Jump to content

User talk:Master of Puppets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wynchard Bloom (talk | contribs) at 09:59, 21 November 2008 (→‎Slemcal1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Master of Puppets/StatusDiv

User:Master of Puppets/Header




User:Secreatarian

May I ask on what grounds you think this user is a sockpuppet. I've been here a few months and watched User:Secretaria. He is a experienced editor who knows the rules from what I've seen. User:Secreatarian on the other hand is very arrogant, in my opinion, who doesn't care. I don't see anything linking them besides their name which would be a little dumb for User:Secretaria to want to make a sock and have nearly the same name.--WillC 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do not know who this Secreatarian is though I have noticed him. I have nothing to do with him. Secretaria 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting something like that. The TNA Championship has been edited many times by both, I've seen Secretaria editing that thing since I began here earlier this year. Secreatarian on the other hand only gets on to add NWA World Heavyweight Champions that were in [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling] because he wants to go by the history on their official website which is revisionism since they are two different belts and one was just created in 07; Long story. Secretaria hasn't really shown any interest, that I can remember, to want to add those champions into the article. He should be on later tonight since he updates the reigns of most of the pro wrestling championship histories. If there is anything I can do to help then just ask.--WillC 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just saw it on my watchlist and felt compelled to find out what was going on. I don't want someone to get blocked for the wrong reasons.--WillC 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I need help. How do I add categories to pages? How do I make redirect pages? Am I dumb for these questions? Also, can you please adopt me? Sorry for bombarding you with questions. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing double

at Euryalus RFA [1] I have taken the liberty of striking the duplicate[2]. Gnangarra 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect

Why did you unprotect United States presidential election, 2012 from being created? It is ridiculously early, nearly 4 years away. We don't even know how many electoral votes each state will have until 2010, it should be creation protected till then. CTJF83Talk 08:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it only says potential candidates, not for sure candidates. Also, like I said, we don't know how many electoral votes each state will get, because of the 2010 census will change that. CTJF83Talk 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it just seems too early to me to start the page. Oh well....I won't AfD it again. CTJF83Talk 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't really care all that much anyway. Did someone just request to you to unprotect it? CTJF83Talk 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning discussion board edit

I just noticed this as I checked through the Talk:Canada page history as requested by admin on my user page. I had posted a link to the 1RR admin report on the Canada:Talk page[3]. It appears that G2bambino removed this link, which I believe constitutes a blanking violation. It involves changing the context of one of your posts from a response to my post, to an original post by you.

  1. 01:26, 7 November 2008 Soulscanner posts link to 1RR violation notice.
  2. 16:40, 7 November 2008 Master of puppets posts link to 3RR violation notice (fair enough).
  3. 18:02, 7 November 2008 G2bambino removes link to 1RR notice; replaces name of section. Changes the sense somewhat. I think that is blanking, with intent (consider the timing re the 3RR report) to mislead uninvolved administrators. Cute. Real cute. Pardon my exasperation, but this low-grade disruption happens all the time.

Could you please 1. Restore the original (if I restore, it could look as as the original blanking) 2. Apply these civility conditions. Also, please post a notice of this to User_talk:G2bambino; I wish to limit my contact. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few requested restrictions here. Thanks. --soulscanner (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your further information about this, if you're actually pursuing it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175#Personal attacks on talk page; please note the suggestion: "try doing as I suggest - politely remove stuff you don't want to talk about, and see how that goes." --G2bambino (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting AdventureQuest. Why must you say a few seconds in a week? Yeah. Good humor! How do you put a message up on a talkpage like yours?

You should say "Good evening", as my country's (Malaysia) time is GMT +8 and now is 6 pm. GOODNIGHT!

604800 seconds in a week. 60*60*24*7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Chung (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Mark Chung (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official

How do you make the adoption thing offical? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Jonathan321 roam. For now. Jonathan321 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday

I have one non-Wikipedia related question. Do you have the day off like we do in America today (I looked at your userpage and it said you were Canadian)? Jonathan321 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Marvel Zombies

You're right, I probably just made the situation worse. I'm sorry for that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record...

