User talk:Werdna648/Archive/Archive 03

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

.NET Bot Framework

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework.Your request has been approved, and you should soon receive instructions as to accessing the source code of the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework,Werdnabot (DNBF)/T\C on behalf of Werdna648T/C\@ 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! What about my request? Is anything wrong with it? CodeMonk 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. CodeMonk 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

...

I never personally attacked anyone. Check the history of the page you claimed I defamed. --24.83.101.207 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Please delete all your personal shortcut pages. Shortcuts are only for public pages in the Wikipedia namespace. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would prefer that I move my .NET Bot Framework page into project-space, I can do that. However, this shortcut is useful for some needing to quickly access the page on my .NET Bot Framework. Thanks, Werdna648T/C\@ 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If you get other users to let you add it to the WP namespace, that's great. Just bringing the shortcut stipulation to your attention. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

your RFA

I see you have your name on the list of users who would like help with their eventual RFA. I'm here to help. after reviewing your edit count, contributions, and behiavor, heres my advice before we make you an RFA:

  • you have almost 2000 edits, i suggest you wait until you have 2000 to RFA, i myself would like 2000 to get my vote. (though im not too strict)

thats about it! everything else looks good, user page is nice, talk page is in order, you seem to be a nice kid. and youve been here long enough.

if you would like help with forming the actual RFA page, contact me. (i'd be happy to nominate you.) Vulcanstar6 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The only other thing I'm mainly waiting for is a bit more mainspace contribution, as that's what a lot of people are after (So I'd like to get the remaining 200 or so edits in mainspace.) Werdna648T/C\@ 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, thats a good idea, if you still want help when you have the edits, you know where to find me. Vulcanstar6 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

I've replied to your note on the mediation committee page. Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean or anything; it's just that I wanted to make sure that you were checking back every so often. I'll re-judge my vote after you reply to me. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different! You started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHTMLRedir.Exploit that was never completed. I listed it on today's AFD page. Ral315 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC Woggly

I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Woggly due to harassment which is clearly evidenced by her in a harassment campaign that she has organized on her talk page User:Woggly 4 On this page one can witness how accusations of using sockpuppets were never confirmed before she accused me of these actions and others. Werdna - can you please provide advice on this matter through e-mail. Thanks, Joel IsraelBeach 01:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. and this affects me... how? Werdna648T/C\@ 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

HRE RFA vote

Hi Werdna, I wonder whether you might not try to phrase your support for HRE's admin in a slightly less offensive manner. Yes, I suspect that there are "racists" voting in that RfA. But some of them are supporting and some opposing--dividing, naturally enough, on whether they see HRE as their champion or chief enemy in the ongoing edit wars in Balkan articles. Most voters surely have honest concerns. (I know I have.) Perhaps you regard them as mistaken, which is fair enough--that is why you are voting to support. But you should assume that they are made in good faith. Best wishes, --Bucketsofg 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at those who are voting Oppose, rather they were directed at the people who caused the necessity to have the RfA restarted - and hence sabotaged the entire RfA - as many of the Oppose voters are voting oppose because of the controversy. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been following this from the start, and the disruptive elements (who caused the restart) have been equally divided between support and oppose. But even so, isn't the way you've phrased your support likely to inflame things even more? Bucketsofg 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I make no apologies for my position. Racially intolerant people are a liability to, and have no place on Wikipedia. Werdna648T/C\@ 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect you to apologize for it, not least because it is something that everyone agrees with (even the racists who you direct it at: most of them won't admit to being racist). But I guess we'll just have to disagree about this. Bucketsofg 15:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for my position aside, my wording was a little uncivil. Next time I'll try wording a little better. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wording aside, I think you need to explain your reasons or they won't count the vote as valid. --Asterion talk to me 21:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

best wishes with the rfa

Hi, Werdna. I thought I'd drop by and give you a fuller explanation about my concerns. Please, please, please, don't take this personally. First, as I mentioned yesterday at the time, I thought "stupid racist" was way over the top. I appreciate that racism and other kinds of prejudice gets under your skin; mine, too. But reacting the way you did, in the circumstance you did, was more likely to start a flame/edit/revert war than help encourage both sides to find a neutral edit. That is something that I think is important in an admin, and the fact that you don't seem to agree makes you seem not ready (yet) for an adminship. But that is only my opinion, and I am only one of the hundred or so who are going to participate. I won't support you, but I wish you the best success in your candidacy and (if you succeed) adminship. Bucketsofg 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your vote to neutral, in the light of my response to MasterofPuppets' question? Werdna648T/C\@ 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it some thought and may well do that before the rfa closes. Bucketsofg 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Knox

Hi Werdna, please be careful of what you or your bot label vandalism (or Rvv). My last edit to the page was to get back to before 210.84.57.29 started his or her spurious edits (10 of them). In the process a genuine link to E Company and a full stop in "Lt. Col." may have got caught in the wash, which is my error but hardly vandalism. Also if Tony Higgins really is a "journalist in felines", please cite your source as it sounded pretty sus to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the diff - I'm having trouble remembering what I've reverted on that article (it's pretty regularly vandalised). I don't think I stated that Tony Higgins was a "Journalist in felines" - however I do know that the careers advisor at that school is called Tony Higgins. Werdna648T/C\@ 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've investigated further, and it's an imposter. I'm having them blocked. Werdna648T/C\@ 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Good show. Yes, it is regularly vandalised, which is one of the reasons that I (and others) keep an eye on it. Wasn't suggesting that you put the feline ref. there, simply that by reverting my rvv it was back in there with the appearance that you accepted its veracity. For the record, this is where our anonymous friend 210.84.57.29 introduced it [1]. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA

I added a question to your RFA; if you could take the time to answer it, please do, and try to do so to the best of your ability. Thanks. _-M o P-_ 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

I saw your comment and made my decision. Since this is effectivly my last moments on Wikipedia (I'm quitting) I would just like to say good luck on your RFA. I know I have had my share of difficulty on RFA (5 times to be exact) with problems of civility and such and I wouldn't want you're try(s) to be nothing like mine.

