User talk:Werdna/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Happy Birthday

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Werdna/Archive 1 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy (belated) Birthday, Werdna! Oddly enough, mine was the 29th. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your essay

User:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion - I couldn't agree more. I will try and mention this essay in a few places - maybe you could post it at WP:VPT (I did notice a developer once disparaging that place as "useless", with hopeless questions, or something, which seems to me to typify the problem you have highlighted). I've posted some specific diffs at User talk:Werdna/Comments on main page deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've now mentioned your idea and essay here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Werdnabot

Hi! I'm sure this is a silly question but I'm trying to work how to set your bot up to arcive my talk page. I'm trying to follow these directions, but I'm hung up on |target = ./Archive {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} as I'm not sure how to set up where my talk page archives to, as I haven't done it before. Can you explain it to me in baby steps and or just tell me what it would be for my own? Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. It's no longer active, and hasn't been for about a year. I am considering starting it up again, though. — Werdna talk 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the info. I'd just seen on someone's talk page that it was the bot used and I was curious Travellingcari (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wernabot not working?

I'm not sure the bot is working, I have things on my talk page from November that haven't been archived. Did I do something wrong to the code? --AW (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot is inactive. — Werdna talk 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, well that'll do it. --AW (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:AR report

A tag has been placed on Template:AR report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pics

No idea. I can't remember who took them unfortunately. Witty Lama 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that Werdnabot (talk · contribs) & Werdnabot (irc) (talk · contribs) have not edited in a very long time. Are these bots still active and if not, would you object to them being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the Sydney Journal

Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and the other sydneysiders who came to the meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAG

Hey, I wanted to let you know, that I've closed your request to join BAG as successful. Welcome, and thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux AfD

An article that you created for a linux distribution has been included in the following AfD debate [1] your participation is welcome.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. Sorry about that.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're back!

A warm welcome ;) Anthøny 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

My talk page at User talk:John Carter doesn't seem to be archiving lately. Please advise as to what I should do. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Werdnabot

Hi. I've been using Werdnabot to archive my talk page for some time now; but it no longer works, the link on the tag is dead, and I can't find how to update or tweak the bot. Please help! RolandR (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The links in the box are still red. How can I implement them? Is there a guide for use of the bot? RolandR (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the bot has now archived my current page; but in so doing, it appears to have lost, or overwritten, my existing archive! I don't want to lose this -- how can I recover it? RolandR (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The older archive now appears as well. I don't know whether this was a result of an edit by you, or if the bot caught up; thanks in either case. How do I get the index /list feature to work? At present, only one of the many archived sections is listed. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StormBot

You have approved it, but it is not flagged as a bot. Could you please do so or get someone else to? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RyRyBot

I think my bot is ready for trial. Shall it be approved? I will test it on my own userpage with the nobots/bots template.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy?} 20:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was a request for withdraw. I will ask again in the future, probably for a diff purpose. Cheers.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot documentation

Is there any documentation in existence for the reincarnated Werdnabot yet? I was hoping to try it out. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest serving living United States president

Regarding your revert of my move . . . I totally agree that my title was not tenable, but the point is, neither is the current title. It simply is unclear to many readers, as evidenced by the talk page and others to whom I have shown the article, that the meaning of this title is opaque. It is, to be frank, a stupid phrase, probably borne out of an interesting adolescent discussion of presidential trivia, but which, when placed into the form of a Wikipedia article, is simply incomprehensible. The virtue of the title that I moved it to is that, as long as it was, it was nonetheless totally clear to what I was referring. That is no longer true. Please consider either moving it back, or else starting an AfD, as this clearly lacks notability. Cheers. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Death

Please note the comments on accepting the spelling and grammer errors, I assumed you were maliciously attempting to falsify facts. Sorry for any misunderstandings. In order to keep the facts straight, once again here are the consistant errors in your edit:

1. Kand is NOT Valor's last name. 2. Christian Death 1334 is trademark infringement and misleading to the public. 3. 1334 is NOT related to the Black Death, as left in your edit, historically incorrect. if you researched it, you would find thet the Black Death was 1347-1350 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valorkaend (talk • contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I am more than happy to help with the article. We have to keep our eyes on it -- Valor Kand, lead singer of "Christian Death", is repeatedly attempting to post his own obviously non-neutral take on the Christian Death story, under the user name Valorkaend (I know it's him -- you can see him saying so in one of his edits in the history section). Besides being an account by one of very persons involved, which Wikipedia discourages, it is also mercilessly riddled with spelling, grammar and formatting errors, to the point of being completely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Quick editing