...I have a life. I'm editing right now during some downtime at work. It's simply that I've been watching this vandal create sock after insulting sock and I couldn't stay quiet. I didn't mean to fan the flames, but I think that this Liebman guy has done a pretty good job of it himself. Sorry to have caused such concern, but I'd simply reached my limit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand what you're saying. I had quit the project over that sort of abuse on the part of people like this and I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved with these fools again, but here I am. Thanks for the reality check. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! (I'll reply here due to you seemingly not wanting me on your talk page :P) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was just a bit stung by your comment. I'm OK now and you're more than welcome to leave word on my talk page. I guess I need to be slapped by that trout sooner than later, no? PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How cool is this? We get a new fun template out of this! Many thanks for all the good work you do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Malplaced disambiguation pages

Hello Master of Puppets,

Thanks for fixing malplaced disambiguation pages. I noticed that you deleted several redirects created after the moves. In most occasions, deleting them is unnecessary, primarily because they are harmless, but also because they can be used to link to disambiguation pages (see WP:INTDABLINK). As an example, the redirect Bones (disambiguation) you deleted was linked from Bone (disambiguation).

I've recreated several redirects that have incoming links, but it is possible that some of them had a substantial history that should probably be kept (i.e. if they contain an article or a disambiguation page that was later merged into another). In particular, I am referring to the following pages:

Could you please check their history, and restore them if appropriate? Thank you for your time. Best regards, Korg (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not a big issue, so if their histories aren't meaningful it wouldn't matter if they're not restored. I asked this because on some occasions, in addition to the practical considerations, there may be potential benefits: sometimes a dab page is merged into another, or replaced with a redirect when a hatnote can be of better use, then for some reasons recreated later; in this case, the old content could be easily restored; also, in the event that an article or a dab page was merged into another then replaced with a redirect, the old history should be kept for GFDL compliance. At least redirects from alternative spelling (such as Arabstan or Available Light) should preferably be fixed in the first place instead of being deleted.
Also, thanks for having fixed the page that linked to the "4th of July (song)" redirect. Such redirects are generally useful though, as they help to prevent the creation of articles with those names; please see WP:DAB#Incomplete disambiguation. Best regards, Korg (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parser functions

Per your message, I do believe I could help there. I recently learned much about them, how to use them, any many other things. What do you need help with?(Also, don't ask how I learned them, I rather not return to that hell at this time(140kb of parser functions)).— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. If gender=male, then it displays words like he or him. If gender=female, it displays words like she or her. If gender is not specified, it displays them and they.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want me to change any of the specifics, just ask. For instance, it will take a bit more coding, but I believe I can fix it so |gender= is not required before the specified gender, meaning, instead of having to do {{subst: munch|~~~|gender=male}}, it would be {{subst: munch|~~~|male}}. It might be possible, but I would need to look at it a bit more.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, fixed.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!


User talk:92.235.185.127

This user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. It's possible I missed something, but it looks to me like they were trying to be helpful, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, then. :) Thanks for having a second look. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the colors do fit nicely. :D Something just clicked when I saw that on a public domain clipart site, and soon enough I found myself designing the entire userpage around it... >.> Nice to see somebody else has a use for it! – Luna Santin (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is from WP:VANDALISM under "Discussion page vandalism": Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. FYI. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You told me that an IP user deleting another IP user's comments were not vandalism and said I was equally guilty. You were wrong. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said an admin could block me for reverting vandalism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go dig it up. Forget it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templatre thing

Hi.. unfortunately that code didn't work :/ [roux » x] 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it did :/ Using that code makes the cat not show up anywhere. :/ [roux » x] 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your multiple supports for my RfA, which closed yesterday. I can honestly say no one cast as many !votes as you did, and your repeated backing was flattering, if a little disturbing. Vague images of a Daley-esque victory swam into my mind, before the votes were indented and it all came crashing down.

