User talk:Slakr

slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi?

---

Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

---

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Click here to start a new talk topic

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)". If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing.

SineBot indicates wrong section

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=661311327 the bot signs the 'Definition vs Pseudo Code (Conflict)' section but in the edit summary it indicates '‎Pseudo-code of function damerauLevenshteinDistance' section. It's not a big problem, of course, anyway a mistake. --CiaPan (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Query

You might be very busy, but I wanted to know, how SineBot works? Does the bot has an alternative? In which language was it written? How much time it took?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of that info is on its user page, version history, and BRFA. --slakr^\ talk / 14:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Smart

Given there was only one merge !vote and one redirect, I don't see how there is consensus. I would think a relist would have been in order to gain consensus. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@LibStar: If you want to, go ahead (or I can also do it myself a little later). On these, when there's enough participation and clearly consensus against keeping, but there's not clear enough consensus for full-on delete, I tend to round to merge, as it eventually becomes the same as a redirect, and if none of the content ends up being merged (something that's really the decision of consensus at the target, not AfD), then even the redirect can die at WP:RFD. Essentially, my reasoning is that "no consensus" isn't accurate, but neither is anything else. A relist could obviously work if you feel there will actually be more participants, though, despite it being open several days past its scheduled close. *shrug*. --slakr^\ talk / 14:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

... annnnd  Done Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 14:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LibStar (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SineBot

User:SineBot doesn't appear to be signing unsigned posts (including from IP addresses) at the WP:Help Desk. Can you please look at whether it has stopped? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah, it was having problems. The WM servers are throwing errors for me, too, occasionally, so it's probably just transitory. I'll keep an eye on it. Should be back for now. --slakr^\ talk / 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	There is no bot barnstar, so this is a gesture of appreciation where no other barnstar is appropriate. You maintain an excellent bot (even if it occasionally stops). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Basement Jaxx

Did you read anything we typed? You clearly missed evidence of English Top Billboard listings - which are notable for albums - they aren't there is no such thing as an expert in the field of music.

Think about that, not the band's notability, that's the album ... but your comments clearly showed you did not read every post you wrapped up into that bundle.

As I stated over & over again with copypasta ... I don't have time to triple paste every link I found that was legitimate because this other person clearly did not do due diligence in their own search, but rather padded the snot out of their edit count. --IamM1rv (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1915_insurgency_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

I have never objected to deletion before. I tried to summarize my position.

I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards.” Because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting.

I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” I presented the published sources on this. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915 should be treated using that standard. Insurgency of 1915 is no original research or synthesis, or another thing. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their research. I presented their publications, citations to these publications, and the publishing houses for these publications in the discussion page. During the discussions there is a strong evidence that contributions were not made in good faith. Contributors tried to influenced the outcome of the discussion beyond the what is presented in the article. My personal request to point a single sentence in the article “denying killings of civilians and/or mass murders” did not get any response. The voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome. "Bad faith" opinions presented were associated with sock puppets (and there was also an open investigation), and/or accounts created [mainly] for voting on the deletion discussion (there was a user majority contributions was limited with various voting activities). The discussion was riddled with issues created by Campaigning and Wikipedia:Canvassing. (a) “Stealth canvassing” Opening of the deletion process began with User:Steverci's request for Speedy deletion.(1-link to deleted page). The administrator informed User:Steverci that content do not belong to Speedy category. (2-link to deleted page) User:Steverci exchanged an email to |User:Sandstein “Private concern related.” Next activity was to add the deletion template (3-link to deleted page). An private e-mail was send between 2-link and 3-link. (b) During the discussions the user User:Tiptoethrutheminefield followed the other contributions of the editors [[1] and [[2]]. He tried to engage with them by looking at their edit history. (c) There was also distracting the discussion from the content matter to a wider political issue, | the repatriations], to influence the decision process.

During discussions participants stated: (Merging Requests): The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified, after re-write with a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. (Deletion Requests): The main idea behind this position was represented by [|this remark]. The deletion of this article is removal of the content which were mainly contributed through these publications from Wikipedia. In the discussions, credibility of [these authors] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide diners. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence.

Your closing decision was “Deletion.” I understand your decision was along the “Deletion Requests” and you presented your summary based on (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The Armenian armed activities behind the war zone (1915 insurgency) is controversial but an academic area. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Should we delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Removal of a published content from these authors brings an interesting positions on verifiability. Objections dusing the discussions were all about the authors. There was no single objection presented for the facts presented in the article. Enforcing a decision to delete a content based on the labeled Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by participants rather than the source material is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The other two points were neutral point of view policy (the information from Akcam and Bloxton added to every fact presented), and undue weight (viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.).

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is very controversial academic topic. Requires wider attention from Wikipedia community. I recognize that you are an arbitrator, I thank you for all your contributions and all your work.SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was going to warn you before but you looked so enthusiast... You can't cope with these "Armenian extremists" and their masters. (Please forgive me, "normal Armenians".) They also have a staunch ally in their "radical Greek" (again, sorry "normal Greeks") similars. These are guided by hate, not logic. Now as you just learned they also have their administrative support. If you still got energy to continue, try the Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you will see that all those Wikipedians who belive they are intellectuals and are ready to discuss for weeks on stupid details will leave you all alone in front of this irredentist mob. Take care. --141.196.198.85 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Armenian national liberation movement - so it seems there is another pov fork to be deleted? Its title converted by SelimAnkara into "Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920" is indeed its pov message. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)