User talk:Beetstra

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here and please don't forget to sign your post You may want to have a look at the subjects in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject. The question you may have may already have been answered there Dirk Beetstra

Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #25

I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

Responding I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link: If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information'). Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz). Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects. Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this) If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof. Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot. Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive Talk started 20/3/2006 1 - 7/9/2006 2 - 29/11/2006 3 - 05/02/2007 4 - 05/03/2007 5 - 15/03/2007 6 - 29/07/2007 7 - 06/11/2007 8 - 31/03/2008 9 - 22/09/2008 10 - 03/02/2009 11 - 17/05/2009 12 - 13/11/2009 13 - 27/5/2010 14 - 13/12/2010 15 - 5/7/2011 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - current 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 -

Why you send me a Warning... Legit link that isn't posted.

I posted a link for the MSDS information on Silica Gel, follow the link and you will see it's legit. So why you send me a black list warning and warn me?

Isn't the MSDS good information to this subject?

Arcarocket—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs)

Your account is doing link-additions only, and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, I gave you first a welcomeg and a good faith warning. Still, after that warning you insist in a) adding only the link, and b) also removing another one, both without discussion, and the link you add is to the top of the list. For me that looks like blatant pushing of one link. Are you by any chance involved in the site you are linking to?

And yes, an MSDS might be a good link, but there is already an MSDS there, and we don't need to link to all possible MSDSs that are available. Please review the necessary policies and guidelines that we work under, here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not, the reason I posted (never done so ever before, so I do appologize if I was doing something wrong) but do you know how hard it is to find the MSDS for this product in US. It's about impossible. The only other MSDS attached to this conversation is a UK version, not a US version. If you look at both MSDS you will notice they are completely different. I searched a long time and could not come up with this information. That is why I believe this information is worthy of being on this site, because it's not available anywhere else that I could find. It would have made it a lot easier for people like me in trying to find this information. I will try and repost the link at the bottom and rename it US Material Safety Data Sheet, would that work? It would make it unique and provide the necessary information regarding these chemicals for US shipping rules/needs.

Also I would like to post some information about "recharging" Silica Gel Packets as this is another topic that is hard to find any information about. I will post later today, but just wanted to warn you and explain why I think it would be a good addition. Again Silica Gel Packets information is very hard to find and the Silica Gel is rechargeable. Again this information is very hard to find and from my experience the manufacture is reluctant to give up the information because they just want you to purchase more. If you disagree with any of my postings I understand, but wanted to try and be upfront and communicate why I thought these would be good postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the number of links there, it is becoming a linkfarm. But I will have a look. As MSDS's can not be included in the text, we will have to come up with another solution (maybe it is worth starting a discussion on the talkpage). I assume you are going to add more information later on? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I provided the last piece of information that I thought was useful to myself and this subject and was information that is very hard to come by. You can't simply google Silica Gel Reactivation or Silica Gel MSDS information and come up with it. These are hard to find documents that I was able to come across.

If you don't think the material is suitable I understand. I would like to get more information and will look into what the Talkpage is (have no clue) or maybe it would be more feasible doing a blog type site that I can link to Wikipedia that has all these links to some of these articles and can add as people ask questions or need more info, if I can find the answer/documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

There really should be a warning somewhere, telling people not to post inappropriate links on articles. I did it myself at first, not knowing better at the time. People like Beetstra spend half their time explaining to people why they've deleted their links. Wiki should provide a warning somewhere, like on edit pages, perhaps, so people don't waste their time posting these inappropriate links.

Sardaka 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

True, the only warning that is there at the moment is when you create a new page. Somehow I would say .. it is logic that one should not advertise ones own work, but well, people try. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help in creating a post...

Hello Dirk, I've been trying to add the value "nisped" to wikipedia for a couple of weeks now, and again repeatedly it is deleted. This is my first attempt at adding information to the wikipedia and so I'm learning as I go along. however I'm starting to believe that I may need your help. It seems that my attempts to describe this non-profit organization in a non-marketing way don't work. I don't wish to publicize this Israeli organization - but to inform the world of its important doings. I'm trying to do this in an objective way but so far I've failed. I really hope you can assist me in doing so. Again- I'm not interested in publicizing NISPED - just informing the world that it exists.

