User talk:Robchurch/May 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: Aug 05 | Sept 05 | Oct 05 | Nov 05 | Dec 05 | Jan 06 | Feb 06 | Mar 06 | Apr 06 || May 06 | Jun 06 | Jul 06 || New Message

[edit] Bot approval

Hi Rob! I've gone through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals and the page is awfully messy. I can't figure out which all need to be marked and which all are pending. I suggest a cleanup on the lines of:

• Archive all successful bots
• Once approved by the committee, it is marked as such with the brown background. This then allows a b'crat and mark it as a bot and archive it.
• Failed ones be immediately archived

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What of Wikipedia:Bots/Approval log? I agree, though, the page is a mess. Rob Church (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the page. Should I mark all of them as bots? I'll try and clean up the page next week. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see that the're all marked as bots. So when do I come into the picture? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When a user's request to have their bot account marked as such is granted. Rob Church (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ems2

It was my understanding that blanking other user's comments from talk pages was considered anti-social. I know that blanking warnings from one's talk page is prohibited. And Ems2 didn't archive the comment, he simply removed it. And regarding harrassment, I would say you are being over-sensitive. When a user proposes merging a Wikipedia page and his personal page, that is either a waste of time or something more sinister. User:Ems2 also has a long history of masquerading as another user, User:Ems, and has repeatedly asked administrators to enable him to take over that user's account. So I would say that your comment lacked all the facts, but thank you for it anyway. -- Gnetwerker 20:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding removal of talk page comments: Here is an example of someone being blocked for "attempting to hide a conversation". I have seen numerous other examples of users being warned not to remove the comments of others from their talk pages. So you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I observe plenty of evidence to the contrary on Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those fine examples that demonstrates what a blur there is between guidelines, policies and common sense. To be honest, I don't really care. Rob Church (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Dear Robchurch/May 2006,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skin problem

Thank you very much for your extremely prompt fix to my "Chick" skin corruption problem. Now solved. Still curious as to what "Chick" means - is it a mis-spelling of "Chic"?  :-) GrahamBould 10:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea. Rob Church (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have another problem which I think is related to the "skin" issue. One of my images which is marked as "Watch" does not come up in my Commons "mywatchlist" page, although it is in the "Complete" list. The file is "Image:LRDG Memorial at Papakura New Zealand.jpg". Are you the right person to ask for help?

A number of other images uploaded recently also don't appear on my Watchlist, but do appear on my Complete watch list.

GrahamBould 10:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC) GrahamBould 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleas don't shoot me...

I'm sure you hate having dev requests pop up on your talk page as much as I hate having admin/bcrat/checkuser ones, but I noticed a change you made that was reported in the Signpost (redirecting Userlist to Listusers) and I wanted to leave a "when you have the time, if you think it's a good idea, no pressure, etc." note:

Would you consider redirecting Special:Unblock to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=?

Thanks! ;-D Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{tracker}}

Thank you a lot for depreciating it. It'll save me the trouble! Computerjoe's talk 06:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Please don't make random and unexplained oppose votes on someone's RFA. Thumbelina 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before, and as then, I shall assure you now I do not make random votes of any nature. I cast my opinion after careful thought, although sometimes time is required to be able to formulate appropriate language for an explanation. Rob Church (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about Benon, I have to say I'm with you this time Rob. "Not a chance" spoke volumes, and your expanded answer really hit the nail on the head (mixed metaphor alert). I'm worried the community might be making a big mistake this time, but since it looks to be on the way to success we'll soon see :) --kingboyk 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Robchurch/May 2006,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My name is Rob Church, and my username is Robchurch. Neither of those are {{PAGENAME}}. So you'll have to excuse me if I use this somewhat impolite wave of spam as an example of why you shouldn't have been made an administrator. Rob Church (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmmmmmmm

Yeah, on a second read I think I agree with you, I've removed it. I think I have to agree that it is a popularity contest now, not really a reflection of ability / are they (to quote you) head screwed on and I think some sort of reform is going to have to happen. Exactly how it will work, I still don't know, its not an "election" in a sense that we can't bring in STV or something like that, and picking 1 out of 5 candidates would seem silly as they all might be excellent. I think I just found my puzzler for the day :o Thanks for the note, (on a side note, is TB2's message looking better now?) -- Tawker 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Rob

Hi Rob,

We haven't talked directly before but I feel that my comments on Rama's Arrow's RfA has offended you. I am sorry about that and I will keep in mind to avoid those kind of things in future. Hope to see more positive interactions with you in future....-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Coffee cup.png

Image:Coffee cup.png no longer works. This is used in many old {{Calm talk}} messages, which were subst'ed, it has now been replaced by a big cross. This, as you may imagine, is fairly embrassing. Could you somehow devise a way to replace all instances of it with Image:Zielony kubek herbaty - 01.svg? Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The File Links section of this image shows that it isn't being used on pages on this Wikipedia. Has this been deprecated? Rob Church (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test.Wikipedia

Hey Rob, I figured that you probably wouldn't check your messages on Test.Wikipedia, and I just now figured out who you were on en. Anyway, I left you a message on test.wikipedia asking about the possibility of getting sysop rights there to help me develop a few tools I've been dreaming up. Let me know if this is a possibility. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rob Church (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discourteous.