No I'm not using a bot, I'm mostly just added stub tags for articles that on one glance you can tell qualify so it's a pretty quick manual exercise. Crickettragic (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automated replacement

Discussion moved to other user's discussion page

[edit] G'day

G'day esteemed person who has expressed interest in Sydney based meetups at this page (I hope that's the correct wording for the formal greeting!!). You may have heard that Australia is to have its very own 'chapter' of the Wikimedia Foundation - and further, there's a meeting coming up to discuss / enact the chapter's incorporation (details here). I'm afraid that I don't know too much about the details of what this entails, other than having a private hope that we might get a secret handshake, and maybe cheap coffee at wikimania (this is a poor attempt at humour - I'm sure that the Chapter's do great work, and it's a good thing that Australia is to have one).

If you're interested in meeting up this weekend (the set date is the 20th) - or later, then please do head over here and sign up, or make a comment at the talk page... the drive to create the chapter has largely come from another town in Australia that I'm afraid I haven't actually heard much about.. and anything they can do.... right? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot documentation

Is there any documentation in existence for the reincarnated Werdnabot yet? I was hoping to try it out. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Werdnabot? It seemed to stop functioning in January. Is there a faster, better, cheaper version available? Please advise! I can't get bloody MiszaBot to work! --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot works. See {{Werdnabot}} — Werdna talk 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot doesn't just work, it RULES! Thank you, thank you for bringing it back! Begone MiszaBot, welcome back wonderful Werdnabot! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Assistance is Needed

Please give this thread a quick glance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self-harm. If you could phone the authorities it would be appreciated.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drinks and a wiki chat?

G'day sydneysider - fancy a 'not quite a meetup but a few drinks' sort of thing? - We can chat about the new aussie chapter, the price of eggs and have our very own 2020 Wiki Summit! - or just sink a couple of cold ones and gass bag about the good 'ol days of wiki, when an editor could get some repsect (not a typo)! I've suggested something here so take a look and sign up if you're up for it... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent reverts

Hi! I'd like to thank you for your recent attempts to revert vandalism. However, one of your recent reverts (see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horny&diff=208133198&oldid=208132998) didn't quite do the trick, as you reverted to another previous attempt of vandalism. It's good that you are reverting such acts; however, please ensure you look at where you are reverting to in the future! :) Thanks again for your attempts. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audi Navigation Plus

Hi - Something strange happend, as it appeared that a huge amount of content was deleted. I have reverted your edit anyway, as a radio "tuner" is different to a radio "receiver". A radio receiver can have one, or more integrated tuner circuits, as is clearly shown in the cited reference. (The earlier RNS-D had just one tuner, whereas the later model has two).

Thanks for looking at the article anyway, kind regards. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Could you please block this user, who you have already forewarned, because of this edit[2]? Thank you!--Clickclickdecker (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was merely responding to a question from Kuru. Kuru asked about the relevant site and I just answered question; that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my reversion was a mistake, so I reverted it. — Werdna talk 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What reversion are you speaking of? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The same one you complained about. — Werdna talk 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was your mistake in accusing me of doing something that had nothing to do with me. I don't even know what reversion you're referring to. Please do me the favor of explaining. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I just saw that you made some other error (2 sections above) regarding an incorrect reversion to some vandalism. The writer above is right - you need to be more careful. You have wrongly accused me of vandalism (as you admitted, thank you) but you say above to me "The same one you complained about" - geez. I guess, by "reversion", you mean that you got rid of the accusation somewhere? Please comfort me on this - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicast

Prompted by: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Wikimedia_Radio

Do you have the backups?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling change

Is there anyway you could tell me which edit you're referring to - If it's the Stephen Hawking ones you'll find that 1)they were originally spelt paralysed and were changed against policy and 2) Stephen Hawking = british... If different edit please tell me which oneMcVities (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to the Stephen Hawking edit. Thanks for pointing out that he is British, I didn't realise this (and saw an edit that involved changing English varieties, which is usually annoying. Please consider using the edit summary feature of the MediaWiki software to let other editors know what you're doing, so other editors don't make the same mistake. Thanks, — Werdna talk 10:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

This is a message to prove that I can edit pages thanks to Werdna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.115.42 (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bandwidth test example.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bandwidth test example.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to genetics

Werdna, sorry to revert your edits to Introduction to genetics. I appreciate your efforts. Let's work on it. But first we have to make sure it doesn't get deleted. We'll discuss this on the afd page. Nbauman (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help, please!