Thanks in advance, Pat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecos (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you also appear to be editing under User:Incep-sme, which created INCEP-SME and Nisped, and hence you appear to be involved in the pages, and performed a number of recreations after it was deleted. Since you were not discussing, and are apparently using sockpuppets to get the pages into existence, they have now been salted. The pages were deleted, as the warnings on your talkpages state, because they were too advertising, not written in a neutral way (which is difficult as I do expect you have a conflict of interest. If you think the pages should exist, you can file a request at the requested articles list, and when someone independent is willing to write the articles, that person can request a deletion review (see also the {{deletedpage}}-template, which is on the pages now. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. As I said before - I'm trying to add the value NISPED. Because this is my first time attempting to do so I tried once to write information on the organuzation (I did copy-Paste from Nisped's Site to paragraphs that I thought were objective) and when the page was deleted and my username was blocked I tried again with a new username. I swear my intentions were not to decieve but to try to figure a different way to add this value to wikipedia. Because NISPED is a small Israeli non-profit organization if I'll do what you offered and just request that someone will write about this Value it make take a while.. maybe forever. That's why I wanted to ask if it is possible for me to start a new NISPED value in which I'll only write things that were published about us in other sites and articles. For example- on the Israid web page there is a description of Nisped because they work in cooperation with it. Is it ok to publish that as a NISPED value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecos (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, things progress here by discussing on talkpages (like we are doing now), which you did neglect earlier when being warned about the pages/images you have created earlier. And the information here must be written from scratch, not copied from websites, and comply with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. When your first account got blocked, that was for a reason: apparently the way you wrote the articles was not appropriate. I am sorry, but I would suggest that you try and rewrite the articles in a neutral way, outside of the main article space (e.g. here: User:Icecos/Nisped and User:Icecos/Incep-sme), and when you have decent versions ask for a [[WP:DRV|deletion review, showing the articles to independent editors. I still would like you to read our conflict of interest guideline, as I do suspect you have a conflict of interest, so it is better to comply with that guideline. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Old SALT vs New SALT

This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. I'll have a look at that, and will give it at try for the next time. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Our website is not COI

I represent Mythimedia (http://www.mythimedia.org), an official project of the University of Bologna, Italy. The project has only educational purposes and involves only a few professors and researchers of the Bologna University. Someone (maybe a student?) inserted some links in Wikipedia and the website has been included in the COIbot page, and I see it is still there, although I asked to cancel every link to our website from Wikipedia. As far as I know, there are no links left. So, please, remove our website from the COIbot page. Thank you.[User:Mythimedia|Mythimedia] 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have removed all occurances of the link. That is/was not necessery. Our conflict of interest guideline states that such links should be added with great care, or discussed on the talkpage, and therefore we are monitoring such additions. As mythimedia is a project of the University of Bologna, I am sure it is a reliable source for some information, and I am sure users are using it as a source. For people from the University of Bologna, please discuss on talkpages, or contact an appropriate wikiproject for support, I am sure you will be welcomed there. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but, as far as I know, COIbot is blacklist. We would like to be whitelisted again. Otherwise, it is better not to be cited at all:-( Mythimedia 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have been looking into this now. The situation arose on the 7th of July, where an account was mass-adding the links to this site. That type of addition of external links is not permitted per quite a number of our policies and guidelines. It has therefore been monitored. The link is not blacklisted, blacklisting would mean that it would be autoreverted by a bot, or even, you would not be able to add the link at all. I guess it was in the original thread already mentioned that the data provided by the link could be OK (I have not reviewed that, I am probably not a specialist in the information the site offers). I have now removed the link from the monitorlist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have left FallingDrapery on the blacklist for this link, I am reviewing the individual edits performed by other accounts, and will regenerate a report when necessary. By the way, the COI here reflect more that someone did apparently have an interest in adding the link 'en masse' to a number of pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like you not to remove references which are added with information. That would degrade the information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Dirk Mythimedia 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Dirk Beetstra and his powerful COIbot for their work in battling spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to get pugilistic...

My name is Brian Rutherford, and I am editor with MusicEmissions.com for the last four years. I've enjoyed Wikipedia.org to the point where I've not only learned alot about the world, html and other coding but also helped people become informed about reviews, and features on our website. While I realize you have a job to do -and trust me, all wiki readers appreciate it- I'm not sure I understand why SOME of our links are deleted? We're not promoting on Wiki to sell or promote conceptual thoughts.

Like the subject of the headline states, I don't want to get pugilistic, perhaps I just need to be advised what I am doing wrong when posting a link on certain artist pages. It seems the larger bands are the one's the editors delete.

