User talk:Krellis/Archive/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Don't Bite The Newcomers 2 Vandalism reversion 3 National Parks Barnstar 4 Your edit to Hawthorne Heights 5 Re: AWB Approvals 6 Your edit to IP over Avian Carriers. 7 WP:UW 8 Marfan Syndrome Article Graffiti Attacks 9 Tim Tebow 10 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 11 Well then... 12 User_talk:64.4.104.2 13 WP:UW 14 Fenway Park Linkspam 15 Vandal warnings 16 electrical tape 17 Hi 18 Removal from the Allies of WW2 Page 19 nope 20 RE: substing 21 AIV helperbot 22 Vandal 23 Bot update 24 Nicholas II 25 Recent AIV report (User:Shenme) 26 WW2 27 USAF Article 28 sorry dude 29 User:Jjjjjjj7625iayhetrwqiuwb gss7663ggggggggh 9 30 class="sortable" 31 IP address Vandalism 32 PS 33 New bug 34 Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_<#> 35 Re: World War II Mediation Case 36 Something new to add to AIV helperbot 37 question about helperbot 38 Strange things on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index 39 3x bug 40 Thank You! 41 WP:UW future? 42 Great work on the bots 43 RFA

Don't Bite The Newcomers

Just a friendly reminder not to bite the newcomers, due to the comment you left at User talk:Cavsluver013. We should assume good faith, and the user did revert their own test and should be thanked for that. The {{test-self}} template is a good one to use in such a case. I know vandalism is a pain, and I've fallen foul of this myself in the past. Anyhow, thanks for the good work you are putting in against the vandals, and since no-one has said so yet, Welcome to Wikipedia! Ollie 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and sorry about inappropriately replying on your talk page rather than here. Maybe I need to get away from the computer for a while... —Krellis 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about where to put this, but no probs!! Ollie 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

I'm not exactly sure how anti-vandalism tools work, and it's certainly not as if I'm chastising you, but here, you reverted info that was correct to a previous version that was incorrect. If possible, be a bit more careful. Happy vandal fighting! -- Kicking222 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I think the problem there was that I caught the user in mid-edit, and it looked fishy - specifically, because they changed the name and TV show information in two different edits, but I only saw the first edit when I was considering it to be vandalism. I'll endeavor to keep a closer eye out, and thanks again for the heads-up. —Krellis 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

National Parks Barnstar

		The National Parks Barnstar
		Awarded for your creation of {{National Historical Parks of the United States}}. Nationalparks 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll proudly display this on my user page! —Krellis 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Hawthorne Heights

Your recent edit to Hawthorne Heights (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: AWB Approvals

Thanks for alerting me that, I have pressed save page but apparently a timeout or something like that kept it from updating. I have now properly updated the checkpage and yes you are one of those who are approved. Happy editing. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to IP over Avian Carriers.

Hi,

Just so you know, I reverted your last edit to IP over Avian Carriers, as it took a functional link and replaced it with a redlink.

—Ruakh_TALK 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm surprised that the April 1st RFC redirect existed but April 1 RFC didn't, since the manual of style dictates that the latter is the correct format for describing a date while the former should not be used. I've created April 1 RFC as a redirect to the same location as April 1st RFC, and unless you feel strongly that it should be otherwise, will change it back at some point. —Krellis 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I hadn't realized the MOS specified a date format, but I guess it makes sense that it would. Thanks for replying. —Ruakh_TALK 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I didn't know about that MOS section myself until I started doing typo fixing with AWB and looked into it, since I wasn't sure that changing "1st" to "1" all the time was really correct. Thanks again for letting me know about the revert and the redlink. —Krellis 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Marfan Syndrome Article Graffiti Attacks

