User talk:Chris G/Archives/2009/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chris G. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Positive Chaos
Hey, I don't understand why the page I created was deleted. It was about a band, that was featured on a compilation album (Which was one of the requirements). Not to mention these guys have been featured on numerous college radio stations. And were on a Mainstream radio station. So yea, what the hell?
Drv7788 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't the admin who deleted it. --Chris 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that you cleaned up the mess from a vandal page move, but if you go to the page it is still only a redirect. Can you please restore the old version? Wizard191 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I restored it. A vandal first moved it to *H A66 E R? and then moved the resulting redirect to -H A66 E R?.[1] You deleted the real content at the former (*H A66 E R?) and moved the redirect at the latter (-H A66 E R?) back to Nut (hardware). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Grawp/Scarlett Johansen - Page move revert bot - fail
you forgot to move the grawppage back to Scarlett Johansen before you deleted it. Now there's nothing there >.< Nar Matteru (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A Happy New Year and thank you for your help in reverting some boring page move vandal. However the page move revert bot is sometimes deleting a page without moving it back first, e. g. here or here including the talk pages (both regarding the vandal moves from December 31). Imagine this would happen twice for the same page, e. g. you would have 1,987 revisions of Mace Windu mixed together with 407 revisions of Rod Blagojevich corruption charges at *H A66 ER ?, enjoy separating them out. Please fix this. Thank you again. --Oxymoron83 12:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Pretty pls your script to for a succesful move before deleting redirect. [2]. --slakr\ talk / 12:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about all of that,
Fixed --Chris 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Moet and glass.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Moet and glass.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
If I put this on my userpage will it actually update my status or is it a joke? TopGearFreak 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It did work, however to cut a long story short(there where about 4 different statusbots, each with its own problems) the devs shut them down because they used to much system resources --Chris 00:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Usertalk block.
Would you mind blocking Mr friendly sockpuppet from editing his user talk as well? Otherwise i fear it will be a long day cleaning up after him :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocking talk page editing
Hey, looking through your log of blocks, I see that you seem to be routinely blocking the user's access to the emailuser function and/or their ability to access their talk page. I understand that some of these are for the ever-elusive "grawp", but the rationale for this block's options:
05:03, January 4, 2009 Chris G (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 88.87.133.70 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 6 months ({{blocked proxy}}) (unblock | change block)
is much less clear cut, and I'd certainly argue that a proxy shouldn't have talk page editing disabled. Blocking of talk page editing should be used only as a last-resort measure for if a user is known/expected to abuse their talk page. Indeed, to be quite honest, if you're doing an indefinite ban on a grawp sock, I'd not bother and just put protection on the page if the problem arose.
Thanks, Martinp23 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry that one was my fault, I've fixed up the block options. --Chris 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I am Grawp now? :O
You've officially ruined my clean block log :( now I'm a Grawp.
The Helpful One 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well to be fair you did hagger a page. --Chris 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I clicked on your contributions link instead of Grawps! :P The Helpful One 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How the...
I just flagged Pattonbot,[3] but the code on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved is confusing. Since I am apparently stupid, could you update it for me? :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Done :) --Chris 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are you deleting redirects to French Wikipedia pages?
