User talk:Jredmond/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Block
Block due vandalism 199.216.224.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Prodego talk 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Action please are you in?
Prodego talk 20:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
- I'm in, and that IP is blocked, but you will have much better luck if you post these on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (where many admins watch) instead of here (where it's basically just me watching). - jredmond 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It takes much longer there(or at least the 3 or four times I did post there it did)
Prodego talk 21:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- And if I had been out, then leaving a message here could have taken hours or even days. AIV eliminates that possibility and ensures that some admin will see the vandal. If the problem is super-urgent, then pop into IRC and say something; there is almost always an admin in there. - jredmond 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page! Grutness...wha? 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Yeah I saw all thatbut I checked the log before re-added it and the only thing I saw was the 24 hour block that had expired. It must have been put on sometime right after I re-added it. Thanks though.Gator (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP ME
I need an admin. I am Bucephalus. I messing around with my monobook file, trying to make the navigation popups work. I broke it. Now I can't access my user name. Only admins and the user themselves can access the file. Please can you blank the file:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bucephalus/monobook.js
This should make it work. Thank you --Bucephalus1 23:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
on REMOVING my LINK
Why did you remove my external link??? Who are you people and why do you feel that you can do this all the time. We have a legitimate magazine and it should be including alongside those other magazines as well. Do you work them??? What is the deal????
- I have no connection to any of those magazines. However, since you have a connection to musclepolynesia.com, you should avoid adding links to that site to avoid any possible implications of spamming. Please see Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to for further details on our external linking policy. - jredmond 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by spamming? You think I'm going to spam people? Uh... I don't do stuff like that. I'm simply adding our link (just like they did) to increase awareness of other avenues other than these magazines. Actually, some of these magazines are linked on our site. They are no different to us.
ok I will blank it for you.
Baseball on Wikicities
Hello Jredmond, Googie Man here, and I'm writing in case you're a baseball fan, as I noticed you made an edit on the Albert Pujols article. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man(Talk), 22:07, 4 January 2006
Thanks...
Yeah, thats what I intended...but I also gave up trying to edit that page after three of us tackled it. I wasn't aware it ever included my edit enough to let others see it. My bv is not needed in any case after your test2 and the test5 from whichever phoenix. :) --Syrthiss 17:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Dfitty
When reverting a user's vandalism, check their contributions and make sure the user hasn't vandalized other pages. freestylefrappe 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, but I already do. Please check the contribs; you should see that I reverted Dfitty's very first edit more than a day before Dfitty's second one. - jredmond 00:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
2019 edit
Hi. Please take a look at the talk page for 2019 regarding your edit. Thanks.
One of your favorite people
Time to make good on Test4-n with this anonymous user. I'd do it but am no admin. Bill 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - working on it now. - jredmond 16:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
United States Bill of Rights
Hi, I'm soliciting Wikipedia:Peer review#United States Bill of Rights comments from people who contributed to the FA on the 1st Amendment, since there doesn't seem to be any response at PR. Many thanks, Kaisershatner 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: the indefinite block of this IP and Johnleemk's blocklog comments - according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Expiry times and application the shortest block takes precedence. Vsmith's 48 h block was still 'active' and cancelled yours. As I understand it, it should have been lifted first. Femto 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that does appear to be the case... I think I saw the 14 March date and associated it with the 3-hour block underneath. Thanks for spotting that one. - jredmond 16:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Jredmond
Dear Jredmond, I am beginning the process to create a wikiproject for Missouri. in order to do so i'm required to show that there is a base of at least 5-10 people who would be interested in contributing to such a project. the project would serve to aid in the creation and editing of articles related to the U.S. State Missouri, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history, education, and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Missouri in a fair and accurate manner. Since you're stated as being a wikipedian in missouri, i wanted to see if you were interested. if you are, please add your username at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Missouri and User:Preschooler.at.heart/Missouri. thanks for your consideration. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 16:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Bonnieisrael