In closing, we respect what wikipedia stands for. No we're not yet at the popularity levels of say Spin, or Rolling Stone, so we harshly understood when the article for MusicEmissions.com was abruptly removed from wiki last year. However, our website has also been a trusted source, for over eight years. Helping music listeners find independent music on the web is our bottom line. Please help us understand how to navigate and edit properly, and we will stay inside wiki's boundaries from here on out.

Thanks for listening, Brian Rutherford Editor In Chief-V/P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and explanation. Let me try to explain: In posting external links only, you are in (possible) violation of quite a number of policies and guidelines (most directly: neutral point of view, 'not a linkfarm', external links guideline, spam guideline (clarification, spam is about the way of adding, not about the content of the site), conflict of interest guideline). Not all of these may be fully applicable, but the problem that such edits can be questioned against all these policies and guidelines does result in that it is better that these link additions are not performed as you, and some other accounts, have been doing (especially since for some accounts there was an apparent conflict of interest). The item has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and I believe also to one of the music-related wikiprojects.

As to which edits have been reverted, I believe at this moment all top edits have been reverted, all other edits are still under investigation (and I am either waiting for the wikiproject, though the risk exists that if mass-additions persist, that all pages edited by the involved accounts will be cleaned.

I hope that you will join us in discussing, and maybe we can come up with a better solution (a music related wikiproject may be of help there). Hope this explains, but if you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will speak with our other writers asap and have them cease all additions until a workable agreement can be made. Furthermore, can you please explain further the exact guidelines that MusicEmissions does not meet for having an article? Thank you again for being so patient and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you should have a look at our notability guidelines first (which it may very well meet), and probably put up a link at requested articles. I guess the article will then be created (preferably by uninvolved editors) when someone finds it interesting enough to create it. Another way of speeding up the process is to write the article somewhere else (e.g. in your userspace: User:Hstisgod/MusicEmissions), and when you believe you have a nice and neutral article, ask a wikiproject if someone there can review it, and then move it to mainspace when they think it is appropriate.

By the way, you and your editors are of course free to add information (content) to the wikipedia, and when such information can be referenced on your site, that may very well be OK (see the reliable sources guideline, cite guideline and how to create citations guideline). Of course care should be taken that the edits do then not turn in to 'reference spamming' (adding information for the sake of being able to add a reference to your site). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are completely understood. What I am firmly understanding about our external link postings is that the articles are in fact relatable, but we're breaking guidelines by posting so many of them? I suppose I can see that being an issue, but it's more geared towards getting our eight years worth of back-logued reviews and features synchronized with the many branches and artists of wiki. I'll certainly speak with the president of the site about your suggestions for getting MusicEmissions possibly articled from an outside source. Again, thank you for your time. 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Err .. yes, but also, as wikipedia is not a linkfarm, there is no need to add your link to all articles. We don't link because someone has the information available, we link because the information provided by the external link improves the article, the knowledge about the subject. Mostly external links don't add something unique, but when they do, they are often better as a reference. But I think it is best for you to make contact with one (or more) of the wikiprojects (a list can be found here), and discuss with them. I am hardly a specialist on music reviews. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good...Thanks again Dirk...Hstisgod 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol

The Alcohol article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would not call that heavy editing, just the normal vandalism as usual. It is a popular article. But I will have a read through it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

greentealovers.com

Dank u wel! I did not realize that such a thing as the Anti-Spam Bot existed! I really appreciate your help. Alexwoods 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Graag gedaan. And if things get really annoying .. Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, but that depends a bit on how much work user:AntiSpamBot will have (put Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/greentealovers.com on your watchlist for up-to-date news). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I can see from your User page you are one of those who likes to draw attention to themselves. And, from your edit and comment about Image:DancingBraveVHS.jpg one who does it without thinking and without knowing what they are talking about. Please don't waste my time with your ego games and in future, examine things closely before you edit something and spout off. Thanx. Handicapper 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Unfortunately, I do read the text of the tags, and I don't like to be insulted. As a matter of fact, you are wasting your time reverting and complaining, I would suggest you just provide the requested fair-use rationale, before even more of your precious time is wasted by uploading the image again .. Again, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi Dirk