Just kidding. Thanks for your support and for the moment of humour in an otherwise nerve-wracking process. There's a fair bit to learn, so it'll be all quiet for a bit while I read the mountainous series of instruction pages, after which if there's any advice or guidance you think would be helpful, feel free to stop by and pass it on. Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — Coren (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BotPuppet

XXX-space for possible edit page breakage.

Breakage? Do you have an undo algorithm too? Franamax (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editnotice is hopelessly long, you have way too much decoration on your talk page for the target of a bot making rapid edits, and I'll see now for the second time whether or not the edit preview is badly broken. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least on IE7 - badly broken, text is squeezed to the right-side of your editnotice. Franamax (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please note my BON thread. Can we iron some of this out before you start running the bot again? Franamax (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a whole post here, but you already responded while I slowly typed, then I pasted before copying - arghh. Anyway, yes, my example was just you breaking a little bit more of a template someone else had already broken.
I'd swear that I saw you subst:ing SineBot, but it's way too late/early to delve into. And I don't buy the "server load" rationale, we're told to ignore that (unless "excessive" - and MediaWiki has those triggers); you're subst:ing templates that "should" be subst:ed (not "will be done by bot"), and the User warning templates "should generally be substituted" - I'm still not seeing the mandate, nor the rationale. However, nighty-night. :) Franamax (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Extremism

Hi MOP, I hope you will recall the article Islam and Sikhism and the same amount of intimidation/manipulation is clearly visible on Sikh Extremism it seems apparent as well as ironic that these zealous editors clearly don't speak for the majority of Sikhs, because I feel the majority would rather root out those connected to terrorist activities, We have noticed edits by Singh6 who wish to delete Sikh Extremism have defaced the article with too much tagging. The article is well referenced with sources from the BBC, CBC The Times and New York Times - although these sources have been rubbished by another:'Sikh history'

There are 4 Admins who have voted to keep the article, (Flewis, DJ Clayworth, LeagleEagle & KnowledgeHarmony) I was hoping you may get a chance to read the article and perhaps vote without intimidation. Going back to Islam and Sikhism this article has also been vandalized by Singh6, his actions seem to speak louder than words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh_extremism

Thanks

update: Hi Mop, after much deliberation and many other things, the article has been chosen to remain, I would ask you to kindly consider Islam & Sikhism in light of the above, the same motley crue have twisted the article beyond fact and actuality.

I would like to re-edit this with your permission, thank you. Satanoid (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid has LIED - Proofs:

Why substitute "unsigned"?

Why is BotPuppet substituting {{unsigned}} when WP:SUBST says this matter is under debate? Shouldn't you wait until the debate is over? --Dr Greg (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. And, even for the templates that clearly should be substituted, they still shouldn't be substituted on their defining page, such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace for {{unsigned}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it should be substituted (which is a matter for consensus, not because of a statement inserted in the template documentation, possibly without comment), it should only be substituted on talk pages (and other pages which are autosigned). It's a logical assumption that, if a page shouldn't have signatures, the {{unsigned}} template shouldn't be substituted, but is intended as something one could copy from editing the page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily blocked the bot (until we have discussed this), since the bot is substituting {{unsigned}}, for which there is not consensus. And the bot also does it on non-talk pages where the template is demonstrated or linked.
Since Legobot was doing the same thing, and I have blocked that bot too, and people already have started discussing it here, I asked the bot owner of Legobot to come discuss it here.
I have looked around at a number of {{unsigned}} and Wikipedia:Template substitution related talk pages and talk page archives. It seems there is a weak majority of users that wants {{unsigned}} to be substituted, but there is no clear consensus for it. But note that that is for substituting it when adding it. When it comes to later running a bot and do edits to pages only to substitute {{unsigned}}, then there seems to be a clear majority of users against. (But perhaps not a clear consensus.) The reason being that doing the substitution as a separate edit like that costs a lot of unnecessary server load and fills up the edit histories. So it costs more than any known gain from substituting the template.
My personal view is pretty much in-line with the above. That is: The template should perhaps be substituted, but do not do separate edits just to do that. If a bot does it as a side job while doing other edits to a talk page I personally have no objection. But, since there seems to be no clear consensus even for substituting the template in the first place, then this has to be discussed a lot more first. Since substitution is pretty much an irreversible action, since there is no easy way to find and fix all cases back to transcluded cases.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The response below is copied from my talk page. --David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would've been easier to just ask me to stop the bot instead of block it. :P Whatever though, I can appreciate the usage of force I guess. Anyway, I did read this. While discussion was split down the middle, I noticed that everyone against was saying "there's no reason to, so why should we", and the "it ain't broken so don't fix it" argument is lame. Besides, I still think that this drains a lot of power given how often it is transcluded (I don't care what WP:PERF says because that only applies to the small cases, I'm pretty sure). If we're substituting unsigneds now old ones should also be substituted because of the poor, poor job queue. For what it's worth, here's my reasoning against some examples from that talk page;