Hi Jim, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't unblock this user (per the blocking policy, however, feel free to discuss further). He or she is unquestionably connected to Israelbeach, and may be the same person, and contributed significantly to a situation in which a good editor and admin was harassed with legal and other threats. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jim, it is not acceptable for you to undo another admin's block without discussion. I see you unblocked this user before you even left a note on my talk page. See the blocking policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The note on your talk page was in a separate tab from the unblock; clicking the submit button on one before the other was pretty much a random thing. In any case, she wrote Jimbo insisting that she's a separate person; I'm giving her a chance (per WP:AGF) to make useful contributions outside of the Israelbeach/Woggly debacle. I'm also keeping an eye on her contribs, though, and if she falls back into bad habit then I'll block her myself (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). - jredmond 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jim, the blocking policy says that if you disagree with a block, you should discuss it thoroughly with the blocking admin, and that you should refrain from unblocking unless an unambiguous error has been made and the blocking admin is not online. This user and the other accounts s/he posted with caused an enormous amount of trouble. Bonnieisrael is beyond any reasonable doubt a sock or meat puppet. Even in the extremely unlikely event that s/he isn't, s/he was still highly disruptive, made almost no positive contributions to the encyclopedia, appeared to defend Israelbeach's legal threats, along with several other accounts believed to be operated by Israelbeach or friends, threatened to open an RfC on another admin who blocked Israelbeach, and almost caused the target of the legal threats (a good editor and admin) to leave. It was an absurd and very unpleasant situation. If s/he makes one more edit of that nature, or edits any of the disputed articles, I will reblock indefinitely and I've left a note on his or her talk page to that effect. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been three weeks since you unblocked the account for Bonnieisrael. In those three weeks, she has made the following contributions to Wikipedia:
- voted on AfD against deletion of an article about an Israel News Agency writer
- voted on AfD against deletion of the article about the Israel News Agency
- dismissed me on her talk page
- argued for undeletion of the article on the Israel News Agency on deletion review
Are these the kinds of edits you had in mind when you unblocked this user? In the meantime, Slimvirgin and I have both quit editing Wikipedia due to lack of support - but situations like this still rankle. I get derision and abuse heaped on me for tagging users like BonnieIsrael with "socksuspect" tags, no other administrator steps in to intervene; sock and meat puppets continue to multiply, no other administrator steps in to intervene. What happened to your promise to "keep an eye on her contribs"? I've been telling myself that I should simply stop caring, but like a bad scab, I can't stop picking at it. Ultimately, it's not the POV-pushers and self-promoters who upset me, for predictably taking advantage of holes in the system - it's admins like you, who continue giving them the means to do so. --woggly 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Consented blocks
Good to see my block wasn't unprecidented, thanks for adding your's on. Only thing, I was noticing you blocked them indef. Would it be alright if we transfer it to being renewed annually, after consultation with the school board. Just to make sure their policy decisions don't change in the mean time. -- Zanimum 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure - the annual-review thing would probably be more effective anyway, and would have the added bonus of conforming with ArbCom blocks. I'll go ahead and reblock so that that IP can edit again in March 2007.
- It might also be worthwhile to post a link to Wikipedia:Consented blocks from the appropriate User: pages, or maybe even to create a template and category to smooth out the process... but we can figure those things out later on. - jredmond 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I did for the school you blocked, didn't get around to it for the 18 IPs that my district covers. I also redirected the user page to the user_talk page, just to streamline things a bit. I agree it could be probably best to create a category/template before the list grows too big. -- Zanimum 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good template! -- Zanimum 17:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thanks for voting in my RfA! <blush> at those comments btw... The nom didn't gain consensus, but still happy I accepted it. Thanks again! - Amgine 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Aidan Work
I see that you have blocked the public library system in New Zealand of all places.