I've seen you've beeen cleaning up some of the chembox --> chembox new by AWB. Care to share your code/teach me how to do it? I'm sure you need a hand to clear the thousands of articles? --Rifleman 82 03:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman 82, sure. I do need some help. The trouble is, the script that I am writing at the moment is pretty difficult, still has too many errors, and well, every page has his own problems, as people have been making quite strange chemboxes in time. I plan to save a copy soon in User:Beetstra/Chemicals (I just updated the 'what is programmed'), just keep an eye on the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk. I'll do just that. --Rifleman 82 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a the script there (but am already tweaking it again). Please check every single edit very carefully, especially in the real upgrade from {{chembox}} to {{chembox new}} it still loses fields which it should parse, simply because I have not added them yet. I'll upgrade the script regularly (when a couple of new things have been added). Feel free to give it a try! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just updated, the old version contained some errors (and new functionality has been added again). By the way, it might be good to point to User:Beetstra/Chemicals in the edit summary. If things are wrong, just ignore, chances are that I will get there later. Thanks for helping me out! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Been doing quite a bit of hand correcting but Edgar caught a few of my early problem-edits. Thanks. Mostly working on Chembox --> Chembox new--Rifleman 82 12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It generally goes quite OK, the problem is that fields that it does not recognise sometimes go into oblivion. Other small things can be done quite quickly by hand. Please give me a list of the failing ones, I can then use these to upgrade the script (as some things are bound to come up quite often). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. I've dropped a few comments at [2]. I think the script is working wonderfully now, and almost no user-intervention is required now. I'm wondering if I should run it in bot mode, and then review the changes and preview at [3]. Right now, I review every single change already anyway. Any comments about the wisdom of this? --Rifleman 82 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, Rifleman, I just wanted to let you two know that I've come across a couple of times where the chembox update didn't work quite right. One image in DDT got lost, and somehow other tables in tartaric acid got messed up. Thank you to both of you for doing all this work - I think converting to {{chembox new}} is a good idea. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, Ed. After a bit of experience with the thing, I've learned more of how it works and the common problems, some of which I have highlighted above.

Anyway, while the bot is officially doing the work, I'm actually reviewing every single edit before (via show changes) and after it has saved (via viewing the article itself through Special:contribs). I might self-revert bad changes in a few moments, or I might spend a while troubleshooting and fixing by hand. That may explain why bad edits may linger for a while. Thanks again for reverting for me all the same. --Rifleman 82 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I still see things going missing indeed, which should be fixed before we even consider going to auto-mode. I will have a look at some of the trouble-kids this evening. One of the main problems seems to be that it also attacks tables outside of the chemboxes, and some problems with some of the fields which are different in almost every single case. And sometimes I fix a problem one way, and it returns the other way. I guess I will be tweaking some in the coming evenings, and then we will see if it is possible to go to auto mode. I actually should try and see if I can catch unparsed text into a remark behind the table. That would make it easier to troubleshoot. Keep me posted for the bigger problems! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammonium perchlorate

You bot removed a lot of information from Ammonium perchlorate. Was this the intention? --Statsone 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that, there was something wrong there. The bot (the bot is not mine, by the way, but User:Rifleman 82's) is performing a replacement of an old box for a new box, which does result in the pages becoming much smaller. The Autowikibot script that the bot uses is mine. Hope this explains, and again, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting my userpage. It never ceases to amaze me what extreme reactions the image policy can elicit. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tend to keep fellow spam fighters and other policy protectors on the watchlist as these pages tend to be susceptible to vandalism. By the way, it is good to have you around, you seem quite active on a lot of fronts! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to proposed transfer to wiktionary

Please refer back to my talk page, as i would like to continue this discussion... WebCeleb (Talk) 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential COI:Bart Kosko

Hi Dirk

I know you're busy with the AWB, but if you have the time, do take a look at CBRichter (talk · contribs). I have already posted a welcome, and a note about COI, but once again you probably have more experience in this than I do. --Rifleman 82 08:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like genuine edits, but indeed, CBRichter only edits this article. It looks quite neutral, though. I watchlisted the page, see what happens. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request for Profes001

Hi Dirk, before you unblock user Profes001, please have a look at the entire spamming history of this user... - DVdm 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(readded) I indeed know the history, and I have looked at all contributions (from the COIBot report there even seems to be another sock ..). That is the reason why I asked the editor to on-wiki acknowledge that he read the policies and guidelines, and COIBot will monitor the additions of links anyway (I will notify the user). Thanks for the remark, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to...

This is the same message posted on ST42's talkpage.
In response to your message on my talkpage, fair point, however, I only reverted his page twice, what he is doing, is deleting my comments, and when I make a reply, calling them reverts, and threatening me with a block, what is your opinion on this? Meateater 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)