  1. "Needs to be transcluded so that we can fix it easily if it breaks"; if that was how we ran Wikipedia we wouldn't even have subst: as a function. Besides, everyone substitutes it currently (SineBot as well).
  2. "The developers said don't do it"; this seems to throw WP:BOLD out of the window. And besides, Brion himself said that they deny the server load claim only because nobody has tested against it. This is like storing corpses in the drinking water but not removing them despite all the deaths until somebody proves that it isn't healthy.

Reasons not to substitute from WP:SUBST, explained:

  • Once a template is substituted, the result is no longer linked to the template, making it hard to find all pages displaying that text (though categories can sometimes relieve this). This problem can easily be worked around by including a link to the template in the template's code. Why do we need to find where the unsigned template has been used? You could always just pagesearch for "Preceding comments..." anyway.
  • A substituted template will not be updated when the master template is updated. Unsigned is a stable template, so this doesn't really matter.
  • If the template is used to standardize the appearance of something, you probably do not want to do a substitution. An example of this is a table of contents or navigation box. Doesn't apply.
  • Substituting en masse — editing thousands of articles with bots — slows down the site and wastes server resources unnecessarily. Not really any more than day-to-day usage. What happened to WP:PERF? Besides, better to take them down then have them continually drain resources.
  • Substitution increases the size of articles in the database and database dumps. By a couple of bytes; don't think we need to worry.
  • A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically inclined. Unsigned isn't complicated at all.
  • Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation. It leaves "Template:unsigned" in comments.
    • When a user tries to copy, for example, the warnings for vandaloids created by the templates described at Template:Test, from an existing page to another page where it is needed, that user receives no clue that the content on the existing page was created by a template! If the template has changed recently, then the user might find several undated versions of each warning. The user is left wondering what to do. It looks like each editor copies or makes their own warnings. Which version to use? Write my own? This whole 'subst' feature is weird. Null due to previous statement.
  • If the template is just being used temporarily, it is usually better not to substitute. Substituted templates are much harder to remove or modify. Long-term template is long-term.
  • When a vandalised template is substituted, it is more difficult to repair than regular vandalism because of the lack of links between the template and its incarnations and the lack of updatability. It won't be vandalised, so no worries.
  • Unsubstituted deletion tags for trivial pages (such as categories and redirects) offer the deleting administrator a convenient, meaningful deletion summary. Example: "content was: '{{rfd}} #REDIRECT Wikipedia' (and the only contributor was 'Jimbo Wales')". A precise deletion comment gives onlookers (especially non-administrators unable to view the deleted edits) better insight as to why a specific item may have been deleted. If templates such as {{rfd}}, {{cfr}}, etc. are substituted, the "reason for deletion" field defaults to a blank line. However, pages deleted via {{afd}} and {{mfd}} should be deleted with a link to the subpage where the deletion was discussed. This also doesn't apply.

