is not the loss of the Stanford editor that is the problem, it is the loss that such editors could have done so much more, could have given so much more added value then just linking to a database. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 06:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If I look further, do I see more discrepancies between the articles? There is also something about the date of publication of a book, is it 1961 or 1962. --Dirk Beetstra 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Looks fine, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta

I had good info posted on that page, this is out of contoll.....why did you change the page. I called the State of Georgia and asked about how I could find out if they were two diffrent Schools, they were able to inform me that a new operations license was open for University of Atlanta. So it's a fact that are two dirrent schools, so why is this going on still just remove this info and leave the rest alone this page is way way slanted Against the school. Please Help!!!--Supercopone (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All is sourced, they are NOT two different schools, one is a restart of the other. We've been through this before, I would really suggest you stay on talkpages first. If you remove the history of University of Atlanta, the page is very, very likely to be deleted, as there is nothing left. --Dirk Beetstra 07:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Supercopone

I have unblocked Supercopone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has handled himself poorly, but there are very serious problems with University of Atlanta. I will counsel him to make his case on the talk page rather than edit warring. With respect to your administrative actions, you seem to have a rather definite position regarding what the content of the article should be. You probably shouldn't be blocking other editors who differ with your opinion. Fred Talk 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the past, the article has been handled by several admins who have properly sourced all information in the article. It is not the article that has issues, the SEO attack was real, the promotional language of the article is real, this is not 'the data is incorrect' (read the references), this is plain spamming, and sock/meat puppetry. But as I said, I will not take further admin action, and I did bring this to ANI. --Dirk Beetstra 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do still consider to reopen the SPI .. Mistro12 was in the list of sockpuppets, the sleeper account of Supercopone might as well be. --Dirk Beetstra 15:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

COIbot question

If I had realized you were the one to maintain COIbot sooner, I would have brought my initial question directly to you. But, I now have a secondary question ...

What is the normal processing time for entries at User:COIBot/Poke? I'm not sure what priority entries on that page receive, or what other tasks may be using COIBot's processing time; but I noticed that none of the entries at the "poke" page appear to have been processed. Does COIbot have technical limits on number of links to a url it can research?

Just curious, for future reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm .. that does happen sometimes. COIBot seems to have lost contact with reality (it looks like it stopped parsing the diffs from IRC) .. I am restarting the connection, see if that helps.

COIBot is continuously saving linkreports. The cross-wiki and local reports get highest priority, after that these poked ones, and then some other ones (people on IRC can also ask for them). Lag is generally in terms of a handful of minutes, except when there are many which have to be saved.

The bot now saw the edit:

<COIBot> Stalked page User:COIBot/Poke edited by en:User:Beetstra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=331305865&oldid=331305318 ), checking for added LinkSummary templates.
<COIBot> en:User:COIBot/Poke edited, COIBot poked urls into report: opcae.com excelreporter.com opcuasupport.com opcworkshops.com medicanalife.com absoluteastronomy.com welovesoaps.net

so they should be there shortly. --Dirk Beetstra 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Something Funny

I also for what its worth applied to go here(Atlanta), if you read my other post you will see that’s how I came to this page to start with, what freaked me out was that I was denied by my essay and it was noted that my GPA at my other regional accredited schools were to low. I think I will still be looking for other schools, as I said on my main page that I will let everyone no the school I choose so the in no conflict of interest. I my feelings are a little hurt at this point and it was a blow to my ego. I thought for sure I would just walk in : ( I am now looking into the University of The People (its free to go)--Supercopone (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)