I think that you should know, as I put on Gadfium's page too that there is more to the Aidan blocking than meets the eye. Thank you. Kind regards. Wallie 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
--- I got involved with the Ian Paisley article, and these three people, especially Kiand took a very POV stance. I was just trying to improve the heavy POV in it. I am not particularly for or against Paisley, but like to see that the article is a true representation of the person. Kiand in particular was always trying to wind people up, espeically Aidan. Aidan obviously "lost it" which gave someone the excuse to ban him. Kiand is still trying to annoy him on his talk page, even though he is banned. I see that you mentioned it was Jdirl. I really think that this sort of thing is not good for Wikipedia, and wanted you to know. Wallie 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) ---
- Please re-read my note on User talk:Gadfium — I unblocked that IP address. You can also verify this with the relevant block log. - jredmond 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Somewhat avoids the issue... Are you going to continue to "chase" Aidan, given what I said? Wallie 06:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- How exactly does unblocking a library system's IP constitute chasing Aidan? I had not been involved with Aidan in any way prior tohandling that e-mail from the library, and I have not been involved with Aidan since unblocking the library IP. You can verify this with my contribs and with the logs if you don't believe me. - jredmond 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I do. Thank you very much for your answers. I wish you a pleasant day. Wallie 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Links on article Bratz
Due to Wikipedia's popularity on search engines, sites that were never on or contributed to Wiki were coming in looking for mere advertising. You removed all the useful links on the site that had been there from the start of this article. Due to damaging actions such as link url tampering and text description altering by ONE set of people trying to advertise for a site called "****" (check logs in History) I assume you took the action of removing everything. Not all of those were fansites. The checklist you also removed is a useful resource I linked to and found informative. I also contribute to Wikipedia when I have computer access. I do not think it right that you remove all links due to the action of one set of people who were only here to advertise for their personal site. I found coming here and reading and being able to read info on the linked sites here on Wikipedia useful and to damage a useful resource because of the vanadlism of possibly one person is wrong.
AIDS as featured article main page appearance
hi there. in case you missed it, i thought you might like to know AIDS is appearing on the main page as a featured article on June 15th (this month). if you could, it'd prolly help to have someone keeping an eye out for vandals specifically on that date, since as of right now there is at least one vandalizing a day since it's FA status. now would also be a good time to copyedit it before the big slam on its main page day. :) JoeSmack Talk 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You're invited :)
|
Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! Addbot (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
You overturned an indefinite block of Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in May. Since then, the account has made no or few useful edits, and has now apparently started causing problems again for User:Woggly, which is why I blocked in the first place. You said you would keep an eye on the situation, so can I ask that you look into it? The harassment of Woggly was serious, coming from Bonnieisrael as well as sockpuppets/meatpuppets/friends, and involved real-life harassment too, and various legal threats. It therefore can't be allowed to start up again. Report from Woggly here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Woggly has gone on wikibreak because of it, which is a great shame. I hope you can sort something out. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've reblocked Bonnieisrael. - jredmond 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to censor User:Bonnieisrael as she does not agree with User:Woggly. Do we simply censor and block those users who civily and kindly disagree with user:slimvirgin and user:woggly? Has it ever occured that User:Woggly has been abusive and harassed and stalked several users including User:Israelbeach? What were User:Woggly's last ten edits? Who did they focus on?That should answer any questions or doubts. Keep Wiki free of censorship and abuse. Lennys 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Woggly isn't without his faults, but participating in a DRV and noting the number of edits for certain commenters thereon does not constitute "stalking" - even when Woggly had participated in previous AFDs on the issue. And Woggly has made a large number of edits that are unrelated to the whole debacle, and I cannot say the same for Bonnieisrael. - jredmond 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention
I appreciate your attention to the recent vandalism on my User and Talk pages. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
WUSTL Project
 |
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to WUSTL articles or that you are in some way connected to Washington University in St. Louis. I thought you might want to become a member of Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject . We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve articles in the WUSTL series. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate! |
--Lmbstl 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
Radio 4 interview - thank you
Hi hear you were on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning, and a friend said you came across very well. Well done and thank you for making Wikipedia look good. Cheers Lethaniol 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! I appreciate any feedback I can get on that, especially when it's positive :) - jredmond 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you came across very well in both the BBC and ABC interviews. Good Job! --67.166.92.174 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Poke
Oh look, that is me at the top of the page. That sure is a coincidence. Anyway, could you take a look at this please? This should verify I am me too. Prodego talk 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Live prayer
See exchange here: User talk:Bastique#Live_Prayer_with_Bill_Keller. Love, Cary Bass demandez 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Coord update
Quarl is done updating {{coord}} and adding additional backwards compatibility. Please see his summary at Template_talk:Coord#Updates and comment there. We'll now need to look at how this works for wikicode parsers. I think he's done a great job. Andy Mabbett 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
RE:Your edits to Jim Dobson
- Thanks for your message regarding this article. I had noticed the anon blanking the page a few times, but didn't notice I had restored elements of vandalism from previous edits. Sorry about that! Thunderwing 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jim Thorpe is up for FAR, I tried my best to help out but it still needs work maybe you can take a look if you have time there's a link to the FAR on the article's talk page. Quadzilla99 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I mention this as I noticed you voted on the FAC and thought maybe you could help out. Quadzilla99 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Don Murphy
You might want to consider protecting that page per this thread. Saturday Contribs 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Doug Rokke
Hello.
