User talk:Pseudomonas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Hello?...

Yah, I tried to make a minor change on a page recently and your bot k.o.'d it. Was wondering if I could get a recount?

Thet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetasashhatap (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, can you link to the change you're talking about? Pseudomonas(talk) 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

I wanted to draw your attention, to your bot request. SQLQuery me! 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to leave a message here too to see if you were going to test your bot. AFAIK a fortnight has passed. I'm really looking forward to seeing it work. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

god im sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.207.114 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackadder

Delete MY page?? F*&k you buddy!! No, only kidding. Thanks for letting me know. To be honest, I created that page years ago when I didn't really fully understand wikipedia. It probably doesn't fit in with wikipedia's expectations but it is funny and interesting, so it wouldn't be the worst thing if it slipped through the net. There should really be somewhere for this information, but it's not wikipedia. CHEERS --Crestville (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are rediculously helpful. Thankyou very much :)--Crestville (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) And I'm glad you said "only kidding" up there - you had me for a moment, given some of the characters that hang around here... Pseudomonas(talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudobot

Hi - Can you let me know what's up with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PseudoBot? Mufka seems to think the bot idea is dead. Have you given up on this? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not given up; just delayed. I'll try and get something done about it :) Pseudomonas(talk) 14:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It is my understanding that vandal bots do not have the bot flag set. I see that Pseudobot is using the bot flag. Is that correct? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's true that it has the flag. I don't actually know if it's in line with WP policies. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a bug. Look at this edit. The entry that was reverted ended with <!-- so the last half of the bot's talk page warning (and any subsequent warnings) was commented out. It took me a few minutes to figure out why Sinebot signed PseudoBot's warning. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: fast

Yeah. Huggle is pretty insane. J.delanoygabsadds 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot testing

I noticed one small error here. It left a duplicate warning and didn't do the revert. Cluebot beat you to the revert and also left a warning. If you'd rather that I not point out the errors during testing, let me know. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One more conflict with ClueBot here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I spotted that too. I ought to figure out a way to detect the conflicts and not warn, though I don't rate it as urgent, since PseudoBot's warnings are a bit more informative in some cases. Thanks for keeping an eye on it! Pseudomonas(talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like ClueBot has the same weakness here. So not a big deal. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Coleman

I added Chris Coleman to the 10th June page, birthday section but the bot removed it straight away.

Chris Coleman - Coventry City Football Club Manager

I quote from your talk page -
Please choose the individual that you mean from that page, and link to their Wikipedia page.
  • 1975 - Adrian Forrest, Restaurant Manager : There doesn't seem to be a page on Adrian Forrest.
Pseudomonas(talk) 05:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pseudomonas! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your hard working reverts on vandalism and beating me to the punch several times when reverting. Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Congrats Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 21:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very flattered - I think that Huggle deserves the lion's share of the credit - great bit of kit. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the earlier revert

Thanks for the earlier revert on List of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton tracks. It seems we have a vandal with a WP:SPA who is starting to vandal if you check the revision history. Chris (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] hey

Acinetobacter says hi :P Eli+ 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About reverting my changes

Hi. I'm about that.
>Hi, the recent edit you made to Need for Speed: ProStreet has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.

Click on some links (Airbourne, Plan B, Digitalism for example) and you'll find disambiguition, click on The Toxic Avenger and you'll find article about... movie. I also fixed Dude 'N' Nem to correct name and pasted a link to article about them. I removed error link on The Sound. Some articles are not existed yet and that's why they were red (I think sometime they appears).
So why my edit is unconstructive?
Sorry, but I speak english only on a basic level :)
10X
62.109.177.6 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PseudoBot's warnings

