User talk:SQL/Archives/2008/June
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ACC Patch
Here's a patch for line 988 of the ACC tool to add a link to Special:ListUsers for easy checking of similar usernames—I couldn't be bothered to create a proper diff; so just replace the line with: Sorry about the stretching of your talk page. —paranomiahappy harry's high club 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll get it in momentarily, thanks :) SQLQuery me! 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem :-). Cheers, —paranomiahappy harry's high club 22:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] dramz
Did you mean to do that last edit, or was it a malformed transclusion? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No problem
Don't sweat it. Easy mistake. Andre (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disruption
And to be clear, I'm not "being disruptive" unless being disruptive suddenly includes acting to enforce the will of the community (which is that BAG member selection currently lacks a community approved method). Instead of ignoring it and hoping it all goes away, you and Betacommand should come up with a better method and propose it to the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are edit warring, unsurprisingly, yet again, on WP:BOTS. The present practice is not the one you describe, nor is there what I'd describe as a clear consensus for the version you are insisting upon. You are exhibiting ownership of the page, and, being very disruptive to make a point of some sort, about BAG. Please stop. SQLQuery me! 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- But, anyhow, I'm not going to let you drag me into an edit war. You go on, doing whatever you please. I won't stop you. SQLQuery me! 06:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus that there is no consensus, at all for any method of BAG member selection. As that page documents an official policy, it's important the page reflect community consensus (and even the lack thereof). As for ownership, I find that mildly amusing considering it's BAG members who appear to feel their views override the views of the community at large. The only thing disruptive going on is the unwillingness to accept the consensus view and stop adding this ridiculous "status quo" method again and again to an official policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can keep saying that, but, it does not make it any more true. You've been pushing this angle since the last non-consensus version you were edit warring over there was rejected. Put simply and, again, the version you are fighting to protect, does not describe the present condition of things, nor does it reflect consensus, same as last time. SQLQuery me! 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I keep saying it because it's true. Go see the poll if you have some doubt about the result. But there it is, clear as day. If you can't see that, there's nothing I can do for you to make it any better. As for not describing the present condition, the only reason it doesn't is because you guys insist on using your old method which no longer has community support. If you'd like to see the fault for that, go stand in front of a mirror for a while. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can keep saying that, but, it does not make it any more true. You've been pushing this angle since the last non-consensus version you were edit warring over there was rejected. Put simply and, again, the version you are fighting to protect, does not describe the present condition of things, nor does it reflect consensus, same as last time. SQLQuery me! 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ooops
Sometimes my Twinkle does that. I have never ever been able to figure out why it does it, when it does it, or anything else about it. Frankly, it hasn't happened in a few months, so I thought I fixed the script. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, I think I fixed it last time too :) It happens, no big deal :) SQLQuery me! 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Best to leave it be
About User:Timeshift9, my advice would be to just leave it. Urban slang is the domain of the young, and we are both too old to understand it! After all, we both had to Google it - LOL! Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! Sad but true :P I'm just glad you realized I wasn't talking to you :) I thought how it could be seen that way after I left for work... SQLQuery me! 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: semi-protection
No thanks, I think I'll be fine, it was just those two guys were egging eachother on, now that they're blocked, I should be all right. Thanks for the offer, and if they turn up again, I will ask for semi-protection. I apologize for my tone on ANI, it's just all those "you have new messages" on Huggle and in Firefox were incredibly annoying because I couldn't concentrate on what I was doing. J.delanoygabsanalyze 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ACC Tool Sugestion
For the tool, could you add a little menu that pops down the confirm the action that you are taking, because I have clicked done a few times accidentally, when I wanted to click another one. Thanks LegoKontribsTalkM 23:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spectacular1234
Thanks for showing the deleted revisions. Please see my suggestion at the bottom of that page. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)
There are better ways of resolving problems with the BAG, such as WP:CENT. The current looks of the MFD is a 9-0 tally (excluding the nominators), and I would just speedy keep this one per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW, but there are multiple requests on the page to let it run longer. Please let me know if you still object to it being closed early. Useight (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Richhoncho's request
Thanks for taking care of his problem, and for letting me know it was resolved! Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:INDIA Watchlist Articles
Hi, Need another favour . This time for WP:INDIA . We need automatic updation of the watchlist articles for the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Watchall with SQLBOT/task 4. The project banner is {{WP India}} . Thanks -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi ....-- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For doing all those move-protections for me. :) If you don't mind, can you also please do the ones in my user talk namespace too please? :) Thanks. Oh, and I archived my talk page as well, as you suggested: over 141,000 bytes of text moved. :) Acalamari 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Any time! :) All the talkpage protections should be done now. Thanks for archiving :) (sorry about the delay) SQLQuery me! 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Acalamari 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your user count tool thing
I hope you know which one I mean (the one that you can see how many edits on twinkle e.t.c you have had). Well just another thing you can add to it. Huggle now advertises in its summarys. See this link for 2 examples. I hope to see this in the tool soon. Please message me once you have implemented this :>. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It should be fixed now. SQLQuery me! 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good Good! :> ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your help please...