I have reviewed the history of changes on the Marfan Syndrome article over the past few weeks and have noticed an occasional graffito is written into the article. The vandals perpetrating these attacks usually do it without logging in, thus leaving no contributor trace. I recommend that whenever any of the responsibly acting contributors log in to do some more editing, first look at the most recent edit. If it is an anonymous edit, just revert the article to the previous edit before doing more edits. Leeirons 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's no consensus to protect an article from anonymous contributors, then it's not your place to decide to revert all anonymous contributions to it. The decision to revert an edit should have to do with the contents of the edit, not with who made it. (That said, it's very reasonable to take a closer look at anonymous contributions to an article that attacks anonymous vandalism; the problem is just when you revert edits without looking at them.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how this conversation wound up on my talk page, but I agree with Ruakh - blind reversion of anonymous edits isn't the way to go. Looking at the edit history for Marfan syndrome, I've only edited it once, reverting obvious (non-anonymous) vandalism. Leeirons, endeavoring to clean up the article is absolutely a good idea, but, again, as Ruakh points out, simply reverting all anonymous contributions is not the way to do that - many legitimate contributions to articles on Wikipedia come from anonymous users. I'd recommend that this discussion continue on Talk:Marfan syndrome rather than here on my talk page, if there's any need to discuss it further. —Krellis 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not entirely sure how this conversation wound up on my talk page": I assume Leeirons posted this message to all past non-anonymous contributors to Marfan syndrome; I only saw it because I never got around to un-watching your talk-page after our earlier conversation here. Sorry about that! :-P —Ruakh_TALK 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Not a problem, your point was certainly a valid/important one to make. :) —Krellis 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim Tebow

Thanks for the alert; in fact I'd rolled back an edit by an on., who'd removed a chunk of perfectly reasonable text with no edit summary. Only after wards did I notice that the text in question was duplicated elsewhere in the article, so I rolled back my own rollback. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Diverging diamond interchange Extra 300 Learjet 60 General Electric F404/F414 Manitoba Provincial Highway 75 Manitoba Provincial Highway 52 C-46 Commando Trust-busting FB-22 Manitoba Provincial Highway 29 Winnipeg City Route 135 Propeller De Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter South Fulton Parkway State Road 263 (Florida) C-9 Skytrain II Reliable User Datagram Protocol Route 99E Business (Oregon) Savoia-Marchetti SM.79

Cleanup U.S. Route 97 U.S. Route 48 (1926) Ground attack aircraft Merge Classless Inter-Domain Routing List of numbered Routes in Oregon List of major freeway systems Add Sources Route 8 (Connecticut) Route 159 (New Jersey) M16 rifle Wikify Autologous JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Police v City of Newark Expand Tupolev Tu-14 State Road 60 (Florida) Interstate 96

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for beating me to the punch twice in the same minute. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Krellis 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:64.4.104.2

This user has continued vandalism even after your warning, at Mongoose--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported the user at WP:AIV for the attention of an administrator. Thanks for the heads-up. —Krellis 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW

Just saw your edits, deletes are much better that way, keep it going. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fenway Park Linkspam

You just considered my addition to "Fenway Park" vandalism. My site provides an up to date schedule of events taking place at Fenway Park. How is this spam? Other for-profit sites are linked on this same page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.145.62.189 (talk) 22:06, January 25, 2007 (PST)

Vandal warnings

Hi there Krellis!

I noticed you warned User:209.173.24.179 on his/her talk page about his edit to B-36B 44-92075 which i reverted (diff). It's probably a good idea to only warn vandals after your own reversions (unless it's clear the other reverter isn't going to), because it can be confusing as to how many times they've been warned in the past. This is especially true since a lot of vandalism fighters use semi-automated warning features, which would give two warnings for one piece of vandalism if someone else had already warned them. Keep up the vandal-fighting though! Cheers. ConDem^Talk 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When manually reverting, that is exactly what I do - I only warn after I've verified in the history that I was the one who performed the revert. That particular revert/warning was done through VandalProof, which doesn't do perfect checking to make sure it reverted before posting the warning. I generally leave the warnings in those cases, as I've found that many of the editors who remove vandalism don't issue warnings anyway, and it would be counter-productive to remove the warning if the editor who did the actual revert wasn't going to warn themselves (either because they simply didn't intend to, or because they'd seen my warning and avoided issuing a duplicate). I try to watch out for dupes when it happens, but, to be honest, in many cases, the user/IP in question has so many un-warned incidents of vandalism that they "deserve" an extra warning (or ten) anyway. It's not a perfect system, by any means, and, regardless of any of that, thanks for the heads-up, and you keep up the good work as well! —Krellis 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, hopefully someone will improve the system soon anyway! ConDem^Talk 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

electrical tape

why is this considered nonsense? I saw it on a tech-help video....?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.197.244 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