Is there a policy I'm not seeing that prohibits this kind of redirect? Tennis expert (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Interwiki redirects must use the {{softredirect}} template not the normal #REDIRECT [[_target page name]] syntax, this is due to technical restrictions --Chris 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- What technical restriction is that? Tennis expert (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but see Wikipedia:Soft redirect and note it says "Soft redirects to foreign language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." I realize a table of tennis results like at fr:Tournoi de Pennsylvanie may be a little helpful without knowing the language but a soft redirect is still inappropriate. I think you have to make an English translation or stub at Pennsylvania Lawn Tennis Championships with a non-redirect interlanguage link to the French version. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not a "little" helpful but "very" helpful. As for soft redirects, "should be avoided" does not mean "are prohibited". If the latter were intended, then more unambiguous prohibitory language would have been used. By the way, I'm still wondering about the "technical restriction" for a hard redirect.... Tennis expert (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Interwiki redirects are broken redirects (hence why my bot deleted it) the software doesn't redirect the web browser, the soft redirect template should be used for two important reasons (I'm sure there are a few other reasons as well):
- It informs the user they are about to leave en.wiki (if I clicked a normal blue link and was redirected to the French wikipedia article I would be a little annoyed)
- It correctly categorizes the article, which makes maintenance much easier --Chris 09:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
They are not "broken". I just created a new article entitled Toyota Championships. When someone clicks that link or types "Toyota Championships" in the search box, a blue link with fr:Tournoi du New Jersey appears. When you click on that link, you are taken to the appropriate article in French Wikipedia. That is exactly what I intended; therefore, I do not understand how this can be called "broken". Tennis expert (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...but that doesn't help out the average reader at all. This is the English Wikipedia; we cater to English speakers, and only provide foreign language links when both we and them have articles on the subject. We aren't a directory of interwikis for every other foreign language Wikipedia (and I say this as someone that has spent a lot of time maintaining interwikis). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- And the Wikipedia policy behind your post can be found where? I'm not trying to maintain a "directory of interwikis for every other foreign Wikipedia". I'm am simply trying to provide redirects to tennis articles in French Wikipedia that are unlikely ever to be written in English Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er... okay, where's the Wikipedia policy behind your post? There's no need for the attitude, I'm just pointing out that the average English speaker isn't helped by that link in any way, shape, or form. If we don't have an article about something, that's an indication that we should write one, rather than redirect to one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er, you're the one attempting to prohibit something that I believe is needed; therefore, given that you're a bureaucrat and bureaucrats (and administrators) shouldn't act outside of policy, there must be a policy to support your prohibition.... If the "average English speaker" means "an English speaker who speaks only English", then why does Wikipedia policy specifically allow links to foreign language Wikipedia articles? I find it hard to understand why a redirect to a foreign language Wikipedia article is prohibited given that links to the same article are allowed. Tennis expert (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's a difference between adding an interwiki link on an article and creating a page that is nothing but an interwiki link. The problem is that an interwiki link itself isn't an article at all. Even a stub would be better than just a soft redirect, as the redirect provides no context whatsoever for the reader. Let's say I want to read up on Toyota Championships. It gives me a French Wikipedia article, which doesn't help me understand what it is at all; that it has something to do with New Jersey is all I can tell. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that a typical English-only speaker would have much trouble understanding this: "est un tournoi de tennis féminin du circuit professionnel WTA". And even more so the tables in that French Wikipedia article. Tennis expert (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- No attitude here, EVula. You are the one who went on the unconstructive tangent about this being English Wikipedia and that we cater to English speakers and that we shouldn't provide a "directory of interwikis for every other foreign language Wikipedia" when it should have been obvious that I was doing nothing of the kind. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, an English speaker interested in tennis who knows almost no French is certainly helped by the tables in French Wikipedia tennis articles. Tennis expert (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Moving the discussion there, since I doubt Chris is enjoying our tennis-like discussion on his talk page... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- No attitude here, EVula. You are the one who went on the unconstructive tangent about this being English Wikipedia and that we cater to English speakers and that we shouldn't provide a "directory of interwikis for every other foreign language Wikipedia" when it should have been obvious that I was doing nothing of the kind. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, an English speaker interested in tennis who knows almost no French is certainly helped by the tables in French Wikipedia tennis articles. Tennis expert (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for being bold and approving DeadLinkBOT. I was beginning to think it would never get approved. I promise it won't cause any problems. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Another one
Have fun with it [4]. ~ Troy (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow
This. Can you leave some blocks for me too? ;P. SpencerT♦C 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- /me coughs. BJTalk 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
|
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | |
| Thanks for all your hard work dealing with vandalism by providing blocks to certain anon users that performed abusive edits to articles. Versus22 talk 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
- I'm sure all or most of his blocks today came from IP's providing edits like these. Versus22 talk 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, it is an admin bot. Feel free to comment on its (pending) review for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AntiAbuseBot. Prodego talk 07:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you but as Prodego says it's my bot making those blocks (btw Bjweeks sorry to hear 'bout your cough :P) --Chris 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Thank you" just doesn't cut it here—nice work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I see now. However, I think you still deserve this for programming your bots (of yourself!) to do these repetitive tasks. :-) Versus22 talk 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you but as Prodego says it's my bot making those blocks (btw Bjweeks sorry to hear 'bout your cough :P) --Chris 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Almabot bot flag