Please could you take a look at User talk:West one girl and User talk:Major Bonkers; in each case, I've tried to install Werdnabot (in the first case by simply adding the template, in the second by trying to be clever by tweaking the code), and it's simply not working. Any help gratefully received. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Had a look. It should work with just plain {{werdnabot}}. I'm checking my logs now. By the way, don't subst it. — Werdna talk 09:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it up. It was a minor code error. Should work again for the next run. Thanks for pointing this out to me. — Werdna talk 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - thank you for fixing it! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salting

I thought the creation-protection case-insensitivity was a bug which has now been fixed? Happy‑melon 10:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bug, a feature! I checked on my home wiki, which runs trunk. — Werdna talk 10:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of IP Proxies

Someone mentioned that you were the one who wrote the code for IP-exempt.

I have an idea for something, but before I present it for discussion among the community, I thought I would ask if it's "possible".

Right now there is a concern about IP-exempt being used for anonymity reasons/to bypass proxy blocks.

It's clear that this is something that needs close scrutiny.

So at first I was going to suggest that the exemptions be split. But upon reflection, a block is a block, and so being exempt from a certain kind of block would be no different to the software.

So what I'm wondering is this:

Could a tool called "blockproxy" be created, such that the normal "unblock" and IP-exempt would not affect/bypass it?

To go along with it, of course, would be the tools unblockproxy and IPproxy-exempt.

(Note I really don't care what the tools' names are. Just using these for reference.)

This would make the logs easier to follow, and also possibly place each tool in the hands of those who would need to use it (and less likely to abuse it, as, as others have noted, there have been vandal admins).

Who would get the tools could be discussed once implemented, obviously.

If implemented, all open proxies could then be blocked, and those who might suffer for it (such as those from China) can request IPproxy-exempt. And should the IP no longer be a proxy, it could then be unblocked by use of unblockproxy.

And this is just Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I can see where this might be useful to others using this software, who might have different editing policies. (I can think of quite a few examples, as, I would guess, could you. : )

So, would this be possible? - jc37 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Adding a timestamp "bump".) - jc37 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The code for blocking proxies already exists in MediaWiki — it just needs a bit of modernisation. The proxyunbannable right is available in place of ipblock-exempt. My favoured implementation would include automatic blocks for tor exit nodes, and a checkbox on Special:Blockip to allow a block to be marked as a proxy block. — Werdna talk 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I think I understand, but let me ask a couple questions for clarification.

So how would these interact with each other?

For example, if proxyunbannable is applied to a user, could they still be rangeIP blocked?

Can the "appearance" of the checkbox be customised to only appear if the user has certain user-rights - such as CheckUser - similar to how certain checkboxes appear in preferences for admins, or how certain extra options appear on Special:SpecialPages?

And if so, can that be done for "unblock" as well?

Would there be a separate "block/unblock proxy" log for transparency?

Thanks again : ) - jc37 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The interaction is the same interaction you get when you try to edit the main page while blocked. Or when you're both blocked and globally blocked. The error message displayed gives all the reasons that you can't edit the page — a proxy block would be just one of them (alternatively, the same behaviour as when you're both blocked and rangeblocked could be implemented). proxyunbannable would prevent only proxy blocks. Yes, the checkbox could only appear if the user had the right permissions. It would probably be done in the regular block log. Note that I can't really give specifics here, as there are a few things I want to implement before I start playing with this proposal, and there would need to be more discussion than a few back and forths between a developer and a user on a user talk page somewhere. Likely, a discussion would need to be had between whoever implemented it (possibly me), and a number of other developers, probably including Tim Starling and Brion Vibber. — Werdna talk 06:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That pretty much answers my questions. - jc37 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bugs

I've seen it elsewhere said that just creating a bugzilla entry isn't enough, it's apparently necessary to "bug" (pardon the pun) one or more developers, especially on irc. If that's not personally an option, what then?