I don't think it's a good idea to quote any text added in an edit in PseudoBot's warnings, because Google indexes user talk pages. I'd rather not tell you to stuff too many beans up your nose, but I can see this causing headaches with personal information. I've also fixed the archive order on your talk page - hope you don't mind. Graham87 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed (I hope) all the quoting of text for the time being because of the possibility for defamatory material. It's a shame, because I think it is quite helpful to show what people have been adding. I guess the diffs are still linked; maybe I'll make them a bit more prominent. Pseudomonas(talk) 07:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article name is still linked, but if that was removed, it would make the messages a lot harder to understand. I'm more concerned about defamatory entries, so I'm happy with the warnings now. Graham87 09:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, mentioning the article name is still problematic. To make a nonsense example, if Alice added an entry about Bob Asdfghjkl, Bob may not be happy with a random Wikipedia user talk page coming up in the top 10 search results for his name. Wikipedia's robots.txt excludes all old revisions of an article and all special pages for similar reasons. If Wikipedia's search was better, robots.txt would probably exclude everything but the article namespace from search engines, but that's another story. How about a message like "the person you added does not have a Wikipedia article", with "The person you added" linking to the diff? Graham87 09:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
PseudoBot only monitors date pages. I find it highly unlikely that someone would be named June 17. Have you brought this up in reference to CSD templates? Most users of nn-warn put the article name on the creator's talk page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. I meant the name of the person added, for example if someone added "1989 - Abcde Fghij, the best person in the world", a Google search for "Abcde Fghij"" would include the Wikipedia page. Removing the article title from the speedy deletion templates would be much crazier ... "the article you created has been marked for speedy deletion" would be confusing. Perhaps it would be easier to not index user talk pages. This wouldn't be much of a loss for me as when I'm trying to find an old conversation, I usually have a good idea who was in that conversation. Graham87 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
See proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) #Stopping search engines from indexing the user talk namespace? Graham87 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot - years?

Hey. I think you're the one responsible for keeping the day pages clean. What about the year pages? Now, this will seriously eat into my edit count if you do it, it's surprising how many people in their 20's think the date of their own birth is a notable event, however, why not extend the functionality a little? Franamax (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi :) I'd hesitate to say that I'm responsible, but yes, I'm considering asking about extending it to the year pages. Don't expect anything immediate, though. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark symbol

I would argue that even in that case, it was not necessary. We already said it had a trademark symbol, there's no need to show it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You may certainly argue that (though I disagree), but you do have to admit that just removing the symbol and not the whole quoted chunk left it pretty silly-looking. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny for PseudoBot

(barnstar here was moved to PseudoBot's talk page)

Thank you! Pseudomonas(talk) 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA IV

Why have you reverted my edits to GTA IV and put a warning template on my talk page? I referenced all the information I added... If this is an accident then I'll revert it back; please respond. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad - restored now. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I screw up like that sometimes :) I don't suppose you know how to de-nest the navigation box at the bottom of the page? - It's rather annoying me. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donny Long

Thanks for the revert. I suspect that the Donny Long page will be the target of vandalism for some time. James W. Ballantine (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wow, every page i check, you're there ahead of me!

Dlohcierekim 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 and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Heh, I guess I've found a use for being a fast reader... Pseudomonas(talk) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Rollback

Hiya. I've fulfilled your request. If you require any help with using the tool please feel free to ask. Full information can be found at WP:RBK. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fang

I noticed you reverted my edit on the article "Electric Chair." Well, Boner Records was the record label that released the single, so thruthfully it isn't vandalism, but I could see how it could look like that. Just wanted to clear that up.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Thanks for being understanding :) Pseudomonas(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks God there are people on wikipedia like you reverting vandalism!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the section below, what goes around comes around :) Pseudomonas(talk) 13:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I wish to apologise unreservedly for blocking you

Er... my finger slipped... um... well, it was meant to be the ip you had reported... Please be comforted by the thought that you are only the second editor I have done this too... or is it three? Er... I really am sorry. Mark. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I hadn't even noticed, since I was away from the keyboard for a bit :) Pseudomonas(talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for reverting that insultation. Is that vandalism? --Mark Chung (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I reckoned so. If they'd been abusive while also making a point about Wikipedia, however trivial, I'd have left it for you to read - as it was it wasn't helping anyone Pseudomonas(talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total Carnage