I was looking for the article on Doug Rokke that you deleted. Could you possibly reconsider? I recall seeing it before, and do not remember it being a thinly-veiled attack. Rokke does say some very controversial things about his own qualifications/history, and it is extremely important because he portrays himself as an expert on depleted uranium munitions.
Wiki says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
If you will not reconsider, could you please email me the article? Was there a talk on the deletion that I can look at?
Many thanks, Jim Hoerner Jim hoerner 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Doug_Rokke. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jim hoerner 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Range blocks
Actually, and I don't mean to be rude here, I think you should research how range blocks work a little more, before responding to such complaints. Just because the user complaining of collateral didn't understand how IPs and blocking works, doesn't mean that you should assume their interpretation is more correct than the experienced checkuser that applied the block. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm not a n00b; I work with IP ranges on a daily basis. By blocking that particular XO range, you blocked more than just their Web host IPs; you also blocked customers who use XO as an ISP. Additionally, because rangeblocks are invariably drastic, they should never be indefinite in length — just long enough to stop the persistent vandal. (This goes even if the range in question is infested with actual open proxies.)
- And you of all people should know how OTRS works: we investigate the complaints we receive. In this case, the complaint had merit — the rangeblock was no longer necessary, yet was still preventing 65 thousand IPs from editing or creating accounts. - Jredmond 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to you to, but I do know how OTRS works. And sorry, but I'm not going to be spoken down to. The proper way to have dealt with this would have been to ask me what was going on, and I would have been happy to help. You'll notice that the block was already removed before you ever even gave your misguided lecture. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Renew this consented school block for another year?
Hello Jredmond. See 64.9.10.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You're the most recent administrator to issue a long-term block for this school IP, which belongs to Tredyffrin Easttown School District. I just fixed some blatant vandalism of Vitamin A that came from this IP, and I saw the big header comment on the IP Talk page about a consented block. Is it worth writing to the school's web site administrator to see if the block should be renewed for another year? I see that their web site provides an email address for the administrator. EdJohnston 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and stick with shorter, as-necessary blocks until we hear back from the school's admin. - Jredmond 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Year page formatting of multiple events
Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
- {{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
Daoken 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Decades
Hello! I see that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. How do you think, can decade (0s) consist of nine years?! I suppose that it is nonsense and WP:CFORK (because it is possible for somebody to create parallel categories: Category:First decade of 1st century for years 1-10 and so on). If this was a convention, can you indicate the source of that idea? Thanks.--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That particular decade only contains nine years because there was no year zero. The Gregorian and Julian calendars both go from 2 BC to 1 BC to 1 AD to 2 AD etc. - Jredmond (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the table here: Category:20th century. Each line of that table refers to the decade between year x1 and year x0 (1901-1910, …, 1991-2000). According to that table, century consists of ten decades. But lines of that table don’t exactly correspond wikipedian categories. For example, Category:2000 belongs to Category:20th century. At the same time Category:2000 belongs to Category:2000s, which belongs to Category:21st century. This is asymmetrical. One can find in Wikipedia here (Category:2nd century) one table, and in the article 2nd century in Decades and Years – a different table. I suppose that this is a paradoxical, but clear case of CFORK. Do you agree? Thanks.--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-03)
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
PLEASE HELP ME
Hi, I am new and have made this trouble! You succeed in annulling the "User Talk: Davide1268" from the page " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swiss_singer-songwriters "? This is not useful and him is inserted for an error.