If what you say is true (with regards to this edit), then the video you were watching was not worth the tape or DVD it was recorded on. Your edit clearly contradicted the article, and was, quite simply, false. —Krellis 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's on this video http: // www youtube com/watch?v=brdmnUBAS00 ... at the 1:08 mark. Is he wrong? 68.36.197.244 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to watch the video, but if he says that electrical tape is so named because it conducts electricity, then, yes, he is wrong. It is called electrical tape because it is used in electrical work, and its use in electrical work is as an insulator, the opposite of a conductor. —Krellis 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I am impressed with the way you are dealing with vandilism. Keep up the good work. --Thunderinfo2 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I try to keep my watchlist clean, and other pages when I have time. I seem to have managed to pick a couple of particularly vengeful ones this morning, but luckily Kuru has had my back :) I see that you're relatively new to Wikipedia, and interested in RC patrol - welcome, and thanks in advance for your contribution to the fight against vandals. If you haven't been there already, WP:VANDAL and WP:RCP are good places to start with that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask - I'm still relatively new to this stuff as well, only having started a few months ago, so I know what it's like to get started. As always here on Wikipedia, be bold, and jump on in! —Krellis 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I will ask if i have any questions. I just can't stand vandlals on this site just ruining everything for everybody. You have quite a bit of edits so thats good. I've got some but nothing important. —Thunderifo2

--Thunderinfo2 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal from the Allies of WW2 Page

--I propose the removal of this from the "original Allies" section: "Poland never officially surrendered to the Third Reich and the Polish government in exile after 1939 continued the Polish contribution to World War II on several fronts with hundreds of thousands of members in the Polish Army in France and UK, as well as the Home Army in occupied Poland. The Soviet Union however, did not recognize the government and in 1943 organized the Polish People's Army under Rokossovsky, around which eventually it constructed the post-war successor state the People's Republic of Poland in 1952." Why go into so detailed about Poland here? This can be explained more properly in a specific article about Poland during the war effort. Here it just seemed tacked on. At the same time, I could give a whole history about Free France, and state how France was split into two governments, the de facto Vichy government which formed the armistice with Germany, and the de jure Free French government which was the continuation of the French Third Republic, in which case it is TECHNICALLY correct to state that "France" did not formally surrender, but that the split de facto "French State", as in "Vichy France", did. My point is not to add that, my point is to show that this quotation on Poland's continuing efforts following 1939 should be listed elsewhere for organization purposes. I received a message from someone complaining of this edit when I removed it from the article, so I'm explaining here WHY I think it should be removed.

(I'm not a member of Wikipedia and I don't know the formal code used for things so I'll just state that this was posted at 1:08 AM Pacific Standard Time (US with daylight savings) on 11 February 2007) -Johan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.74.92 (talk) 09:09, February 11, 2007 (UTC)

nope

i refuse to discontinue my constant vandalism of wikipedia. Bye. o yea and seriously, vandalism is extremely necessary to the wikipedia process. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.158.227 (talk)

RE: substing

Thanks for the tip :) I've been SUBSTing in everything now. Anything else I could be doing differently/better, please let me know :) guiltyspark 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV helperbot

Well, since "teckwiz" is having problems with his ISP I think you can take over HBC AIV helperbot3. Please follow the steps I laid out in User:HBC AIV helperbot/installation, I imagine on linux, many of these steps will already be accomplished. I am pretty sure my code is portable to linux, it should be. I will e-mail you the username / password for the account. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. The code worked just fine, I sent you an e-mail back with a couple of questions, but it's up and running at the moment (so far your instance has beat it to the punch though :)) —Krellis 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And the first diff from my instance, looks like it's working without a problem. —Krellis 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