Don't suppose you could help keep an eye on it? That anon IP has really got a bee in his bonnet over the page and has been repeatedly vandalising it over the past few days. Thinking of turning myself in for violating 3RR! Cheers. Geoff B (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, which they should have had long ago with that much activity. If they do it again, they're liable to be blocked. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PseudoBot

Great bot...got to edits ~4 times before I was going to revert...nice job. SpencerT♦C 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now 6 edits...this is ridiculous. SpencerT♦C 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar for Pseudobot

Hey, I wasn't quite sure whether to put the star on PseudoBot's page or to put it here and then let you move it :S so I just added it to your bot's page.
Anywho, here's a little something for you as well....


The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
For making a bot that can remove vanity from date pages, (seriously, you have no idea how much Wikipedia needed this one...) I, J.delanoygabsadds, hereby award Pseudomonas this Wikipedia Bot Builder Award along with a hearty handshake and a cookie. J.delanoygabsadds 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoygabsadds 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.
Thanks! Glad to help. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Recent warning

You warned me about the canine reproduction page, i merly created a link to make the 'normal way' (which i deemed too loosely a statement) transfer to ejaculation. If this was a proper warning, i accept it and apologise, but if it was a mistake because of the vulgar terms involved, could you please remove it?

Thank you! Matt (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks! Matt (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, it was a slipup on my part. Pseudomonas(talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Coolest Kid 50

Hi Pseudomonas, I have removed your uw-lang warning from User talk:Coolest Kid 50. First, this user is already indefinitely blocked, so there is little point in warning them over this issue. Best, Gwernol 15:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you think the message was intended for you, but you have not vandalized an article, it is possible that you may have made an edit that is not actually vandalism, but might not have fit Wikipedia's

You have vandalized an article, it is possible that you may have made an edit that is not actually vandalism, but might not have fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines of including fact.

Can you please explain why you blanked a User page to assert your own ideals of 'slogans'.

The Images used were uploaded under share-alike with contributer note - removal of the USER page must include the removal of images uploaded under license, and the license includes ability to edit, and modify images, or its license.

Perhaps, do you think you could suggest changes to the words that seem to affect your mind to the point your brain is thought it was required to take kind of action of removing images of criminal acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoConviction (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See comment at your talk page - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] excuse me

i was trying to correct some vandalism 86.87.93.85 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thankx

thanx for improving the KNM page. But like u just saw, people start wars and just wont leave it neutral. Im actually not a critic, fan or member of KNM but the name calling was annoying, so decided to do something. Do u know whats required to lock an article? Joeblckw (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Locking an article can only be done by admins (I'm not one), and I really don't think that this article is a candidate for being locked. Hopefully if we can get some good references then people like me (with no connection to the subject) will be able to expand and tidy and review, and it won't be a war situation. I'd advise you to be careful about name-calling on talk pages, too - it doesn't help to calm the situation. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

pesudomonas, I am a little confused as to why you would delete an external link about an organization. The website it was linked to is meant to expose a religious party that is heavily involved with politicians, and people with shady connections. It is a website with proofs and sources. There was never any name-calling. Yes, a lot of the material was against the KNM. But it was referenced to the scholars and sources for every matter that was talked about. If there anything supporting the KNM, then people are welcome to post it. But, as i fear without realising it, you have actually made it in favour of KNM because you deleted everything against it. If you want the article to be balanced, you must have both views. That is plain common sense. I am undoin your revision to post the link of the website. If there are website supporting the KNM, let anyone post it. There is room for both views.