I ask because I've had a "bug" in limbo for some time (11499 - essentially having the namespace filters drop-down boxes in various places (watchlist/contributions/whatlinkshere/etc.) to include an option for "only all odd namespaces" (all talk) and "only all even namespaces"), and am wondering if that was my mistake : )

What would you suggest? - jc37 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive prod

You appear to have neglected to include a deletion reason with your prod on Northern Ireland Virtual Tissue Archive. Could you fix that? Thanks. Klausness (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the prod from the article, since you haven't added a deletion reason. Klausness (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't get to this before you did. I'm not going to re-add the prod tag yet, but I'm keeping an eye on it (it originally came as a copyvio of a press release by the company. — Werdna talk 05:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I should have waited a bit longer. It does appear that this may be non-notable, though I'm not quite sure. I see that someone's just deleted the maintenance templates, but I've restored them (though with Refimprove changed to Citecheck), since they seem appropriate. Klausness (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Wish you all the best for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:STBotI

You seemed to have approved this bot for some of its functions [3] [4]. I was wondering if you could come and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_again. In particular, for images uploaded long ago with fair use rationales, this bot should;

1. not mark them for automatic deletion if the fair use rationale exists but isn't in the bot owners preferred format.
2. not make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
3. not leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
4. not have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid' [5].

--Duk 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ;-)

Glad to see that your RFA is off to a good start. Good luck, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there, just a few more days until you're an admin!! ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Machine readable rationales

The link you gave me require that fair-use media be machine readable as fair use - this is accomplished with our fair use copyright tags. It does not say that the rationale for that media has to be machine readable. As a member of the BAG group who approves fair use bot applications, it's unacceptable that you don't understand this. I'll wait to hear your reply before taking this to ANI. --Duk 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotl

Hi Werdna, it seems my breath is no longer being wasted and the conversation is moving forward. Let me repeat that the reason I'm bothering you is that I saw your name at the approval checkmark for STBotl, and the bot's owner was uncooperative. I don't know the hierarchy or workings of the Bot Approval Group, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, let me know, please.

First, here are some quotes from WP:B;

• In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users.
• Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.

So here are just a few small things (to start) that STBotl could do better:

1. STBotI failed to identify a fair use rationale here. That is a mistake. Compare it with this image, also a written rationale instead of the template rationale, where the bot succeeded. The bot should have left the same set of templates on both examples, but it didn't. Please note clearly, I'm not saying that the rationale in the first example is sufficient, it isn't, it lacks an article link, even though the copyright tag has a rationale and article link. I'm merely saying that the bot missed the rationale all together and that is a mistake. Also, regarding the prior section on your user page, please note that this bot does seem able to identify non-templated rationales (usually).
2. STBotI at this image

   a) bloated tags: Between the edit summaries and the image page and user talk tags, the editor has to read over 3,000 characters - that's 500 words - to uncover a single small WP:NFCC#10c link. That's more that twice the size allowed for Wikimedia board candidate statements! [6] Even experienced users will have trouble deciphering that they merely need to add an article link to the rationale. Fewer words, more clarity, let the actual problem, WP:NFCC#10c, stand out and be visible.

   b) misleading edit summaries.Instead of "This image has no valid rationale", which will trip up and slow down most users, the edit summary could read something like "This fair use rational needs an article link to be valid".

   c) poorly written tags: the template on the user page in particular should have a section heading that clearly identifies the problem instead of mindlessly shouting "Disputed". How about something like "An image you uploaded needs its rationale updated"

Please note that in addition to cooperative bot owner behavior, the Bot Policy places a high emphasis on accurate edit summaries and good communication. STBotl currently fails all three of these requirements. --Duk 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Transferred to Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. — Werdna talk 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Werdna for following up on this. I had no intention of generating drama and am sorry that was the case. I hope bot owners will keep this episode in mind when they interface with us 'stupid' 'idiots' and perhaps things will go a little smoother next time. Still hoping you can address the machine readable thing loud and clear, but everyones probably clear on it regardless.