If a user completes the same vandalism within a few minutes after numorous reverts can they be banned? -Vcelloho 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is generally to give users a chance to respond to warning messages before they are blocked, that is why there is a sequence of warning templates to issue. Many users will stop vandalism after they receive a warning or two, because they are just trying to have a little fun. I know it can be difficult, but you need to try to continue warning the vandal as they continue their activity, and if they continue past a final warning, then it is appropriate to report them to WP:AIV. Again, I would recommend that you read thoroughly through WP:VAND, WP:CUV, and WP:BLOCK for more information on these policies. —Krellis 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot update

Hi, I have updated the bot to include the feature of marking IPs that match certain patters[1]. You will need to update your source before your bot works again. You also need to install the Net::Netmask module. To do this, run the program called ppm which came with activestate perl. Inside that program type install net::netmask. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. —Krellis 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I posted the exact some modification to the source code just after you did, resulted in a silent edit conflict. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that's funny. This diff looks like the fix works, I was about to update the param string to require 1.9.2 and re-enable it, but saw you beat ME to that one. —Krellis 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow you are fast. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just lucky, I happened to notice you were playing with the template, saw your edit summary, looked up the parser function documentation I had up the other day when I wrote it initially, saw the example working that way, and poof :) —Krellis 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas II

Quit editing an unsubstantiated allegation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.26.181 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Replied at length on your user talk and further discussion solicited on the article's talk page. —Krellis 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent AIV report (User:Shenme)

Thanks, I'm always lagging trying to find the 'right' way to do things. Though I noticed, after your message, that the page has no mention of the right script to follow, in particular your helpful direction. Do you know if the lack of instructions is on purpose? (As in, to discourage the too easily upset?) Shenme 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, very nice - placed where ready for cut-n-paste. Thanks. Shenme 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WW2

Thanks for giving me the reminder. Like you, I don't really mind about this. But things seem to be heading in the right direction with this article. Previously, there was all sorts of mention of Nazis, Japs and the like. This seems to have toned down now. Also, the intro was a mess, and this is also more structured. Most events seem to be covered, and the participants have a mention too. The great thing about Wikipedia is that common sense seems to prevail in the long run. It gives me faith in humanity. Wallie 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I agree completely, improving the article is what matters - it just seemed like the particular discussion of the infobox was just going around in circles, and over and over again, without much new getting into the discussion. Hopefully the RFC will help change that, at least getting some additional opinions into the mix. We'll see where it goes from there. —Krellis (Talk) 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

USAF Article

Hello, I noticed that you reverted an edit I made to the info boxes on the USAF page. For some time now there has been issues with people reverting edits regarding the info boxes on that page. Could you please visit the USAF talk page to discuss this situation? Thank you. Bburton 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I reverted this edit, by an anonymous IP contributor, which had nothing to do with the infobox. It was an unsourced claim that the USAF is the "...2nd most technologically advanced (after the RAF)air force...". That said, I question whether that statement violates neutral point-of-view either before or after my revert, since technological advancement is something that is difficult to quantify factually. I reverted it to the former statement of "most technologically advanced" because the nature of the edit looked like POV pushing, and there was no reference to that supposed fact in the RAF article. Regardless, I don't quite see how my revert has anything to do with the infobox discussion you referenced. If you could clarify what you mean, I'd be happy to try to address your concern. —Krellis (Talk) 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry dude

you need to learn to take a joke. word of advice, i have access to over 1000 computers, and with IP-spoofing capabilities, so there's not much you can do to stop me or the others. take your lumps like a champ, smellis. i poke fun at myself all the time. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.140.48 (talk)