The record shows you deleted this redirect and this redirect because they pointed to a non-existent page. Could you please tell me what page htey pointed at?
I'll check back here.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Guantanamo captive 647 → Zaban Thaaher Zaban Al Shamari
- Zaban Thaaher Zaban Al Shamaree → Zaban Thaaher Zaban Al Shamari
- --MZMcBride (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: So, I made a *slight* mistake.
Consider yourself whacked with a wet trout in most kind and understanding way possible.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question re: Adminstats
Will adminstats work properly if called in this manner? -> {{Adminstats|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} ? xenocidic (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind - seems to work just fine. The bot is faster than the brochure indicated ;>. xenocidic (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I made a slight change to the style - I hope that's ok with you and I didn't break anything. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BetacommandBot history
The history I am thinking of is summarised at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by GRBerry. Specifically at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5. I actually participated in the AN discussion linked from there, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, but I didn't at the time realised that the approval had been so perfunctory. I had the impression that this had been a debate going on for years. Well, it had, but the older discussions were never coherently moved forward. Wikipedia sometimes does long-term changes (over years) rather poorly, though sometimes it does it very well. Long-term projects need structure to keep things together. BTW, that picture at the top of MBisanz makes me think that's you! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Yeah, that one is probably a bit excessive. I don't think I'd be comfortable with approving something so quickly, that's not say... the 10,000th AWB newsletter bot, etc (even in those cases, most of the time a trial is needed, to evaluate the operator's knowledge, and ability to set it up, etc). Thanks for the info... SQLQuery me! 11:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- If a task is known to be uncontroversial/to have consensus, to be highly similar to existing such, to be clearly in line with an existing policy or guideline in a straightforward way, to have been sufficiently discussed in some other venue reasonable for the scope of the task, to be obviously improving, reliable, and not going to cause surprise or wikidrama from any quarter, or is otherwise clearly benign/harmless, IMO approval can be as speedy as one likes. When one says "ability to judge consensus", that most definitely does not mean having a full-fledged week-long debate over every task; it means (among other things) being able to recognise when that is and is not required. Alai (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I know, I'm just not a huge fan of speedy approval. In all but the absolutely positively most uncontroversial and tame tasks, I generally won't approve:
- If a task is known to be uncontroversial/to have consensus, to be highly similar to existing such, to be clearly in line with an existing policy or guideline in a straightforward way, to have been sufficiently discussed in some other venue reasonable for the scope of the task, to be obviously improving, reliable, and not going to cause surprise or wikidrama from any quarter, or is otherwise clearly benign/harmless, IMO approval can be as speedy as one likes. When one says "ability to judge consensus", that most definitely does not mean having a full-fledged week-long debate over every task; it means (among other things) being able to recognise when that is and is not required. Alai (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Anything I've approved for trial (it's best to have at least 2 users eyes on)
- Anything not commented on by at least one other user
- Anything not trial'ed
- Anything where the user is not actively participating in the discussion
- Anything that appears to be harmful, or wasteful or resources (not to say I haven't made a couple mistakes however)
-
-
- In my opinion, there is almost never a bot in such a hurry that it needs to avoid at least being looked at by a couple sets of eyes. Anyhow, I appreciate the history lesson (I wasn't aware of the approval, for instance), and, it's good to know, that my opinions, are really pretty in line with your own. SQLQuery me! 05:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
