User talk:69.226.103.13

Barnstars

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Some way to exempt good-faith IPs from getting caught by the filter. –xeno^talk 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit of a noob when it comes to stuff like this, but as soon as someone shows me how to exempt someone by username, I will write the exemption into the filters that are bothering you while you work on this. heck, I could lend you an autoconfirmed account but that would probably violate a guideline somewhere =] –xeno^talk 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know how to exempt you now, Cenarium already wrote an exemption in for you on filter 33, let me know if any others are still bothering you. –xeno^talk 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Exemption

Well, the easiest thing to do would simply be to get an account; most of these filters, and the two you're hitting in particular, are set to trip only for new or unregistered users. Once your account becomes autoconfirmed, you won't have to worry about these filters any more. While I can install such an exception into the filters, I am somewhat reluctant to do so due to the tendency of IP addresses to change without warning. It looks as though you've been using this one for some time (since the end of May), but you're obviously not the only one to have used it. Once the IP address does change hands, you'll get hit by the filters again and it's possible a vandal could find themselves exempt from them.

I'll go ahead an put in the exemption for now, but please let me know when you feel they're no longer necessary so they can be taken out again. Best of luck in your work. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the notes for filter 30, it seems as though another admin started to add these exceptions, but a third administrator removed them shortly after. The reason for doing so was that each check the filters have to run but an additional strain on the servers - checking each edit to see if it matches a particular username (or IP address) puts an unnecessarily high load onto the software. If you are still encountering problems, I'd recommend getting an account. It looks like you edit around here enough for it to be worth the effort anyway. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't edit from a registered user account. I tried twice:established users, as they're called, jumped to conclusions based on my account being new; it was far worse being new than being an IP. I've been editing articles for many years, cleaning up scientific articles brought to my attention. People take offense-it's easier to use an IP and not collect a record of offending people for removing pseudoscience, quackery, bad science, and dangerous misinformation from their articles. This anybot mess is bad, when all I'm doing is cleaning up after a bot whose had about 4077 of its articles deleted, and now needs other articles hand-checked for interactions with meat editors. It would have been worse from a newly registered user account, and it would have required fighting off more personal attacks than I've had to as an IP.

It's hard to do this work, outside of my area of expertise, requiring a lot of research, while being bullied by territorial wikipedians. This is not to say all wikipedia writers act like this, as someone lashed out at me ferociously accusing me of saying this, but I wish regular users on wikipedia could feel for one moment how badly newcomers on wikipedia are treated by some regular users. If you could, you would never suggest anyone register.

Does this mean you've declined my request? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, effectively, but the changes Ruslik0 made to the filters that you mentioned on my talk page should take care of the majority of the problems for you. I'm sorry you've had that experience, but (as you said) not every editor is like that; unfortunately, there do tend to be a much higher ratio of them around controversial topics like pseudoscience, et al. I would still encourage you to consider, but I can understand your reluctance to get an account considering that. Either way, we're still grateful for the work you're putting in. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and Bostrychia (algae) was created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia, and please consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! MPJ-DK (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, you did the majority of the work getting the sources and all, I just had to verify that it met requirements and it did :) MPJ-DK (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"delete, needs verified, anybot probably created species common name to genus article"?

Just to clarify before I start - are these to be deleted now? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Need to answer question- should i put the realese of netscape navigator 9.0.0.6 on the febuary 20th page.

Should I?91.110.172.127 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

re: SDPatrolBot

Thank you, I was pretty pleased with them too, I actually wrote out this one completely from scratch, so it's nice to hear that. BTW, keep up your good work around WP:BRFA, we certainly don't have enough users there :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybot redirects...

Hey, it looks as though we're (well you, really!) are getting somewhere with this mess now. I'd just like to thank you again for all the hard work you've been putting into checking all this out. Must have taken you literally days, if you add it all up... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've asked about Bossiella at WP:PLANTS for you. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Could_someone_in_the_know_check_this_article_for_factual_accuracy.2C_please.3F. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)