Re rv - actually READ the link. Don't revert my comment like it's vandalism, that's discourteous.: What's "discourteous" is your insistence on bothering on my own user talk. It's unwelcome. Go away. And yes, I have read the meatballwiki link. It's not relevant.

If what I've just said isn't civil, it really doesn't matter to me right now. Go away. I'm sure you mean well..actually no, I don't see how you can mean well in insisting that I apologise when I've been attacked for almost a whole day non stop by various parties, I'll be honest.

It - and you - are grating on the nerves. Find some other Wikipedian to bother.

Thank you in advance. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re. password throttling

Did Brion enable password throttling yet? And if so, what's the limit (or is it private for WP:BEANS reasons)? Ral315 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It uses the built-in ping limiter, which I've since found out might not be enabled anyway, due to some incompatibility with Turck MMCache. If that's the case, then we may have to implement a whole new solution. Rob Church (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alaibot trial run

My bot's been trial-running for a couple of weeks, as I've noted under its request for approval; anything further I should do at this point? Alai 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping users without biting their heads off. I honestly have no idea how you can deal with all of them and have time and effort left for your on-wiki and dev contributions. However you do it, thanks. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sysop permissions on test.wikipedia

Robchurch, can you make me into sysop, checkuser, bureaucrat on the test wikipedia so I can learn how to use these functions??? This would be useful for me as I intend to learn more about MediaWiki. --Sunfazer | Talk 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. There's no need for you to be a sysop or bureaucrat there and CheckUser permission is under strict control. If you want to learn more about the software for the software's sake, then install a local test wiki and add appropriate extensions. Rob Church (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help me?

Someone mentioned that you solved a similar problem on Wikimedia. I've been getting yonks of "password reminders" by email, courtesy of a disgruntled vandal. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Someone trying to log into my account. I'd be grateful for any advice or assistance you could offer. --woggly 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial transclusion

Hi, I would like to get more feedback from technically savvy people on the ParserFunction idea presented here.

To me (admittedly a non-techie), it would valuable to get clearer information on whether the concept itself is a sound one, whether the implementation could cause problems, and if so what the way around them might be.

I am well aware that Mediawiki features can take while, but I would still like to make sure this isn't taken completely off track, if it is indeed a technical possibility that wouldn't cause problems. Dovi 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong developer. I've always been fairly opposed to the partial transclusion idea. Rob Church (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Although "always been fairly opposed" sounds kind of strange when the idea was just proposed very recently.

On the other hand, that may make you the perfect person. I really want to understand what the problems with it are. What makes you opposed? Dovi 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a new proposal, actually. And I simply don't feel that properly authored documents ought to take on a flaky structure. Rob Church (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you direct me to where it was discussed in the past (I was unaware of that)? Also, whatever "flaky structure" may mean, it is not the case in Wikisource where we are talking about long-standardized divisions of texts (but into small segments that don't make sense to keep on individual pages). Dovi 03:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was discussed on the bug tracker somewhere along the line (a subsequent bug is a dupe, but no-one cares that much) and was potentially brought up on wikitech-l or mediawiki-l beforehand. And no, the concerns I had can be met with valid arguments in the context of wikis such as Wikisource. Rob Church (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had done a search for "transclusion" on Bugzilla, but didn't find anything that seemed to match this. In any case, your concern seems to be a content one, not a software problem. Am I correct? Thanks again, Dovi 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

For the most part. Rob Church (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the useful back-and-forth earlier. For an update, see here. Regards, Dovi 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robot

I want to have a robot named Babylon5 and here is the tasks of my robot:

• Make Category
• Raplace a letter with another
• Make redirect
• Interwiki (Especially Farsi language)
• Disambiguation pages

Before I read that I must request it, So What should I do??? --MehranVB 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, request

Hi, Robchurch. Thanks for the new functionality in the MediaWiki software. I was wondering if Special:Wantedpages could be further modified to ignore links caused by the use of templates. All of the articles that I checked were not really wanted that much, as they had only a few, and sometimes zero, links in articles. They were "wanted" because they were part of template. Sometimes they were part of a template used in articles, like the cities, counties and districts in Template:Alberta. Othertimes they were part of a to do list, like the ones on Template:Korean (you might have to click "show" and "hide" a couple of times to see the list). It would be great if there was a way to exclude such links so that we know which ones come from the articles' text. Even if this is infeasible, thanks for your work. -- Kjkolb 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus among the active developers, based on the response to a couple of requests for similar changes, is that if a page is linked to from a template, it counts as a link, so the "wanted" state is quite justified. Rob Church (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ForestH2