A tip for your RFA: Don't ask users to change thier vote because you answered a question. It is seen as poor judgement to ask other to change your vote on your own RFA. Uusually users will go back and make it a stronger oppostion previously than before if you respond to it. (you're lucky I didn't do that ;-)) Another tip is don't respond oppostion listed there, even if the vote is in bad-faith. If it truly is as bad as you think it is, someone will intervene. Peace be with you.. -- Moe ε 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just finally managed to upload a new version of the .NET Bot Framework. It now has support for getting the links to a particular article, using the Editor.GetLinksToArticle(string Article) function. All functions are properly documented using XML documentation. Many of you had issues with opening the ZIP file - these issues have now been properly resolved. The new version can be found at the usual URL. Thanks, Werdnabot (DNBF)/T\C on behalf of Werdna648 [[User talk:Werdna648|T] /C\@ 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

.NET Bot Framework Update 1

Hi there, I've just finally managed to upload a new version of the .NET Bot Framework. It now has support for getting the links to a particular article, using the Editor.GetLinksToArticle(string Article) function. All functions are properly documented using XML documentation. Many of you had issues with opening the ZIP file - these issues have now been properly resolved. The new version can be found at the usual URL. Thanks, Werdnabot (DNBF)/T\C on behalf of Werdna648 T/C\@ 02:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

I hope you'll reconsider joining the Mediation Committee later, once the HRE furor has died down. Continue to make good edits, and I suggest that you take some sort of mediation case, either formally or informally (or even just on your own- attempt some dispute resolution), and I'll have no reason not to support you :) Good luck on your RFA as well. Ral315 (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BRFA

Hi there, I've noted my endorsment for a one week trial run on the Bot requests for approval page. Once a week trial run is completed, please show us diffs of the bot doing as it should. Also, i've noted aswell as another user, that restirction to talk namespaces would be best to prevent abuse. If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers --lightdarkness (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


help

how do I get your bot to archive my talk page? ILovEPlankton 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add the following code to your user talk page, where you want the message to be displayed. {{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=(age in days after which sections will be archived)|target=(page that you want to archive to)|dounreplied=(add any value here to ignore whether or not the section has more than one timestamp, i.e. has been replied to)}}. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit unsure about your explanation of the last parameter, dounreplied. Is it optional? And my understanding of what you've said is: if dounreplied is set, the bot will only consider the timestamp of the first comment in a section, whereas if the parameter is not set, the timestamp of the last follow-up will be considered. Is this correct? Kimchi.sg 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. The idea of this parameter is to disable a feature I've introduced, in which the bot will not archive a section that has only one timestamp, which generally means only one message (and the message has hence not been replied to). Some users tend to reply on the other person's talkpage, or ignore some messages and may wish to disable this feature. The parameter was intended to be optional, but a bug in ParserFunctions has caused me to require it to be provided, with no value. Werdna648T/C\@ 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


May the Force be with you.

Dear Werdna648/Archive/Archive 03,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


New task for Werdnabot?

Hi! Is your bot game for another archiving job? The archive section of Template talk:Did you know, which is humongously big at the moment, needs to be archived to Wikipedia:Recent additions. In conjunction, Wikipedia:Recent additions will also need archiving to [[Wikipedia:Recent additions ''x'']] as necessary.

This job was once done by AllyUnion using a bot whose code can be found at User:AllyUnion/did you know.pl, but hasn't been done for more than 2 months now. (The "rules" for archiving DYK are also on that page.) If your bot is up to the task, we DYK chaps will thank you very much! Kimchi.sg 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly up to the task. Later on, I'll take a squizz and write some code, then run a trial job. I'll show you the diff, and possibly the code, and you can let me know what you think. Werdna648T/C\@ 15:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both (Please answer the message)

We both asking King of Hearts about RFA Nomination. Who's wants to do it? ForestH2

I don't mind either way, but keep in mind he probably wants an established user to do it. That probably rules me out because I've recently (last few days) failed an RfA. You might want to ask somebody else who's pretty well-established to do it. Werdna648T/C\@ 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course no one wants an IP adress nominating you. I'll have to think about who I want to ask to nominate him. ForestH2

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service.
This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome!
Note from the editor
As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership!
  1. Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel.
  2. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect.
  3. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct.
  4. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop.
  5. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture
20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to make sure the user has been indef-blocked. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Checking

Is my talk page set up for your Bot? Betacommand 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user talk page was set up, but incorrectly so, for archival. The first error is mine, and is a syntax error in the template. The second error was yours. You do not need to add the "Age" parameter in brackets; and the bot had trouble recognising this. You'll find that your User talk is now set up correctly to be archived by Werdnabot. Cheers, Werdna648T/C\@ 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

.NET Bot Framework

Hi Werdna, any chance of approving my request any time soon? Thanks, jaco♫plane 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Werdna648/Archive/Archive_03"