User talk:Chris G/Archives/2010/July
 | 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. |
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
- Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content
- In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?
- Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
- Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature
- Features and admins: This week's highlights
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
- UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups
- News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
t:HTD
(Deletion log); 09:14:11 . . Orphaned talkpage deletion bot (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Hide the Decline" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page (ADMINBOT)) - can you restore the page please. It is still wanted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Restored. I've also added {{go away}} so my bot will ignore it and not delete it again. --Chris 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
To WP:Admin's,
I have appealed for Peer Review for my article few time back. In the name of Peer Review, one of our WP: Admin - Chzz has vandalized the TNPL article. He has cut short the complete article without properly going through the entire article. In few places there are copy right violation which i have checked & corrected after his advice. But complete article has been cut short to one paragraph without properly analyzing the contents.
- TNPL is subsidy of Govt of Tamilnadu. So in Govt of Tamilnadu's website, information about TNPL has been displayed for the information of public. Pls read Disclaimer information at Govt of Tamilnadu's website. As it is a government website it is not holding any copyrights & it is displayed for public information.
- WP: Admin - Chzz has read & matched TNPL article contents with TNPL website contents & he has tagged the article as Copyright violation without Checking Govt of Tamilnadu's website.
- Also he has deleted Criticism / Controversy Section which has reliable reference document (Public Hearing Proceedings) from Tamil nadu Pollution control Board. To maintain transparency,normally Public Hearing Proceedings are published for Public information.Criticism / Controversy Section has information from Public Hearing Proceedings & also from Newspaper information (the Hindu).
- WP: Admin - Chzz doesn't care about the effort behind the work. Being an administrator it's easy to delete entire contents of the article instead of helping to improve the article.
- The article has nearly 25 references, i request WP:ADMIN's to cross check & punish me if references are wrong. If references are not enough for the article Chzz would have asked the user's / me to add more references instead of discarding all the contents.
- Contributors to Wikipedia are normally volunteers, if admin's using their power discourage user instead to extending assistance has demoralizing effect on New User's.
- Apart from Deleting contents of the article, downgrading article rating none of the Admins (Chzz,Sowhy,Slon02) made any sort of constructive edits like adding References, correcting grammatical mistakes,etc.
Pls Take action / provide your assistance for the above subject. Thank you! Raj6644 (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please call off your bot
on File:Dal pron.png. I have explained the situation in the licensing tags and in edit summaries. I am not interested in arguing with a bot. If you can tell me what tag goes there I'll put it there, but the bot actions are not helpful. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, it's a bot, it can't read edit summaries. It's quite clearly stated in policy that all images are required to have license tags. If the license is "CC-BY-SA" then just add {{CC-BY-SA}} to the image page. You can also choose from different licenses when you upload the image (look for the "Licensing:" drop down menu), a more detailed list of licenses can be found here. --Chris 12:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
copyright information for image
File: Sally Ann Freedman. Please refer to the additional information regarding the image in question. Is this information sufficient? User:sally40connolly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally40connolly (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please have AntiAbuse bot protect/stalk/watch Self-replicating machine
Please see edit filter 324. To summarize the amount of history with this user, they tried promoting their own patent, for an invention they supposedly made(no evidence exists and they refuse to create any). They also edit-warred to have others' works removed from the article, calling them lies/thieves/bigots.. etc.
Aside from personal attacks, after they have been banned, they have resorted to vandalism, blanking the talk pages of the article, and the article itself. They are prone to long rants, and have a common attribute of always signing posts(not four ~s) with their full name, charles michael collins(or something similar such as cmc). To this end, 324 was created so that the article could be taken off indef-semi protection, but edits of his still get through.
By adding this page to AAB's watchlist, perhaps the ip socks could be blocked quicker. He has lately been sticking to 4.249.48.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but for the full list of IPs he uses, please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fraberj. Thank you for your time, and if I did not already state it, please, please add this page to AAB's list.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Explain why your bot blocks people
I know it blocks for abuse, however, it also doesn't allow them to edit their talk pages as well. Explain how this is constructive, and also explain why it blocks IPs for 72 hours and Users forever. Thank you for your time. AboundingHinata (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is constructive because it stops much vandalism. Trust me. AntiAbuseBot _targets some of our longest and worst vandals. If they had access to talkpages they would abuse it. Users are blocked indefinitely per WP:SOCK and WP:VOA. IPs are blocked for 72 hours because they are generally dynamic. If you have concerns that it has blocked a legitimate user, please do inform me, however all of the recent blocks seem to have been valid. --Chris 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would you put a edit filter that if they have more then 100 edits, it wouldn't block indef? They need to respond to talk pages. AboundingHinata (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand what you just said. My bot is completely separate from the edit filter. I have checks and balances in place to ensure it does not block regular users (I cannot elaborate too much on these as it will give vandals information on how to bypass my bot, but judging by my bots accuracy rating, they are very affective). No, I have already responded to talk page access. I have been doing anti vandal work for a long time, the particular vandals my bot _targets abuse talkpage access and it is necessary to disable it. Users can appeal the blocks via email - Also please note when my bot blocks a user indefinitely it leaves an unblock template on their talk page asking for an admin to review the block (Note: this does not happen with all blocks - some blocks my bots makes are manual - i.e. the bot sees something and asks for my approval before blocking; because these blocks have been reviewed by me the bot does not leave the review template on their talkpage). --Chris 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would you put a edit filter that if they have more then 100 edits, it wouldn't block indef? They need to respond to talk pages. AboundingHinata (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)