When you have time, can you help this user? I tried to correct probs with the sig, to no avail (see here). RadioKirk talk to me 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell the user to erase the contents of the nickname box, uncheck the raw signature option, save their preferences, and start over. Rob Church (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dev request

Rob, would you mind deleting this edit? The history is much too huge for me to do it the usual way. I'd be grateful; thanks. Chick Bowen 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Escalated. Rob Church (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rob Church (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Chick Bowen 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enquiry on MediaWiki

Hi Rob,

I am asking you this question since I know you as a developer of MediaWiki. I don't know if you know this, but a straw poll is going on currently on User:TheTrueSora's proposal. In short, it requires making a new "Userbox" namespace for userboxes and moving all of them from "Template" space to "Userbox" space. I just wanted your opinion on the technicalities of this proposal. Overall it looks quite feasible, but you might be knowing better than us whether it is practical or not. Feel free to reply to me or directly on the proposal's discussion especially if there are any critical problems. Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple. Custom namespaces can be created without a lot of effort on our part, since all we do is tweak the site configuration. Transclusion would then be via means of {{userbox:likes cabbage}}. Rob Church (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's not hard to do! cool. But is it a Good Thing? That seems part of the question too. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I expected it to be simple and just wanted to hear that from a developer. The question whether its good or not is currently being discussed in the straw-poll. Feel free to express your opinions. Thanks again, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not for the development team to express personal opinions about the userbox debacle. If we did, you'd never speak to us again. Rob Church (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this new Userbox space would require a new User Category space, and I asked about it on tech, and folks said it would be very difficult.

--William Allen Simpson 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That bit would be difficult to impossible to implement with our current codebase, yes. Rob Church (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Are you certain you want to be an admin? If you say that yes, you are absolutely certain you want the stress and the crap and all that which comes with adminship, I'll toss a support your way. If you have any doubts, tell me right now, so I can oppose your nom and hopefully nudge it into failing, assuming you don't withdraw. You can help Wikipedia in so many other ways, I don't want you screwing with that by getting into the fun, fun world of adminship. But if you're sure, I trust you enough to support your getting back in there. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would find the tools useful for certain tasks, as is stated in the response to Lar's nomination. Rob Church (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I know you'd find them useful. We all would. You didn't answer my question. :) The tools come at a price. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If the intention is to make me jump through hoops to be allowed to use some elevated editorial functions on a web site, then forget it. I've better things to be doing than that. Sorry. Rob Church (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, why on Earth are you being so hostile? This is exactly what I was attempting to warn you about in my original message. It was stress that was your downfall before. Because I think you're a neat guy, I don't want it to happen to you again. All I'm asking is if you're sure you're prepared to accept it. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the intention was not hostility of any sort. I'm merely calmly stating what my position on the matter is. Rob Church (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highway's RfA

[edit] Today's Outage

I couldn't find the answer to this question anywhere else, so I hope it's ok if I ask you :) . What exactly happened today that caused Wikipedia to glitch and have all these database errors? I'm just really curious. WIKIPEEDIO 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the various logs and information available to me. In the absence of a system administrator providing a boilerplate explanation, I'll get one prepared and vetted for the technical village pump. robchurch | talk 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, and expanded soon after. robchurch | talk 22:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

...for implementing bug 4610, which adds mark as patrolled links to diffs on a watchlist. Very useful in nl.wikipedia! Cheers, NielsFTalk to me.. 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. robchurch | talk 09:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia haunting

Hi! I was just wondering if I could call upon your wizardry at programming to help us solve a mystery over at WT:RFA; a strange occurence happened today where all of the active RfAs strangely <nowiki>ed themselves. I originally thought a vandal did it, but checking the history on the oldest RfA and hitting the first edit showed that the change was still there, almost as if the history itself had been edited. My suspicion was that you guys over at the "Developer's Studio" changed something in the software that caused Wikipedia to fix itself or something similar (I have no clues when it comes to computer programming though, so I don't know). Anyway, thanks for any insight you can give! Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "...strangely nowikid themselves" mean? Appearance? There were actual tags in the markup upon clicking edit? Can you show me the apparently odd old revisions? Without more information I can't diagnose it at all, and that means I can't provide a solution or escalate it. robchurch | talk 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Rob

Dear Rob, I know you may feel discouraged and down right now, so I really wanted to drop by and give you a big warming {hug}. People like you are rare and precious. Know that there are many among us who care about you, our plain old Rob, whether you're an admin or not. Please, cheer up Rob! We love you! :) Hugs, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy

Hello, Rob! Hope all is well with you. We're discussing changes to semi-protection at Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy and its talk page; would you mind weighing in on the technical aspect of this? For instance, both the feasibility of the actual proposal, and of changing semi-protection to look at the number of edits (see the talk page for more information.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship nomination

On this occasion, your request for adminship was unsuccessful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia, remembering that your nomination was pretty close to consensus. Warofdreams talk 01:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't contribute to Wikipedia. I contribute to MediaWiki, which is a much more deserving venture. Thanks for the note, however. robchurch | talk 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you contribute to discussions in the Wikipedia namespace. Your MediaWiki work is much appreciated, anyhow. Warofdreams talk 01:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:::In your logs, I saw that you used some admin functions last year. If you were already an admin, why was there an RFA about you recently? --Shultz IV 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the RfA properly at all, did you? I've come to expect that most of our users never read anything. robchurch | talk 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your lack stated on the rfa page

Oh, I think you were wrong about that. Probably you've more than most. CheersUser:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, could you enlighten me as to which comment or phrase you're, uh, commenting on, and on which page? Thanks. robchurch | talk 02:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This dif. Second paragrapgh, neutral vote. Cheers.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for not having the time to decipher communications forwarded to me. robchurch | talk 13:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Balls, that is. You have more balls than you gave yourself credit for in that diff. Opabinia regalis 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, it all becomes clearer. Thanks. And, er, thanks. robchurch | talk 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about MediaWiki

I have a small question about the MediaWiki software. I hope you don't mind :) . So anyway, I have a server that I want to test the MediaWiki software on. I have apache installed on a machine with linux and I have Mysql and PHP installed. I have a different project hosted on that server so that is why I'm a tiny bit worried about installing the MediaWiki software on it. So I need to ask: 1: When I install the software, will it change any web server or OS settings in apache or linux, or will it just change a MediaWiki-installed file or database? 2: Is it possible this software would open up a security hole to where a hacker could gain full access to the server and delete files or database stuff?
(By the way, I posted these questions on the MediaWiki support desk a few days ago, but no one has answered.)

Thanks! WIKIPEEDIO 18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a support desk? Wow. Anyway...like any web application, MediaWiki has the potential to be abused, so you should keep up to date as far as possible. Make sure your httpd and other services are configured, use a proper firewall, etc. MediaWiki wikis exist in a separate database. Vet extensions before installing them. Use common sense. robchurch | talk 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well another major concern I had was that the software would go and change a bunch of Apache settings. Does it do that? WIKIPEEDIO 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I do use a hardware firewall, and the only port allowed right now is the HTTP port. Oh, and If you don't know where your support desk is, its [1].

No, MediaWiki doesn't attempt to alter the Apache configuration, nor would it be able to. Certain elements of the PHP configuration sometimes need tweaking so that the software will work, however. robchurch | talk 00:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi again Rob, and thank you for your comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, support from you was especially meaningful, you're "good people"! Please don't take your own RfA too hard (I know, I know, you've said it's no big deal, which is the right attitude). ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

[edit] A policy question

I have a technical policy enquiry. I wanted to know if users are allowed to put page (hit) counters on their userpages. I did not find any policy that discussed it explicitly. Also if put, would they work? Although I am already 95% sure that either of the questions have "no" as the answer, but just wanted to be sure. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the things wouldn't work, for starters, since I'd imagine there'd be some creative use of script which can't be injected into pages. On the offchance that it did start working, it would of course be subject to normal caching by the Squids et al. which would interfere with the results depending upon how it worked. And no, it wouldn't be permitted, because we don't want our users' sessions being directed to an unknown third party site that we can't trust and have no control over. robchurch | talk 13:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Why not add this to Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, in theory, such things shouldn't work anyway. robchurch | talk 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I start a test run (for limited period) of Google Analytics on my page to see if it works? Atleast people trust google that it won't start spamming. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you like. As I recall, the code for it can't be injected into pages. robchurch | talk 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New namespace

So what ammount of time, roughly, would it take to create a new namespace and alter the site configuration? —David618 ^t 23:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In the hands of a system administrator with shell access who knows how to type, some thirty seconds, including the time taken to edit the site configuration and synchronise it. robchurch | talk 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that was much less than I thought. Thank you very much. —David618 ^t 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistence of an experienced wikipedian is needed

Dear Rob, I would be very greatfull if you answer my question concerning the NPOV policy. Regards, --AndriyK 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrolled edits

I was reading the Signpost and saw the latest update you made to patrolled edits, which is wonderful. I was wondering how big of a deal it would be for a "rollback" to automatically mark the previous edit as patrolled? Is that technically feasible?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is my attack

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't get it, according to babelfish your name translates from εγκυκλοπαίδεια to egkyklopaj'deja, why the nonsense name?--64.12.116.131 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)