See what I mean? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End, response copied from my talk page. --David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this wrong, I do not mean to be rude even though it might sound so. I just don't know how to formulate this in a friendlier way, probably since English is just my third language:
I see that you are a brand new bot owner, it seems you actually got your first bot approval yesterday. That probably explains why you don't know some of the basics. I'll explain some of them here:
Regarding blocking your bot instead of asking you to stop it: That is the standard procedure with bots, the moment we discover something weird with a bot we are supposed to block it. Since just asking you to stop it means it continues to run, perhaps for days doing many thousands of edits, until you answer. And this case proves that point, since two users had already protested here and the bot was still running 11 hours later. And that is one of the reasons why bots run from separate accounts, so it should be no big deal that they get blocked, since you as a human user don't get blocked.
Regarding communicating with users as a bot owner: You responded to the comments from me and the other users on our talk pages, instead of here on your talk page. That means that users that come here wondering about your current bot run doesn't see the responses you have already written about it. I for instance didn't notice that you had answered the other users when I blocked your bot. I didn't realise that until you responded on my talk page, then I went looking. Although in this case the answers you gave the other users would not have changed my decision to block your bot. As a normal editor you can respond on the users' talk pages if that is your preference. But when it concerns your bot then I recommend you respond here, since that will avoid a lot of confusion and save you from having to type the same answer over and over again.
Regarding consensus: As far as I understand the bot policies, the bot approval is not a "consensus to do the action", but only a technical approval that your bot works as it should. You still also need a consensus for the specific tasks.
Your own description of the situation (now that you have seen the old discussion about transcluding the {{unsigned}} template) is that the "discussion was split down the middle". That clearly means there is no consensus. Then you should certainly not let your bot continue to run to enforce your will.
Another thing is that you fail to understand that doing the edits cost much more server load than letting the {{unsigned}} template be transcluded. Especially since you could "fix" most cases over time by letting some bots do it as a side job while doing some other edits to the page.
But anyway, it is not me you should convince. It is the majority of users that have discussed this that you need to convince. Since you need to have a consensus before doing a bot run. And as you yourself stated, the "discussion was split down the middle". But I don't blame you for starting the bot run, since at the time you did not know there had already been protests against substituting the {{unsigned}} template. But now that you know you have to either give it up, or try to achieve a consensus before you can start that task again.
So, normally for me to unblock your bot right away you would need to state that your bot will only do its other tasks, and not substitute the {{unsigned}} template anymore. Until that specific task has been further discussed. But I just took a quick look at the templates you list at User:BotPuppet and at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotPuppet. The {{nowrap}} template should not be substituted either. Note that I am the one who coded up most of the nowrap related templates used here at Wikipedia, except the old {{nowrap}} itself, and I wrote the how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling. So I know the nowrap templates better than most. By the way, I am aware of two discussion about substituting vs. transcluding {{nowrap}}, in both discussion all users preferred transclusion. See Wikipedia talk:Template substitution#Nowrap for more on that.
So, my conclusion now is that your list of templates to substitute needs to be much better vetted, by several users, before we can let your bot run again. Sorry about that. I'll try to squeeze in some time during this weekend to check your entire list of templates. I hope some more users can take a look.
--David Göthberg (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move the disscussion about {{unsigned}} to the bot owners' noticeboard. Thanks LegoKontribsTalkM 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I blocked your bot today (see previous section) I noticed a separate but important thing: Your bot block link from the big red block button on User:BotPuppet is wrong. It doesn't unset the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used", so I nearly blocked you as a user from editing Wikipedia. And usually such block links should have the expiry time pre-set to "indefinite", since otherwise if we admins miss to set it we get an error message and have to redo the block action. To see how such a link should be done see for instance Legobot or most other bots. Note that I am no expert on this so you should check several bots and compare, since I don't know which is the best way to have that link.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the block link, it broke the imagemap template when I used it. I'll find a way around it eventually. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I stated above, you can simply look how the other bot owners have solved it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the block link. Also, starting a topic at the pump to get widespread consensus on this quickly; maybe I'll even snag Brion in for a bit. So consider this canvassing (oh, if you're reading this, you just lost the game). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much for your prompt and helpful advice for this wiki novice. cheers.Aruhnka (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Wanna stop copying me? Edit summaries are ok though. :P Just kidding, keep up the good work! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 08:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I noticed you did not notice that I overwrote your protection :P. I reverted back to yours though. My excuse is here :D. —— nixeagle 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot did something strange to Talk:Balanced ternary