I will not block this bot again due to our history and will do my very best to avoid it. Thanks again. --Duk 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the successful RFA Werdna. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved Andrew! Have fun! :) Al Tally ^talk 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - it was a pleasure to nom you! If you need any help, let me know :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yayyyy finally :D naerii - talk 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, Werdna. :) Here's your new T-shirt to go along with your new tools. Good luck! Acalamari 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who contributed. I was overwhelmed with the support (186, just shy of WP:200), and I am glad to have received feedback from those who opposed or who remained neutral. — Werdna talk 04:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am late... but still... Congratulations on getting the mop -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deservedly so. And very pleased for ya! Best! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lauterbach Datentechnik

I'm curious as to why you converted this article from a speedy delete per CSD A7 to a PROD. The article itself practically disclaims notability - "The company itself is still somewhat of a family workshop, with the two brothers Lothar and Stephan Lauterbach as its directors." It seems to be a clear A7 speedy delete case. Just wanted to understand your criteria for converting an article like this. Thanks. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

$65 million US, and a thirty-year history seems reasonably notable to me. I wasn't entirely comfortable deleting it speedily, so I figured a prod would get the job done just as well, if a little later. — Werdna talk 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Effervescenth30

Good block either way, but I believe this is actually the same user as Wrosew. The following users and IPs have been making the same vandalism edits in the last few days:

• Simmondse (talk · contribs)
• Wrosew (talk · contribs)
• Effervescenth2o (talk · contribs)
• USfan101 (talk · contribs)
• 76.88.20.82 (talk · contribs)
• 66.75.141.4 (talk · contribs)
• 75.36.43.216 (talk · contribs)

And now we have Effervescenth30 (talk · contribs).

I'm not sure if I should do anything with this information, but I thought I would tell someone. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:WP:RFPP

Hey Werdna, congrats on the adminship! I just wanted to let you know that when you complete requests at WP:RFPP, you need to use the {{RFPP}} template and all of its derivatives (click the link to see what I am talking about), not {{Protected}}. Take a look at what it looked like compared to the fulfilled requests [7]. If you have any questions about your new tools or any other processes, feel free to ask. Good luck with the new tools! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, the reason we use {{RFPP}} is twofold, one the bot that archives the requests needs it present to move the request. If there is no template, the request will just sit there until it is manually removed. Also, these templates allow for other admins to quickly see and understand what other admins have done. See I dont know if your comment was a Note: or a Declined, and whether I should process the request or not. If it was just a comment, then just write {{RFPP|n}} Your comments, same thing with a decline, just do {{RFPP|d}}. This really helps out. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yo

Hi, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE Battle of Media, was a great mistake, and I remade another article, which is the accurate one. So it was a great mix up, and if your an administrater or not, ask someone or yourself to delete this article, I GREATLY APPRECIATED, so thank you, goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna 3

[edit] Werdnabot (possible) issues

Hi! I see you have revived your archiving bot. However, I'd like to point out that from whatever observations of it I made so far I can already draw two conclusions that are possible issues:

1. User talk:Brews ohare/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1/Archive 1 - need I say more? :-P {{werdnabot}} probably shouldn't be parsed when it's actually part of a thread's content...
2. User talk:John Carter‎ gets archived to User talk:Warlordjohncarter/Archive May 2008 - if the bot indiscriminately moves threads to wherever it's told to, a subtle from of vandalism would be to mess up the configuration on many pages (just to mix things up or to bombard one user with megabytes of spam).

Could you look into it? Regards, Миша13 21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot blocked

I don't know if you're aware of problem with Werdnabot's last edits. You may have stopped it already, in which case I apologise for the unnecessary block - but I wasn't sure when it was next tasked to run. Do unblock it yourself once fixed. WjBscribe 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the broken archives (see Special:DeletedContributions/Werdnabot). Seems Brews ohare added the {{werdnabot}} template to their talk page below the first section break, causing Werdnabot to archive it along with the rest of the content, which then caused it to archive the archive page, and so on. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BRFA question

I ran a group of edits under User:ShepBot that seems to have evoked a little controversy. As per the message on {{unsigned}} I was running template substitution on it. The original BRFA listed template substitution; I then went back and stated I would only use templates listed on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User talk templates. Since there are such a huge number of edits to be made with just this template does a new BRFA need to be put in? Thanks for your help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you're busy..sorry for bugging you. But do I need to file a new BRFA? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)