Lol, would you like me to semi protect your user page or talk page? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, semi on the userpage would be great. I'll let 'em rant in talk for now if they want to, we'll see if it gets to be a problem. Never know when an IP I revert might have a legitimate complaint to make, don't want to prevent that. —Krellis (Talk) 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I gave you 10 days semi protection on your user page, that should be enough time for this fella to get bored. When these things really get out of hand you can semi-protect your talk page, and have a clear link to newcomer pointing to a sub page, like User_talk:HighInBC/unprotected_talk_page(which by the way has a history full vandalism). ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'll let you know (or just use WP:RFPP) if he really comes back and starts causing trouble. —Krellis (Talk) 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I like how he says "IP spoofing" when I think he means proxies. As far as I know, if you spoof your IP for real it is outgoing only, because the return message goes to the spoofed IP. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't lend a lot of credence to the threat when you don't know the right terminology to use :) —Krellis (Talk) 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it struck me as kind of ludicrous. Over a 1000 computers? Someone's dreaming...either that or he is intentionally going out of his way to look stupid. I also like how he said "the others." If you trace that IP address, it goes back to USC, so he is probably some pimply-faced attention-whore in a computer lab with too much free time on his hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovdahl (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Jjjjjjj7625iayhetrwqiuwb gss7663ggggggggh 9

User:Jjjjjjj7625iayhetrwqiuwb gss7663ggggggggh 9 was originally posted at WP:RFCN. I noticed that I couldn't see his block log by clicking on his contribs links and asked why that was. BigDT told me that the reason I couldn't see it was because the 9 wasn't supposed to be there (see here). Sorry for any problems I may have caused, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

class="sortable"

Dam, I never would have thought of that. I didn't even know that existed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed either - I actually found it entirely by chance. I was browsing the village pump trying to decide where the right place to announce the bot would be (once the username is changed and we're happy with stability and whatnot), and came across an entry that mentioned it. Help:Sorting has the details of it, though I didn't actually read through most of it (yet), just stuck the class on there and it Just Works(tm). It does break the color alternation if you change it from the default sort order in the actual code, but that's pretty minor. I may add a small cell border to make the cell delineation a little more clear. Now that I have the template in its own wiki page, that's much easier to change. —Krellis (Talk) 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I love Just Works(tm) technology. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IP address Vandalism

Moved to its own section —Krellis (Talk) 02:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Krellis: sorry about the confusion, but I was fixing/reverting the dumb comment on the IP Address page at the same time you were. Sorry 'bout that.--vclortho^Talk 19:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Don't worry about it - it's good that you're trying to clean up vandalism, something that always needs to be worked on. IP address is on my watch list, so I noticed the edits, and saw that your revert didn't re-add something that the vandal had removed, so I reverted a bit further. I knew you were trying, and that's what matters - keep up the good work! —Krellis (Talk) 02:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS

The header has been added and Ill change over the user6 to vandal tomorrow. let me know when you get the bot up for that page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Do you mind if I change one or two that are already blocked from user6 to userlinks/vandal just to make sure it's working? —Krellis (Talk) 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and made a slight tweak to the parameter string on your page and changed one entry to test, HBC AIV helperbot3 should now be servicing User:Betacommand/Log. If you change existing entries to use vandal instead of user6, make sure you do all of them at once, or the bot will remove the others as comments - it treats anything that's not one of the templates it expects (or an opening HTML comment) as something that should be removed. I've got your log on my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it. If there's any problem, just changing RemoveBlocked to "off" in the parameter string (or removing it entirely) will cause the bot to leave the page alone again until we can get it resolved. —Krellis (Talk) 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New bug