This bot did something strange to Talk:Balanced ternary, adding a signature that appears to be malformed, -- Q Chris (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection

MP, thanks for protecting Maya Angelou. You're right, it's heavily vandalized, especially lately after the US election, mostly by anonymous IPs. And most of the vandalism is insulting, racist, sexist, ect.--everything that Dr. Angelou stands against. It's horrifying. Actually, I'd like to see it be permanently protected. It's fortuitous that this article is protected at this time, since I'm trying to get I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings to FA in time for the 40th anniversary of the publication of the book. (It's in the middle of a copyedit right now.) Hopefully, it'll happen by the end of this year, and get on the front page, which is perfect timing! 'Cause ya know this article will be vandalized at that time, too. Actually, my long-term goal is to create a Maya Angelou featured topic. Again, thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a DYK article!!!

Master! I got a DYK article! And I've only been here for about three weeks! Jonathan321 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe that that article was nominated for speedy deletion? Jonathan321 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Writing

Maybe, maybe not. I have immense knowledge of geography (could name all world capitals when I was two, but don't worry I don't have autism or Asperger's) politics, civics, and social studies, so I can really help (in both editing and article creation) in those areas. I love to write, too. But I think the most fun thing might be being a WikiFairy commander. I mean adding templates to articles and stuff. But we'll see how it all plays out. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, please

I am seeking your opinion as a third-neutral party.

Please take a look at the history for 2008 Mexico City plane crash.

I reverted a few edits (manually, didn't use my RB) to a previous version because the new additions are derived from sources written in Spanish, copied into the article (possible copyvio?) to produce 


  these ugly boxes.

The user has translated the Spanish into English, completely ignoring grammar, punctuation, or spelling rules. Another editor has suggested "building consensus". Though I am familiar with this policy, I have no idea how to start. The talk page? Won't that take forever? Please help.

(Oh, and while I'm here, how on Earth did you get your own custom message when you edit your talk page?! AWESOME! Please tell me!) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 13:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help in regards to your talk page templates and others' talk page templates

I see that you have a message at the bottom of talk page. Unlike the message at the bottom of your talk page, as far as I can tell, IE, my perspective whenever I go there, this user has roughly the same thing, only, for his talk page the bottom message overlaps comments, making them impossible to read. I tried to tell the user about this, how it should be changed, and he gave me a rude response that he didn't have to change it, it worked fine for him, etc. I as wondering if you could find out why it precisely didn't work, and if you could perhaps try to convince the user to alter it so that it works for everyone. There is no way in hell he would listen to me, a past matter, and a current matter indicates he began to dislike me after I deleted a redirect he created. To clarify, by deleted, I mean nom'd for CSD, and when he objected to that, nom'd for an RFD, which got it permanently deleted.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article move to 2008 G-20 summit

There already was G20-summit in 2008 (in Sao Paolo), this irregular summit is the second one, so you should move it back or to for instance to 2008 G-20 summit in Washington, don't you. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, cough!

Thanks for the copyvio tagging on Commons. Think you might want to do something about this user (if you hadn't already got it in mind). Both blocked on Commons, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G20 Washington summit infobox

Thanks for your efforts to tidy up this article. I like the info box but there is a problem with the date. I see from the edit page that you tried to insert a date of November 15-16, 2008. This however was not displayed in the actual box. We do of course need a date here but I strongly suggest you use November 14-15 (as on the White House site) or just November 15 when the actual summit was held. If you also saw this comment on the article's talk page, sorry for bothering you again.- Ipigott (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#ANI_desysop_discussion

Hi MoP - I saw your reply to Kurt. Just a note, but Bureaucrats can't remove admin rights - only add them. I think you mean "Steward". BTW I love the way you add the extra text when people click for a new section - I'm going to pinch that!!!Pedro :  Chat  16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love that too...I just have not yet figured out how to steal it myself. I feel like a newb... ^^ SoWhy 13:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help in regards to a few things,