Hello, that was quick! Thank you very much. Nakor (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem :) --Chris 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Account creation
Do you plan on doing anything with this? I assumed that your account might have been compromised at the time, but perhaps I am mistaken. ~ Troy (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, my main account has never been compromised (as far as I know anyway). I created that account when I was testing something, since its no longer needed I've blocked it --Chris 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | 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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 03:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
AntiAbuseBot
The approval request for AntiAbuseBot makes no mention of automatically protecting pages. Please remove this feature and seek approval in the usual way. -- Gurch (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- (from the Function Details at the brfa) "Watches the rc feed for actions that match known vandals and takes necessary action" - since the feature is opt in and all protections have been within policy I feel it is within the bots approval to protect those pages. --Chris 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Necessary action" is extremely vague. All the discussion is about blocking. Also, the protection policy states that user talk pages "are not usually semi-protected" and requires "significant vandalism or disruption" for semi-protection to be used; this bot's semi-protection of user talk pages in response to one-off instances of vandalism is thus pushing the interpretation of the policy a little at best -- Gurch (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Quite to the contrary if you look at the history of those pages you can see what happens if the page is left unprotected. And I wouldn't call it one off if you look at that page's history that happens almost every day now. By protecting it for an hour (or even 30 minutes in some cases) it stops /b/ however doesn't disrupt long term discussion --Chris 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Necessary action" is extremely vague. All the discussion is about blocking. Also, the protection policy states that user talk pages "are not usually semi-protected" and requires "significant vandalism or disruption" for semi-protection to be used; this bot's semi-protection of user talk pages in response to one-off instances of vandalism is thus pushing the interpretation of the policy a little at best -- Gurch (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
AntiAbuseBot - user:Xkoalax
I have adapted the block for User:Xkoalax so he can add an unblock message to his talkpage. He seems quite a normal editor who made one (big?) mistake. I had a short chat with the user on IRC, and a look at his contributions makes me think that the indef-total block is a bit harsh (but I may be mistaken). Could you have a look at the block/request (if the request is ready). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well .. the user has been unblocked by Slackr, but maybe you want to have a second look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's lucky slakr unblocked him, I would have kept him blocked. I don't buy his story. --Chris 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
AntiAbuseBot
Beautiful. Good work. I'm very happy to see this. You could almost call it "PwnBot." Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you :) --Chris 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- [5] You're fast: I had that one pegged too. Block tab open. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- My bot tipped me off on irc :) --Chris 02:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism alert
You have been paged because a user has reported a high level of vandalism and you are listed as a contact.
This is an automatically generated message. If problems occur, please contact User:nathanww. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmurphy (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What the...
Hi. I might be missing something, because I'm just checking my watchlist now after twenty-five days, but what in the world was this for? Apparently you also blocked User:Thehelpfulone. Why are you hardblocking users for "abuse" indefinitely without unblocking them, or am I missing something? ~AH1(TCU) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- He clicked the wrong link with a script and started haggering pages. I blocked him to prevent further damage. --Chris 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hersfold was blocked because he made this edit. He was testing my bot when it was still running under my main account. --Chris 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What was this?
Hey...
I'm all in favor of admin-bots blocking abusive users, but I think the bot needs to be a lot more careful about who it blocks, what it says when it blocks (i.e. give a reason, not just "abuse"), and be less quick to automatically indefinite hardblock. This is why admin-bots took so long to get approved -- don't mess it up, please. Andre (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- And why is it blocking "cannot edit own talk page" by default? Andre (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Grawp accounts need to be hardblocked. This is what happens when account creation isn't blocked. Similar sprees happen when talkpage editing isn't blocked. Grawp creates huge browser crashing pages with unblock templates on them trying to crash admins browsers. Please remember that the bot isn't built to block normal vandals who we give warnings to etc, it is supposed to be blocking known abusers of Wikipedia such as grawp and spambots. The block earlier was definitely incorrect and was caused by a coding error by me. Once again I would like to apologize for making that error. --Chris 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your bot is blocking plenty of legitimate users for no reason, for example it blocked admin Rjd0060 before another admin unblocked him. What's going on? ~AH1(TCU) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...and then there was this. Umm... ~AH1(TCU) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please look into the history of those blocks. All of those times the bot blocked me was because I was testing the bot. --Chris 23:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- ...and then there was this. Umm... ~AH1(TCU) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your bot is blocking plenty of legitimate users for no reason, for example it blocked admin Rjd0060 before another admin unblocked him. What's going on? ~AH1(TCU) 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Grawp accounts need to be hardblocked. This is what happens when account creation isn't blocked. Similar sprees happen when talkpage editing isn't blocked. Grawp creates huge browser crashing pages with unblock templates on them trying to crash admins browsers. Please remember that the bot isn't built to block normal vandals who we give warnings to etc, it is supposed to be blocking known abusers of Wikipedia such as grawp and spambots. The block earlier was definitely incorrect and was caused by a coding error by me. Once again I would like to apologize for making that error. --Chris 07:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)