never fails, once yer done testing, something new happens. Those exponential doubling bugs are nasty, good thing you were quick to stop it or it would have been filling the foundation hard drives like nuts. hehe I love the single minded determination of a perl script gone amuck. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The problem is that the end of the comment block got wiped out entirely, and there's some code that kind of expects it to be there. I'm figuring out exactly what happened now, and should have it fixed shortly. —Krellis (Talk) 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Qxz[2] suggested a sanity check where if the bot is going to add more than X amounts of reports, it considers it to be unlikely and decides not to do anything till a more sane answer comes to mind. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea, I'll put that in there too. —Krellis (Talk) 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I already have similar code then decides not to do anything if the result would be a page blank. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I started implementing this feature a long time ago and stopped when I realized what it would involve, all the little angles. I think you've almost got it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tested the old code in my sandbox, verified the doubling behavior. Tested my fix, first one wasn't perfect, second one did the trick. Also tested the suicide pill - I set the limit arbitrarily at 50 reports. What it will actually do if there are more than 50 reports that appear to be inside the instruction block is remove them all, but it puts a big warning in the edit summary - [3]. I could probably make it just not try to reset the instructions at all in that case, but if I do, it will keep repeatedly running into it until someone notices and fixes, and not have any way to tell anyone (other than logging a warning message to our consoles, which won't necessarily do much). Does that seem reasonable to you? —Krellis (Talk) 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks plenty reasonable. This will need to be a required update. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, since you and I are both around and about, I'll just require this new version, and Alphachimp's instance will just have to be on the sidelines until he's available to update it. Shouldn't be a big problem. I'll post the code and let you know shortly. —Krellis (Talk) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Version 2.0.1 posted, let me know when you're updated and I'll require it and turn FixInstructions back on. —Krellis (Talk) 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_<#>

How did you get Talk:Cannabis/Archive index to include both Talk:Cannabis/Archive_<#> and Talk:Cannabis_(drug)/Archive_<#>? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't... it's a bug :) It's a problem with regex anchoring, because of the way it's reading the cache, once the version with "(drug)" got cached, it read them in when creating the index for the other one as well. I've added it to my TODO list to fix that, but I've also added that I'd like to allow specification of multiple masks to allow for this to be done intentionally if so desired (which would also fix the notability (web) vs notability (website) issue). —Krellis (Talk) 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, an undocumented feature hehe. I see. I like the idea of multiple masks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bug is fixed now, so until I get multiple masks written, no more combined index, sorry :) —Krellis (Talk) 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple masks is written and appears to be working, so when you get back from your wikibreak, Talk:Cannabis/Archive index should be showing you combined results again. Enjoy! —Krellis (Talk) 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: World War II Mediation Case

Frankly, I'm not sure how I ended up on this list. I made a case for France several weeks ago at Talk:World War II and spent a few days refuting forum-bred amateur history—trop d'honneur—but was not consulted or advised of this mediation request. I don't want to scuttle the process by failing to agree, but, once again, Blum's roaring at me from the grave not to get involved. It would probably be best to remove me if at all possible. Albrecht 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really don't believe you have a place in the case, I can remove you from the list - I simply created the list of parties by looking through the debates and pulling out everyone who seemed to have significant contributions, without attempting to make too much judgment about level of involvement. —Krellis (Talk) 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks and good luck. Albrecht 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Krellis. Oberiko 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Pacific War because the dispute over there is how they keep deleting the Chinese Communist Party as a participant in the war, the same way there is a dispute on the World War II page regarding the list of participants on the Allied and Axis causes. Whatever list is agreed to on the main World War II page should mirror what is shown on the Pacific War page in terms of participants, minus the European and African theatre participants. --Petercorless 09:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Something new to add to AIV helperbot

I didn't want to bother HBC, so I'll bother you instead :) Some users have expressed a desire to use the new section button (the + sign) on AIV to get around edit conflicts. At present, the bot doesn't handle it particularly well (it interprets level 2 headers as comments underneath the previous report) — might be an extra case to add. See discussion here. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I replied over there, and I'll see what I can come up with in my sandbox. —Krellis (Talk) 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the fact that you can use the new section link w/o actually specifying a section name was pretty neat. I'd never tried it before, but I guess it makes sense that it works. No one has replied to my big answer over there (hope it wasn't too confusing - probably just everyone out having actual lives on a Friday night), but I think that's probably the best overall solution - no extra work, no annoying headings getting added to the page, no new stuff for the bots to need to do. —Krellis (Talk) 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

question about helperbot

does it handle when a post is defined as {{vandal|1=Vandal}}? _→AzaToth 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case it would check if "1=Vandal" is blocked, so it would not handle that well. It does not interpret the template in the same way as Wikipedia does, it expects the text after the | and before the }} to be the vandals name. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that we could probably change it to make it try to parse template syntax, but arguably it is better this way, because as it currently works, while {{Vandal|I=blahstupid}} won't be displayed properly, it can be removed by the helperbots if User:I=blahstupid is blocked. If they tried to parse full template syntax, that wouldn't work. And I can't say I've ever seen anyone using {{vandal|1=username}} in the time that I've been paying attention to AIV. —Krellis (Talk) 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We could specifically check for just the "1=" case, and if the username starts with "1=" check both the full version and the version with "1=" removed (to prevent a problem with a username that actually starts with "1=")... I'll try to look at that later today. It won't be super flexible, but it would work for these particular cases. —Krellis (Talk) 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange things on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index

for example is the title "hey J1|\/||}0 " not "encoded", also, the page looks "strange" in my browser also. _→AzaToth 19:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, I hate those types of bugs. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the double bar breaks the table. I'm sticking any sequence of one or more |'s or !'s inside nowikis, that should do the trick, I think. I particularly dislike this kind of bug on enormous pages like Jimbo's, since my browser really doesn't like loading 600kb tables. —Krellis (Talk) 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, that won't work, because we allow wikilinks in there. I guess it will have to be specifically sequences of two, then, and I'll have to match against the new row "|-" as well, to be safe. —Krellis (Talk) 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it should be better now. Looks like it's rendering properly to me, now. Let me know if you notice any other strangeness. —Krellis (Talk) 19:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we not do so the default sorting is based on, for example last reply, as the JS sorting is unable to sort by the specified timestamp. _→AzaToth 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's really a defect in the sorting code. To work around it, I could make the first/last/duration amounts also available in raw epoch time/seconds format, then you could cause them to be used as the sort key by doing something like <span style="display:none">%%first_secs%%</span>%%first%% (%%first_secs%% doesn't actually exist at the moment, but hopefully you can get the idea). To do that I'm going to need to make a couple of slightly larger changes in the code, so it might be an hour or two before it's available. (I'm really setting my own standards too high by fixing things so fast... :)) —Krellis (Talk) 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you display the dates YYYY/MM/DD HH:MM:SS it should sort properly. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I may just do that too. —Krellis (Talk) 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed the date format to YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, which should allow it to sort properly. I've also made three new variables available (not tested quite yet), %%firstepoch%% and %%lastepoch%%, which are the same as first and last, but expressed in epoch seconds, and %%durationsecs%%, which is the duration, expressed as raw seconds. If sorting does not work as desired with the new date format, it should be possible with the display:none trick and the epoch seconds versions (which will sort properly as integers). —Krellis (Talk) 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3x bug

All of the headings on my current talk page are shown 3 times. If you sort User talk:HighInBC/Archive index by Archive link you will see what I mean. I really like how the bot is coming together, it barely resembles what I had going. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I ran into this with my own talk page earlier. Basically, during testing, sometimes I kill the script when it has downloaded a new copy of the page, but hasn't deleted the old one yet. That caused me to wind up with 3 copies of your main talk page cached, and it just blindly generates from anything in the cache as if they're unique pages, so it multiplied those entries. I've deleted the duplicate copies, but the script is completely and utterly broken right now (I'm finally re-writing fetch_pages), so it'll be a while before it gets updated with only single entries. Luckily, you're the only one affected by it at the moment :) —Krellis (Talk) 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

fetch_pages, now what I did with that was a pile of spaghetti, good luck organizing it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Organize schmorganize, I just re-wrote it :) I've gotten rid of the gotos, now I just have to make it actually work again :) —Krellis (Talk) 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Krellis/Archive has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page flank speed, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm always happy to correct spelling :) Thanks for your contributions, too! —Krellis (Talk) 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi Krellis,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the bots

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your on going work on improving bots on Wikipedia. Thanks for saving everybody time and effort. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've had a lot of fun playing with them, so it hasn't been like work at all :) —Krellis (Talk) 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for your support with my RFA! I'm pleased to say it was successful! Thank you! SGGH 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)