--Almalabaari (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

hi, another thing FYI, on the site you deleted, there is a tab called - promoting qaradawi. Qaradawi is an individual who supports the suicide bombers among other things. KNM is linked to this individual and promotes him on their sites. By deleting this link, fewer people will know things as this. --Almalabaari (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well FYI, i dont support knm or anyone but im against radical fundamentalists. ALmalabari does not want women to gain education, photography of any kind is prohibited, there should be no inter faith dailogue and so on. This orgainsation called knm is the exact opposite and have been trying to revolutionise the backward society. Also i estimate that they have at least around 10 million followers, and who are now rapidly gaining internet access. So the only reason why i dont additional inputs is not because i care about them, but because i dont want youngsters to fall prey to extremist recruits. So its funny how hugely important this issue is but very few people realise it. And to almalabari , i respectfully understand your disagreement, but i think that articles or websites put in a bit more diplomatic never the less critical would be appropriate in a wiki entry rather than sites that look like 9/11 conspiracy theorists! Joeblckw (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My warning

Please be more careful with whom you warn. It appears you've warned me for an edit I didn't make. I'd appreciate if if you removed the warning you left on my talk page. Thanks ——Ryan | t • c 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, and sorry! Pseudomonas(talk) 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Date page edits

Hi - Can pseudobot look for additions that are links to disambig pages, e.g. this edit? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It already does - look at the talk page of the editor who made that edit. That one only got through because PseudoBot won't revert the same editor twice. Pseudomonas(talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAAAA

[1] Soooooo close, but you beat me... :( Rock on! :D Thingg⊕⊗ 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pseudobot on non-date pages

You know, I actually said to myself yesterday that it would be awesome if Pseudobot would do that. I think the idea of a template on the talk page is good. You should also create a category (like Category:watchedbyPB) to add to the talk page to trigger Pseudobot to go to the page as well as the template. That way, if any vandal figures out what is going on, they will remove the template and hopefully miss the category or vice versa. J.delanoygabsadds 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough idea, though frankly if any vandal wants to get round it, they can just get an account and wait a few days, or for that matter, try it twice, since PB doesn't revert any account or IP more than once. I'm less worried about the technical details (there are loads of ways to do it, all easy to implement), and more about the political ones - I think that this is likely to be controversial in a way that PseudoBot isn't - there's a longstanding consensus about no-redlinks-on-the-date-pages, but other pages don't have that level of agreement. There will always be the odd case where a non-linked entry is appropriate, and we don't want to bite people over those. What happens if someone slaps a template on an inappropriate page? I guess we could fix it so that it takes an admin to label the section (by having the registration of the article on a protected page), but it'd still need guidelines, which might be more regulation than a lot of people want. Are there any types of pages where such a consensus exists for named sections? If so, I could try and get the bot approved and running for those articles, adding more as the demand arises. I predict opposition, though. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll chime in here to repeat my suggestion to do year pages. They get lots of "Jamie was born"-type additions. Franamax (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It already does year pages (as of yesterday), though only the sections headed Births and Deaths. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work, I haven't seen one come up yet on my watchlist, else I'd already have been here with kudos :) I have another suggestion for the patrol keying discussed above (well, two): if the bullet entry has a reference, your bot could skip it and let humans decide; and another alternative to templating or cats would be a sub-page in the botspace listing article-name/section-name pairs. This would be you/admin-edit only and could of course be defeated by changing the section names, but that would be an easy giveaway. Franamax (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
see eg [2] Pseudomonas(talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's good stuff, as I said before, it will seriously hit my edit count, but the sooner we clear the frivolous edits, the better! Another good thing with the bot is that I've noticed that the editors putting their own name into year pages are almost never serious vandals, so I and others can relax a bit about having to follow those ones up. All-round excellent and thanks! I would suggest though that you do provide a little more in the edit summary, something like "un-wiki-linked article doesn't qualify for listing here" (but much better than that!), maybe "no valid link in entry"? The more communication that any bot provides, the happier we can all be! Cheers! Franamax (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
And quick follow-up on my post just above, either the template or bot-subpage could carry a scan key, ie. 0=insist on bluelink, 1=accept bluelink or inline-ref. That would allow additions to lists where a ref conveys the notability rather than the bluelink, for instance a university chancellor who does not (yet) have an article. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unconstructive?

Maybe it was. But it was still true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertechnician (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)