Hello, this user doesn't exactly seem to understand civility, per his or her comments with me. It started out with this user templating another user who's user talk page I happen to watch. I then left a friendly note on this users' talk page, which was a template warning her or him against templating, in an obviously humorous, and ironic fashion(it says so right on the template. The user then responded, but not in a friendly manner to my attempt at good faith, and brought up a past matter which he or she obviously knew nothing about. I could bring fourth more diffs, but it could be seen as pointless, as the martial for the observed conversation can easily be found on my talk page and the talk page of the spoken user as listed above. I'm not asking you to take sides, I just want a third, uninvolved user to comment on this.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:71.200.54.6 for vandalism

Hello. You just blocked 71.200.54.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism at Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Obviously the user was edit warring but this was a content dispute and his edits we not vandalism; the inclusion of the section in question was contested on the talk page and I had previously advocated the anonymous user's version.

See also the report at WP:AN3.

I would have blocked all three edit warriors myself but I have edited the page's contents. CIreland (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply, what I would like is for you to reblock the IP for edit-warring and block BaldPete for the same. As it stands, this effectively says that I am advocating vandalism. Moreover, since I intend to remove the section myself in a while (day or two) if it still exists and possibly post to WP:BLPN I would really rather not be getting uw-vandal warnings for it. CIreland (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was making his edits in good faith; edit warring is bad but he is not a vandal. BaldPete was not discussing his edits either; he hasn't edited the talk page since September and uses largely automated edit summaries. I cannot see any reason to treat them differently. Alternatively you could unblock everyone and protect the page. CIreland (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BaldPete should have discussed the edits because even if the IP wasn't giving a rationale for omitting the section, I was: [4] and yet he continued to revert. CIreland (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: A Favour

No probs. I'll add a full review to my list of things to do. All the best, Cam (Chat) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update. i've just been dumped with an endless pile of chemistry homework, so I'm not likely to get to this until the weekend. that said, I'll do so as quickly as I can. Sorry for the wait. Cam (Chat) 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D

Sup Mop! dunno quite right what I'm doing round here. Where can i get some feedback? I'll be pleased for your help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirummi (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There and aren't you sweet

oops, thanks. I hope we can be friends.

The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lock 'er up MoP

I've restored the consensus version of the Petey page. Mr soapboxer "Wiki-is truth" appeared on the scene about a year and a half ago with his over-the-top rantings and pov skewed soap boxing. Myself, Wiki-alf, Gwernol and several other dedicated editors beat the section apart... cited it properly... bashed neutrality into it... and came up with the version that is there now. If it takes a full lock up to keep the soapboxer at bay then go for it. Just make sure his skewed pov isn't in place before you do. I will speak to Wiki alf about it. Alfie always has a fine level headed approach especially since he is familiar with the first trolling attempts by the soapboxer. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starczamora

I dont know anything with Starczamora, me and Bluemask were having a conversation about this image then I was shocked because he joined in our conversation while suspecting me those being a sock puppet, I told him that Im not aware of that, then he still putting sock tag on my userpage, I keep on reverting his edits but he still revert my edits also. I request you Admin to blocked Starczamora because of vandalisms on my userpage. Thanks. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Blooded Edge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Master of Puppets. You have new messages at Blooded Edge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyvios on ITN

Sorry to see this. Don't worry though, my first edit to T:ITN was to unintentionally put up a copyvio. I've resolved only to put up US Gov photos from now on ;D. Anyway, don't worry, SpencerT♦C 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slemcal1

Its better not to unblock him/her because he keeps on making new accounts aside from Slemcal, Slemcal1 also created this account, Samsterzai which is now blocked and even if you unblocked him still he will not changed and still he will stil put fannish statements on Sam Concepcion, its better not to unblock him anymore. Its my opinion! Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slemcal1, round 2

I'm really about that! Anyway, I'll just try to forget him and move on. Thanks again and sorry for dissapointing you. Wynchard Bloom contact meMy work 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VirtualApplesauce

VirtualApplesauce will be in hot sauce unless he changes his username, since it is the name of a website. You forgot to inform him about that. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&oldid=253161043"