User talk:Delldot/Archive 11

adolf eichmann's photo(cont)
hello again delldot.i totally agree with you that "it would be the original picture's copyright, not that of the website it happens to be on, that matters." besides,as i said at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Eichmann.jpg&action=history :regardless of website's policies no one can claim "copyright" to original government property. 'll revert the photo's info to its original detail.is this ok with you??Grandia01 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for your follow-up.yes i highly doubt that there's anything wrong with that image either.it's very clear that it's government property.nah,some people just have to make things complicated...Grandia01 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review - Thanks
Thanks for the very pleasant Editor Review, it would appear from what you've said that you think I'm doing an OK job, I apprecaite you taking the time. I have absolutely no intention of making an RfA, seems like it would require much more time than I can give at present. Thanks again for the responses. -- The.Q (t) (c) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're doing great. I didn't assume you wanted to do RfA, but I usually say something about it in reviews because a lot of people are interested in that. Peace,  delldot   talk  21:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
I would like to help, I will keep searching for vandalism to erase it.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.13.124.36 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thank you!  delldot   talk  22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
How do you know when to archive user talk pages? Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

plant neurons
Hi, this was the first time for me to modify Wikipedia. :) In the future I'll keep such comments to the discussion page. I am a biology master's student and I have never heard about plants having neurons either. I'm sure it was an accidental fluke for the author of the sentence and it wasn't supposed to be in the plant paragraph. After stumbling upon it in the article, I just had to make a snarky/sarcastic comment about it. Just so other people wouldn't miss out on the fun. :) 195.50.223.242 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! delldot on a public computer   talk  02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of deletion?
Since that Westchester article is rated low on the importance scale and it's constantly the victim of heavy vandalism, do you think it should be deleted? Just a thought. Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. :-D Happy editing,--Padawan Animator (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry, okay? We cool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerunner (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you cut it out :-) delldot   talk  12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks & Protection
If you're up, we're having yet another IP sock attack at Spyware Doctor, this one from Special:Contributions/59.101.202.232 makin the same edit and spewing profanity in his edit summaries. May I request temporary semi-protection for this page, that would seem to end this struggle tonight and let things cool down. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jinx! delldot   talk  12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks! While I've got your ear, we're got another admitted sock/vandal strafing our user pages at Special:Contributions/Alexan1, every edit gibberish and vandalism. I appreciate the previous help, thanks again! Snowfire51 (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Curses! Beaten to the block! :-P delldot   talk  12:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

andy.rofl
Dear delldot, you have sent me a message accusing me of vandalising wikipedia by changing andy.rofl 's page. This is not true. Andy is my flatmate and I did it on his behalf. xo Rowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.186.121 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a clear case of vandalism. delldot   talk  12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
I've been offered to be adopted by an experienced Wikipedian! Happy-happy joy-joy, happy-happy joy-joy!--Padawan Animator (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool cool! Enjoy :-)  delldot   talk  01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GAR for Self-surgery
Thanks for delisting this. Geometry guy 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, sorry for wasting the time with it in the first place. delldot   talk  01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aww!
Thank you :-) - It's always a pleasure to help keep wiki clean :-) Take care, friend! Scarian Call me Pat 15:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * :D delldot   talk  15:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Writers strike
I split the page, That is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertweak (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. I'm sorry! :-(  delldot   talk  16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was splitting it because it was too big, Im not used to the Wiki tags and im used to my own system of just saving back and forth but im sorry for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertweak (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * :-) delldot   talk  16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

lol thx, yeah I reported the cue bot but how do I undo the deletetion so its back to the split so people can add to it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastertweak (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would discuss it first delldot   talk  16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Concussion
Sorry for my delayed response. I think every peer review of medical articles needs to be announced on WP:MED, because many members don't seem to be monitoring the peer review page. I certainly don't, although I certainly should :-)

Before I head over to the PR page, my warmest compliments on your neurotraumatology work. When updating stroke I was struck by the large number of related articles from your hand (e.g. the intra- and extra-axial haemorrhage articles) and the care invested in them. Keep up the great work. JFW | T@lk  18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot   talk  22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
Do you contribute to the Uncyclopedia as well?--Padawan Animator (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response.--Padawan Animator (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

East Lake Academy
Why did you delete the article East Lake Academy? I used to attend the school and found it was gone and want to know why. KC109 (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

request for help-robert ley's photo
hello again ms delldot.hope you're doing well.delldot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert_ley.jpg it says that the image is considered for speedy deletion because a fair use rationale is not provided,why should anyone provide a fair use rationale to an image/work which doesn't have a copyright??can you please help clear this confusion??thank you :) Grandia01 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * your answer: Hey Granadia. Sadly, the copyright policy is very strict, so absence of copyright info does not mean that it's not copyrighted, and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to keep the image.

the website's terms state that only non-copyrighted images are allowed to exist on that forum website.so im pretty sure it doesn't have a copyright.is there anyway to bypass this free use rationale request??Grandia01 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * on second thought,do you think that it would better to use a license template that shows that the image's copyright has expired??Grandia01 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for your continued support delldot.i guess i'll change the license once and for allGrandia01 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * changed license and indicated that it's common property thus it has no copyright attached to it.please reviewGrandia01 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot   talk  07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

your answer: As I said, you have to actually be able to demonstrate for sure that it's not copyright

please see the websites term's at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962 section F-4 "copyrights" that shows that images posted there can't/aren't copyrighted.robert ley's photo has been there for approx over a year without any problems.please reply if you have further concerns.hope this is proof enoughGrandia01 (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot   talk  07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i don't mind taking the fair use route,but am i allowed to take the fair use option when the image isn't copyrighted??or is this just your reccommendation so that i can be on the safe side??can you please clarify for me??Grandia01 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

just to let you know delldot,i simply followed your advice and took the fair use path.thank you so much for all your timeGrandia01 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. delldot   talk  11:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the thanks actually goes to you ms delldot for all the advice you've given me.thank youGrandia01 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

hi delldot.just to let you know,my image has been kept after all.your advice turned out to be most useful.thank you so much :) Grandia01 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination withdrawal
Hi.

I'm not sure how to withdraw my nomination from Articles for deletion/Susana A. Herrera Quezada.

Is it enough to just replace

''

''

with

''  ''

or is there another step? As always, thanks for helping.

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RAD
Any more? Fainites barley 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. Fainites barley 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spending unbelievable amounts of time and energy improving the article! delldot   talk  08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it beats working I suppose. Fainites barley 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

YOR.com
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article YOR.com, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of YOR.com. Argyriou (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, all I ever did was revert a cv on it.  delldot   talk  04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
thanks Delldot and i will start makeing editsJon Crane (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

concussion
thanks for your note -- will work at getting over to the concussion page you invited me to consider.

i'm a psychiatrist-clinical epidemiologist. i work in a military setting and there's been much discussion of the impact of mild traumatic brain injury (concussion). i'm a bit of a johnny-come-lately to concussion but i've done a good bit of research (see tomorrow's new england journal of medicine for an article on mild traumatic brain injury in army troops after participating in the iraq war for the work that introduced me to concussion/mild traumatic brain injury). consequently, i know how to assess whether a statement is backed by the cited literature and i also know my limits and wouldn't go beyond them as an editor.

best, chuck engel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlescengel (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yippie! delldot   talk  10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments at Peer review/Concussion/archive1. Hope they help. Eubulides (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! delldot   talk  08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delldot, I've only been able to do a quick review. Busy offline, and other promised favours are stacking up. Hope that is useful. If I thought the article needed a lot of work, I'd let you know. From my quick read, it looks good. Be aware I've no medical training and haven't had time to check your facts, even to the limited extent that I'm capable of. Colin°Talk 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, very helpful! Thank you! delldot   talk

another help request
hey delldot.at the photo of adolf eichmann is nominated for deletion(for no solid reason)and no one seems to bother following up on this.can you please straighten things up??Grandia01 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  06:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
Hello. I think you're awesome. That's all. In general, but specifically I thought your note to SmashTheState was very thoughtful. 24.229.203.46 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aww, thank you! :D delldot on a public computer   talk  01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
ty for the welcome :) --Lupus Firemane (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * np :) delldot   talk  20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can you help me?
I am trying to work on the Crohn's disease article. I came to the title Diagnosis and there is a big space there do to the pictures on the right side. I tried but couldn't get the spaces removed so that it looks like it should. Would you please make this repair for me? I would really appreciate it and I can look at the history and see how you did it so I know how to, hopefully, the next time something like this shows itself. Thanks a lot, and you can respond here or my page, it doesn't matter since I have you on my WP:watchlist. :) -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're trying to do. Do you want to group all the pictures together? Can you explain more?  delldot   talk  13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you go to the Crohn's disease article you will see that under the title 'Diagnosis' there are quite a few space between the title and the content.  The pictures are all to the right now but I think, not sure though, that maybe the pictures weren't closed properly or something along this line.


 * Also, I have been working on the article this morning and some of the information is incorrect or maybe outdated. I am going to try to work the article more if time allows it.  Please take a look at the article and I think you will see what I am talking about in the Diagnosis section.  Gosh, I hope it's not just me seeing the big gaps of extra lines. ;


 * On a different note, someone put a picture in the Pyoderma gangrenosum article that I thought you would be interested in  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I didn't see it in firefox, but I tried it in internet explorer and I see what you're talking about. Not sure how to fix it, but I think it's due to the other picture in the above section, peeking down into the diagnosis section. I think I saw something about that somewhere, I'll try to find it and fix it.


 * Good job for working on fixing the inaccuracies. That's one of the most important tasks you can do!


 * Yeah, I saw the PG picture! Ouch, poor guy!   delldot   talk  14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So. Looked around, gave up, asked on IRC.  Here's what they said:  the whitespace is from the image in the above section dipping down.  You can put the images from diagnosis into the above pathophysiology section, and they'll dip down into diagnosis.  However, then if someone has a different screen width, they might show up under pathophysiology.  Another option would be to move one of the images to the left; either the one under pathophysiology, or at least the top one under diagnosis.  A third option would be to add some info or otherwise lengthen the pathophysiology section, so it's longer than the image (e.g. by breaking it into more paragraphs).  None is really that great of an option :( I'd go for just not worrying about it for now, hopefully this problem will work itself out as the article evolves.  Like I said, it's only a problem in internet explorer anyway.  Peace,  delldot   talk  14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured out an easier way to make the space look more appropriate. I put more spaces in the pathophysiology section to have the picture in that section and not in between. It does two things, it tells people the one section is a stub and needs more added and it allows diagnosis to look normal. What do you think? I don't know much about pathophysiology, I can't even spell it "). But I think this might help the article when it gets attention to have the stub extended more, at least I hope so. thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that was a great idea, much better than the ones I put here. You might want to put a hidden note there (using ) so someone using Firefox doesn't come along and go "huh?" and undo it.  delldot   talk  20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you, when you have time, take a peek at what I did? I have never used   before so I don't know if I did it correctly.  It's not hidden, I mean my reason for the white space but then maybe that is the reason?  Anyways I would appreciate you checking in on me.  Thanks again,  Crohnie Gal
 * Sure, fixed. Sorry about that, I only meant to use the <.!-- tags, but they won't show up unless I put the nowiki tags around them.  The nowiki tags make the software not render what you type the way it usually does, e.g. if you type ~, it just leaves four tildes, it doesn't give your signature.  So I put the nowiki tags around the commenting out tags so they would show up.  But you probably looked at the diff, and saw the whole thing.  Have a look and let me know if everything's ok now!  Peace,  delldot   talk  14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, I did see it.-- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your comments
Thanks :) but so is Triona's response, though I don't agree with it... I believe that from an individual's perspective the rate of recent changes appears to be overwhelming when in fact hundreds of users may be monitoring the same list at any given time and there's a very slim chance of any vandalism slipping past. But because there are no figures to support either Triona's or my belief, our opinions will have to remain just that. I better not continue the discussion at the RfA though, because someone will probably come along soon and say "stop cluttering the RfA page with tangential discussions!" :P - Two  Oars  16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

thanx
thank you I will try again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptsdprof (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool :) delldot   talk  18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. can you point me to some pages that you think need working on?--MilesTerrex (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply delldot   talk  14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaslene González‎
Hello again!

There should be some kind of a WP tax system set up to pay people like you for helping people like me. I'm sure I would complain if there was such a thing but it makes me sound like I actually care when I say it, doesn't it? Just joking. Anyways, I have a question regarding the appropriatness of some information on this article, more specifically its sources. has inserted the following line into Jaslene's article: will also appear on the cover of Vanidades shortly The claim, which to me sounds something that can be challenged, was referenced by a YouTube clip and a LiveJournal entry, neither of which conform to WP:BLP. I removed the line based on the fact that it is sourced from non-reliable sources, not to mention possible copyright infringement by using the YouTube clip, but the above mentioned IP user reinserted it. I left an explanation on his talk page regarding why I did what I did and changed it again. My edit was reverted again without an explanation or an edit summary. I don't want to get involved in an edit war nor do I want to breach WP:3RR so I need advice on how to handle this. Clearly, the user's edits are in good faith but I feel like I make a good point concerning a WP:BLP. This section says that Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability. It also says The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. I must note that the information in question is not derogatory but does not meet standards specified. So my question is this: Should I revert the IP editor based on the above guideline in order to uphold Wikipedia's standards of verifiability or would that be considered 3RR or disruptive editing? What is your opinion? Thanks again. Peace! SWik78 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded, left note for the IP delldot   talk  15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As per usual, you are more than helpful, so thank you again. You definitely deserve this:


 * Aww! Thank you so much :D delldot   talk  15:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that in your assesment that they're trying to improve the article, that's the reason why I didn't puruse any administrative action against the user. I was just worried, and still am worried, that this IP editor does not discuss his/her changes and is very forceful in defending his/her material which might get him/her involved in edit/revert warring with someone else of the same mindset. I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks for following up.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Touch My Body‎
Guess who!

This article is being contributed to by mostly one editor who, it seems, has contributed quite extensively to articles related to Mariah Carey and other music related articles. However, he keeps inserting a statement that says: The music video for the song is probably completed by now,and will most likely premiere in the coming weeks. I don't even know where to begin saying what's wrong with this, especially that it is not sourced. I left a note on the user's talk page regarding sourcing this statement if it is to stay in the article and he reinserted the statement referencing it to a really vague sentence from someone's blog. Again, input from you would help in resolving this issue without edit warring.

Do I even need say it? Yes I do. Thanks! Peace! SWik78 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello friend!
 * I see you left a note on the editor's talk page and to answer your question about whether or not that source was a blog - yes, it is! The first time it was used as a reference it was from here. The website seems to be a Mariah Carey fanzine and most (if not all) blogs are put up by someone named Oscar. Plus, the article is nothing but an editorial. Clearly, not acceptable by WP:BLP. After I removed the source and the information referenced from it, the editor reinserted the information and referenced it from here. It's the exact same article!!! Just on a different website. This website is not a reputable source, it is more of a celebrity gossip and tabloid than an informative publication, as the article about it states. All that aside, even if the website was reputable, the only mention of the video in the article itself is the following sentence:

she's shooting a video this fortnight for her new album
 * That doesn't even specify a date on which the video is being shot, it only suggests a two week period and it says nothing about which video nor when it will be finished, especially not when it will be released. Therefore, I really believe that any information in the article about the video is pure unsorced OR. I really think it should be removed but I don't want to get slapped with 3RR. I'm sure you've read this many times before but here's what Jimmy Wales has to say about those kinds of situations:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
 * I think I make a good point but I don't want to get disruptive. Hence, I bug the hell out of you :)
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot   talk  17:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a section titled Music Video, it contains the sentence ''According to The Voice, Carey has already filmed the music video. The video will most likely premiere in the coming weeks as the song hits radio stations.''. SWik78 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot on a public computer   talk  01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Thanks for your involvement. I hope the message got through about this gossip being used as reliable sources. I think I can handle it from here and try to resolve it peacefully. By the way, where can I cast my vote for the most creative and original WP username? Your alter ego is hillarious.
 * Peace! SWik78 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply delldot   talk  10:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pic
Nice pic for Concussion, by the way. Glad to see you were able to find a free one :D -- slakr \ talk / 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea! delldot   talk  17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

THank you
Hey Delldot

Thanks you so much for your message. I must say I am still trying to get my head around Wikipedia and there is alot to learn so might have to call on your knowledge and expertise every once and while.

Thanks once again

Melis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melis81 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! delldot   talk  17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have another question for you
I use Wernabot to achive my talk page but it doesn't seem to be working. Do you know anything about this? I have tried many time to archive myself and end up just deleting. I don't understand how to archive myself and it was suggested that I use Wernabot to do it for me because I kept making a mess of trying to archive it myself. This just happens to be one of the things I can't seem to understand, sorry. Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about Werdnabot, but from it's user page, I found this:

Alternatively, you may wish to switch to MiszaBot I (for article talk pages), MiszaBot II (for project talk pages and noticeboards) or MiszaBot III (for user talk pages). To have any of those Bots handle archiving, make a request at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests.
 * Werdnabot is not currently functioning, as of 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC). However, Shadowbot3 is a clone of the Bot and has taken over the archiving of pages that have the Werdnabot archival template on them.


 * Hopefully this helps. Peace,  delldot   talk  17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I understood too. Should I delete the Wernabot and then figure out how to put the Misazbot on my page? I had help putting the Wernabot up, and does the archive from wernabot disappear if I do this? Sorry for being so slow about things. I'm so happy to have you as my mentor, you are so patient with me. :) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem Crohnie, always a pleasure to hear from you. Yes, you can remove the stuff for Werdnabot from your userpage, it won't change anything that Werdnabot has already done.


 * About getting Miszabot III to archive your talk page, I would try User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Let me know if you want help with it.  (I gotta go now, but I'll be back in about 8 hours).  Peace,  delldot   talk  18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried three times at least and it didn't show up so if you would be kind enough to help at your convience, I really would apprecitiate it. thanks -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, I think delldot on a public computer   talk  02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, well the good news is I think I actually figured out how to properly archive finally!-- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neat-o :) delldot on a public computer   talk  12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked over at Miszabot about why it wasn't archive. Here is the response,

I had Wernabot which is no longer active. I am trying to set up Misza bot to archive my talk page but I can't seem to do it correctly. I asked for help from my mentor and it's still not working. Would you please help get this to work of my talk page for me? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained you'll note that even if not specified the bot will use default values for minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive. Since minthreadsleft defaults to 5 and you only have 5 threads on your talk page currently, it will not archive. Your talk page meets the minimum of 2 for minthreadstoarchive but archiving these will leave less than 5 threads on the page. So to clarify, the bot will only archive if there are at least two threads older than your setting and there will be at least five threads/sections left on the page when it's done. Hope that helps. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13"ViewsUser page Discussion Edit this page + History Unwatch Personal toolsCrohnie My talk My preferences

I deleted the extra stuff that you get when cutting and pasting. So basically, we are set. Thank you very much again. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work Crohnie!  delldot   talk  00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

*shuffles nervously*
Thanks Rudget . 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Any time.  What does that even mean?  delldot on a public computer   talk  01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that even eludes God. :) Rudget . 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, God's kind of weak at vandal patrol. Guess that's why He lets us do His vandal smiting for Him XD  delldot   talk  13:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Crohn's disease
OK, there's no rush at all but would you check out the article for me and honestly tell me how I am doing? I have been working on it today and yesterday so I would appreciate your input on how it looks. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll get to this tomorrow or the next day, sorry I haven't gotten to it yet.  delldot   talk  10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said no rush on this. Someone edited one of my edits and did a real good job fixing it up.  I hope this person comes again, he/she seems to know Crohn's well and with the way my edit was fixed for easier reading, it would be nice to have the help! :)  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exciting, did you leave them a thank you?  delldot on a public computer   talk  01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RAD
Just to let you know I nominated this for FAC. Fainites barley 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)