Pardon for the error.
Davide1268 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide1268 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-04)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
Digimarc Corporation
On Feb 8, 2008, you speedy deleted the article on Digimarc Corporation as advertising, which was a good call. I want to take a shot at creating an encyclopedic article for Digimarc Corporation, basically scapping everything in the previous article except the info box and parts of the introductory paragraph and re-writing the article using mostly independent sources. Do you know in these cases if it is better to restore the previous article (to keep the edit history) and then rewrite it or should I write it like a new article? I would appreciate your thoughts. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember how bad the original lede was, but I suspect it would be much easier to start fresh. Let me check the original to be certain of that, though. (I'm not worried about the infobox; those are trivial to re-create.) - Jredmond (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you help???
this is a wiki that I made. Can you please help me with this project?? thanks.Sternhe (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternhe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Stephanie Adams Fact Sheet
If you can add the measurements back for the Stephanie Adams article upon taking a look at this reliable source on Playboy.com: Playboy.com: Stephanie Adams, that (along with her confirmed date of birth from her official web sites) would be sufficient.
Being that it's on Playboy.com as well as her Playboy magazine's data sheet, it is a fact. So why are these people trying to remove information that has been public since her November 1992 centerfold?
Again, why not remove all of the measurements of all of the playmates, since they want to be so discriminatory against this one? Swiksek (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Figures like that are routinely inaccurate. Playboy is not a reliable source for such things - and indeed I don't believe any properly reliable source exists, unless it's for those few women who have made Guinness World Records. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Monckton BLP
Re [1] - sorry, got lost in the rush. What does it do? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's no trouble; I kind of figured that was the case. Hard to see templates buried at the bottom sometimes.
- We're testing a bot that will watch specific BLPs and report edits to an IRC channel in real time. That particular template (Template:Blpwatch) helps the bot identify which articles need that extra attention; how long the bot has been watching the article; and what sections editors should keep especially clean. (There's a list of bot-watched articles in Category:BLP watched articles; almost all of them are controversial figures in some way.) Ideally, this bot will draw immediate human attention to any new libel, slander, or vandalism that appears on those bios.
- Aha. THought it would be something like that, though I didn't expect the bot/IRC. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-05)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
pronouns and such
Were there any women in the project besides Angela back in 2004? It's so much more confusing now. ;)
I have a question, you being someone who I assume pays more attention to trends and politics than I. Is the response to SupportPublicTV normal these days, e.g. speedy deletion of the spiel s/he put up followed by a username block for daring to put up links to relevant content that you own, as encouraged on the Pump? It seems excessive to me but, then again, I didn't see the harm in the corrections and tweaks originating from User:USSTRATCOM PAO way back before MyWikiBiz, so the community may have just passed me by on this issue while I was busy not watching the project pages over the past couple years. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- There have always been women around, but for whatever reason few are open about their gender. Pseudonyms hide more than just real names sometimes... :)
- It looks like this speedy-and-block routine is how XLinkBot is designed. I think it's generally worthwhile, as it catches spam and misuse much faster and more effectively than human RC patrollers. In this particular case, some users expressed copyright concerns about the YouTube videos in question, and it's true that YouTube videos are usually on shaky copyright grounds. Since we have a confirmation of Wikipedia identity, at least, this shouldn't be a big issue.
- I definitely agree with you that the links were relevant, though I could do without the "courtesy of" bits (people can see credits on YouTube proper). However, it looks like SupportPublicTV got blocked for an iffy username rather than any actual content. I don't see "SupportPublicTV" as spammy, but I'll discuss this with OrangeMike (the blocking admin) before I lift the block. - Jredmond (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |