User talk:Harej/Archive06

Stewart Surfboards
You recently deleted Stewart Surfboards. I was wondering if there was a way I could prove the notability of that article or something, so that is could stay. Pinky 19:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So should I give you links to show that it is notable? And then recreate it? Pinky 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot request has been approved for initial trials. Please see details on the request page. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  05:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wondering About An Essay
I've been thinking about writing an essay like you did with Forgive and forget, about how Wikipedia isn't for making articles about your boyfriend/girlfriend. Would such a thing be essay-worthy as yours? And if so, is there any format I should use? -WarthogDemon 06:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia mediation
Sir,

Any chance I could join the ongoing mediation on Islamophobia? Thanks for letting me know. Lixy 12:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia killing itsself
Sorry, I did not spot your query at Village pump until now. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion to merge
Hey, Do you mind if I undelete Julie Slick so her information can be merged per the discussion here? Thanks, IronGargoyle
 * MessedRocker (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Wider Attention system
Two thumbs up! I always wonder where the actions is at. In the past, I would look at Guy's most recent posts to find the action. I put on my User page. A few suggestions. You should control what goes in it. Things like Danny's RfA and some items posted at WP:200 would have been appropriate for the wider attention list when they were ongoing. The more contensious AfD listed at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/Many_votes would be appropriate as would the heavy DRV items. The infobox doesn't seem appropriate. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I see what the system is for, I have something to add. Also, I used watt box on my user page, but am not seeing much difference. If you would like to try to fix this to find out what went wrong, please free to change my user page. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Coverage
'''Call for Photographers, Writers, and Cameramen”' If you are attending Wikimania, we need you to help cover it. Please post all your Wikimania 2007 articles, videos, and pictures here http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event_Coverage, so that other Wikimedians have a way to virtually participate in our annual conference.

To help coordinate coverage, we are asking that individuals sign up to cover a specific event here: http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_Coverage. This will ensure that all events are being covered.

--Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Villagepumppages
Hi, I reverted your edit to this template. Small mistake of me actually since I first thought you did that edit today. Either way, it screwed up the village pump pages, the werdnabot tag appeared beneath the TOC which left lots of empty space. It's probably fixeable but I don't really know how. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call
Admins of long standing should know not to wheel war&mdash;full stop. Brave of you to put your neck out. Carry on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * grin MessedRocker (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Grin? Not a very professional response.
 * In any case, could you point me to the evidence? I checked the page you referenced and could find nothing, I'm curious as to what happened.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in&mdash;the evidence is in the deletion log, here. JzG and Violetriga have some sort of ongoing dispute over this article/redirect, and they were (un)delete warring over it rather than taking the matter to AN/I – or anywhere else – for broader discussion.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Seems to me that there really may be a BLP issue with using the real name, but wheel-warring doesn't help.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure a block (at least of JzG) was warranted ... although there were warnings issued.  Hopefully it's over with now.  Again, thanks for the link.  Cheers.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — M ETS 501 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

One minor bug: your bot has an unnatural affinity for underscores. (Example update) But that's not noticeable without viewing the page source, hence the minorness. Anyway, it seems like the list is already part of our community! Kudos to you for helping make the bot. And for having it named after you ;) Grace notes T § 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy keep?
Hi. When you have a minute, would you mind explaining what your thinking was here? My en: userpage email link works. Thanks! Jkelly 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you let me know which volunteer that was? Jkelly 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm reviewing the ticket with some other OTRS team members.  Jkelly 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:RFChist list
I want to discuss some points:

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be much better if the items added to the list were placed chronologically.
 * I moved the how to use the template to the top of the page only to have the bot put it back at the bottom. The problem with it being at the bottom is that it does not show up in a very good place on the Requests for comment/History and geography it would be much better if it appeared at the top.
 * The advice "add |reason= and explain why its being listed if your not linking to a section" does not appear to work correctly.


 * I'm not sure if you were asking me or BC, but you'll have to ask him because I don't know.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * phew, a boilerplate. I thought I was going to have my ass handed to me for my oppose. ;) MessedRocker (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! Nope.  ;)  And I do apologize for the copy/paste, but I hope it's understandable that the more time I spent personalizing replies, the longer it was going to take before I could actually get back to editing articles.  ;)  I heard someone say recently that a higher and higher percentage of Wikipedia's pages now are about the bureaucracy behind the scenes, rather than the articles themselves. So I'm trying to ensure that the majority of my time is focused where I think it should be focused: Expanding the encyclopedia. :) Anyway, despite my boiler-plate, my words were sincere:  If you do have any specific questions for me, feel free to ask!  Best, Elonka 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wider attention list
Hmm, I can see why you might have deprecated your bot, but there's still a link to it on WP:VP which you may want to fix. I'd try, but I honestly don't know where it is on the page. FrozenPurpleCube 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see there's some work going on, but it does look a bit odd on WP:VP. Is there anyway to add a "This bot is undergoing revision at this time" message? FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Barresi
Please direct your attention to the Paul Barresi article. I am writing to you because of your recent action in protecting the article. It appears that editors Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford (perhaps one and the same) have gone on a recent disruptive tagging spree in this article and others, tantamount to vandalism. At first view this article shows more "citation needed" tags than text itself. Perhaps some further action to protect this article is indicated? 72.68.116.240 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford in this article and elsewhere
These editors' overall activity should be looked at, too. They've gone on a tagging spree in this article, and they've made some wasteful and some strange edits here and elsewhere. In this article alone Roz Lipschitz made 17 edits in a recent three-day period and Robin Redford made 31 edits in a three-day period. 72.68.30.226 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with tagging stuff as citation-needed if it needs it. For now, I've removed the gossipy stuff from the article. It's still a pretty lousy article, though. MessedRocker (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * TY 72.68.30.226 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Template on TfD
I have userfied the template you requested here: User:MessedRocker/Aartalk. Best, IronGargoyle 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please unlock the Baseball Network article

 * Yup, based on my findings I'll say that capitalization is probably better, with the use of acronyms being acceptable ass well. I'm gonna close this case if there are no objections. Wizardman  15:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * TMC1982 2:40 p.m., 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Credentials
That would be awesome! --David Shankbone 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mowatt
Is the "temporary" state going to be permanent? -- Hoary 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Then whose directives were you following? -- Hoary 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount
Hello Messedrocker, please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.
 * Signing for archiving MessedRocker (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Links on TDC's page
Can you remove the links on TDC's userpage that I took down a little while ago? Those links serve no purpose and TDC knows me so I can always explain it to him if he wonders.--MONGO 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Links on Morton Devoshires page
Hi, I like your user name! This is where I got my idea for my list for friends links, from Morton Devoshire. Link Is it okay to have a list of people as long as it is a different distinctive sub-page? If yes I will re-make my list on a different distinctive page. If no, will you ask him to remove his list, or is he one of the people (like some say) that do not have to follow the rules here? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, for full disclosure, it started off as a "spooks" list which in reality was an enemies list which has changed as objections started. Morton's is a true friends list....for what it's worth. RxS 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Friends? You make me laugh! Its a list of people who share his exact POV on certain issues mostly 9/11. "Man in Black (Admin who deleted the Problem-Reaction-Solution and is a hater of cruft, / Mmx1 -- hangs out at September 11, 2001 attacks. -- rl" That's okay then? And  this is okay?"(Note:  review  and  for more friendly folks)" Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User Page
Could you please unprotect my user page. Thanks for watching out. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCbot
Hi there! Since your bot appears to have taken RFC for now, could you please look at Template:RFCpolicy list? There appears to be some syntax conflict there. Thanks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure which of you does the development, but if it's you I'll relay these suggestions that some people made: first, could the RFC list be ordered chronologically rather than alphabetical, and second, could the bot automatically remove the RFC templates from talk pages if over a month old. Incidentally the problem with the RFCpolicy page may be that it seeds from proposed as well as RFCpolicy, and the two have different syntax. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of video game collector and limited editions
As I said on IRC: I feel this should go in AFD, but I don't think the support to delete it is there. I brought up a discussion about it here: (last month), and everyone seems to want it kept. But the sourcing is the problem: IGN (a gaming website only from what I know) is the main source used. Not many outside sources saying "This limited edition is coming out for Mario Brothers 3", that aren't just pure gaming sites. Even if sourcing was better: it's still leans towards fancruft and listcruft. DVDs have many special editions as well: I doubt a list would be notable to make for Wikipedia. In my view, many of the people wanting it kept are letting their personal views on video games get in the way. Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions on what I should do? Otherwise: feel free to nominate it, perhaps opinion has changed on it. RobJ1981 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

mystery text on Template:Wider attention list
There's some strange extra text, "add |reason= and explain why its being listed if your not linking to a section", on Template:Wider attention list. I tried deleting it, but sure enough, the bot put it back. It was first added by BetacommandBot at 14:39 on 7 August 2007, here. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/BJAODN
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Request For Comment
Hello,

I found your page on the RFChist page.

Could you please give me some background on the RFC? How long do they usually last? Who usually removes them?

If there is no apparent resolution, what is the next step?

Thanks, Horlo 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, Do Not Delete
You have a funny thought to the simpsons. You think some simpsons articles have to be deleted. You must be anti-simpsons or something. If these articles are deleted, I will be starting my own wiki for the simpsons. JoeyLovesSports 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call on the Simpsons fancruft. Won't make you popular, but it was the right thing to do. Tim Vickers 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Bot down?
I added the template to Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident but Template:RFCpol list has not been updated. Did I use the template incorrectly or is RFC bot not working? Thanks. Kent Wang 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At least 30 minutes ago. 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kent Wang (talk • contribs).

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is something wrong with the RfC bot?
I posted the RfC Talk:Twinkie defense using the RFCsoc template at 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC) & it has yet to show up on the RFCsoc list. I've doublechecked my coding a couple dozen times -- what am I missing? Thanks for any help. --Yksin 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Contributions/RFC_bot, it hasn't updated _anything_ since yesterday.--SarekOfVulcan 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's consistently a delay time in this bot's activities, the main RfC page & various RfC lists should mention that. --Yksin 18:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Just a quick line for telling you that at WP:TIMETRACE you should be very welcome if you feel for coming, give a look around and decide if you want to help. < ℒibrarian  2  16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Bot not updating RFCPolicy
The bot does not appear to be updating the RFCPolicy list, it has been two days since I added a template to Talk:EVE Online, RFCBot has been updating other pages. Is my use of the template incorrect? parsing error perhaps? any help appreciated. -- Richard Slater  (About) / (Talk) 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Bot just blanked all the RFCs
Please have a look. ←BenB4 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And, you reverted all the Bot's edits to a days-old obsolete version, instead of just the last bad blanking. (At least on the RFCpolicy list). ←BenB4 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're listing ongoing problems, add the fact that the bot kept dropping text from the RFCmedia Template that has been placed on individual pages. Look at the Talk:Blaqk Audio and Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady entries for examples. Pairadox 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what you mean. MessedRocker (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have included a diff. Take a look at this one. The bot was cutting off the Talk:Blaqk Audio and Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady entries. Pairadox 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It just did it again!!! I KNOW that text is in the RFCmedia Template on those talk pages because I've spent hours working on these pages. Pairadox 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, you should not edit the list templates directly, as the bot will ignore any changes. Also, you cannot use vertical pipes anywhere in the syntax other than in separating the template name, the section name, and the reason, otherwise everything messes up. In place, use !. MessedRocker (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (From the yellow box at the top of my talk page - "If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.")
 * I am aware that the Bot usually overwrites manual edits - as I said, I spent hours trying to figure out why following the instructions listed on the RFC page weren't producing the results they should have. But when I saw that you had manually edited the list templates, I thought perhaps you had disabled the Bot until it was working properly.
 * Basically you're telling me the syntax that is commonly used throughout Wikipedia, vertical piping, is not valid within the RFC templates? That's messed up. What's even more messed up is the total lack of user instructions that mention that restriction. This has become a nightmare of a process. Pairadox 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh it can be used, but it can't be done meta-style within templates, because then that breaks it. Say you wrote . MediaWiki treats the clauses as two separate ones: "Deal with WP:RFA" and "RFA", with the pipe being the separator. That's why the bot messes up. And I will be sure to update the instructions to note that using vertical pipes will mess things up. MessedRocker (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining it. If I understand correctly, it's just a matter of using ! instead of |. I'll go change the articles in question. Pairadox 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I give up. Pairadox 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not an exclamation point, but | -- all of that. MessedRocker (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Things appear to be working now, however I will make this official statement. At this time, neither I nor the bot's developer know what the cause of the RFC list blankings are, however they seem to fix themselves. I will do whatever I can to make the bot functioning normally again. MessedRocker (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Japes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for your contributions! Daniel 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

32 vs 64-bit
Greets.

I won't write an essay for you so you will understand the differences between 32 and 64-bit CPU architectures. Please do some reading on your own, there's a lot of litterature on the subject. You can start here: 32-bit and 64-bit. A useful site with lengthy articles is ArsTechnica. -- Henriok 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC media list
There seems to be some problem with two pages: Template:RFCmedia list and Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media. They added text manually. I tried to fix it once, but later reverted it to last version, since pages operated by bot. Please give a look. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you see code of the Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media, there are both template transclusion and manual entries, this looked different than other RFC lists. Me new to RfC and donno how they are maintained. Maybe we should write instruction not to use enter while posting RFCmedia. I wont be able to follow any more, thanks. Lara_bran 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Me back from wikibreak, you can take my help if you want. Nice day. Lara_bran 06:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Found another problem; see the section titled Broken Bot/Template?. Pairadox 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rinjuuken Akugata Conflict
Me and Ryulong stated our views and are waiting. But you really shouldn't block editting on a article of a show currently running. Especially on the day of a new episode. Fractyl 15:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC problem?
Hello, I added a RFC template to Otto Reich but I am not sure I did every thing correct. Can you check? Thank you. •smedley Δ butler•  06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC:Dharmic religion
Hey there Messedrocker,

I was trying to clean some things up on an RFC for Dharmic religion. The initial poster didn't use the template---so there was no link to the original discussion. I added the template, but the article I added it to is currently at AFD. So I tried to move the RFC to a centralized location. But that didn't seem to work. Could you take a look at it and fix it.Balloonman 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I THINK I fixed what I thought I had messed up. If you look at the page  there were two RFC's for Dharmic Religion.  When I started looking for the RFC discussion, I couldn't find the original RFC discussion because it was hidden.  The only link I didn't click on was the one wherein the poster had an "eg" before the link.  THe Eg made the link look unimportant.  But that link was where the RFC discussion was taking place.  It looked to me as if the poster had typed in his/her request directly on the RFC page without using the TEMPLATE.  Thus, I tried to create a link using the  template.  I did so on a page that is at AFD so I moved my  to where the original RFC indicated that there was a centralized discussion.  The  page didn't update for a while and I thought I had messed things up.  I've since found the original  and deleted my addition.  So all should be good in the world.Balloonman 08:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pipe linking in RFC template
Okay, you want to tell me what's wrong with this formatting? I used the | instead of | as you said, but it's still not showing up as intended. This is freakin' ridiculous!!! Pairadox 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ack, I just realized, using | doesn't work either. I'm not sure what I can recommend in its place. In the meantime, I have a hackish idea on how to deal with the current RFCs. MessedRocker (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I realized after looking at it that the }} closes off the template. So I'm back to the original conclusion, that this (new?) format for RFCs is fundamentally at odds with a common wiki formatting technique. Not to mention that I also realized that the "watch this page" links on the main RFC page are useless because the pages they link to are no longer directly edited, so it never appears to change and those with them on their watchlists are not informed of new requests. AAHHHHH!!!!! Where is the discussion that caused this to happen? I want to comment on it's flaws. Pairadox 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You now have to watch the templates in lieu of the RFC subpages. I personally think they should be phased out.
 * 2) The flaw in not being able to use piped linking is because of the MediaWiki syntax parser, not because of the bot.
 * 3) This system is very new, considering that RFC is over three and a half years old. It cannot be perfect immediately. I'm doing what I can (as is Betacommand, the person who is developing the bot) to make this less-than-a-month-old system work. (Betacommand is not sure, but the next major update for the bot engine may address the piped linking flaw.)
 * 4) The decision to merge the Wider Attention system and Requests for Comment was as a result of this discussion: . MessedRocker (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the good news: after the bot engine re-write, piped linking will be possible. Not conventionally, but more possible than it is now. MessedRocker (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

{reset indent) That is good news. Also, I found out that the "watch" links had been updated back on the 23rd - I must have been looking at an old version. Sorry 'bout that. It's very frustrating to be doing everything right and still not getting the right results. Thanks for keeping your cool while I rant. Pairadox 05:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec
Instead of adding all those named parameters, there is probably a much better way, which will also allow people to include raw pipes and other templates inside. For example:

I'm not saying that an HTML comment and /// is the best way, but it's certainly better than making people jump through all those named parameters without any }}s. (reply here, I'm watching your talk) ←Ben B4 08:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im the author of the bot, using HTML and other similar methods is not a good idea, the most viable and stable method that I know of right now is the template method. and three parameters isnt that much, Im also working on the issue of | in the templates. your idea sounds easy, but trying to extract that data from an HTML comment that is not clearly defined Will cause problems. βcommand 08:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why. Presumably you have a pattern match on the template parameters.  Why can't that match a parameterless template followed by "\s*&lt;--" and something like "\s*///\s*" for the delimiters?  With stuff inside the template, it's going to be very difficult to allow people to put in sub-templates, which is something they've already asked for in the short time the template RFC format has been in place, because "}}" ends the first template without nesting.  Perhaps you could substitute something for "|" and "}}" like "!!" and "))" ? &larr;Ben B4  08:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense of Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem.
Dear Messedrocker

Template:RFCpolicy says :

However, I think, if you replace the first pipe between "templatename" and "section" with, Wikipedia's server can't read this sentence as  template. Please see Wikipedia talk:Accountability. -- PBeaver 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll get it. That means, using the pipe for text other than the delimiters as shown. &larr;Ben B4  17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic
The whole article is not compliant with Wikipedia. The article is not informative or resourceful, merely someone's 'essay'. I was clearly write in requesting the speedy deletion, as the article has been deleted without hesitation. If you can justify why such a page should remain on Wikipedia, I'm sure you could have the page back, but I'm pretty sure there is no justification. —  M o v i e J u n k i e  Talk! 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the "Wikipedia:" prefix indicate that this is an essay (on the editing of Wikipedia), not an article? See WP:ESSAY for over 500 other examples. Pairadox 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely whoever deleted it would have seen the prefix? If I'd had know people can create 'essays' on Wikipedia "The biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Over 7 million articles in over 200 languages, and still growing." (search Wikipedia in google), then I might not have been so hasty, but 'essays' definitely don't count as encyclopedic knowledge, that is of course what Wikipedia is promoting. —  M o v i e J u n k i e  Talk! 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * People who patrol the speedy deletion category often times don't look at what they're deleting. And while Wikipedia indeed approves of encyclopedic content (in fact that's what it's all about), contributors are also allowed to write essays, presumably to share their wisdom with the rest of the editors. MessedRocker (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, restored the page. G1 definitely doesn't apply here. CloudNine 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week
Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:


 * Bupropion has been promoted to featured status on August 31, 2007.


 * The WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.


 * Garrondo is asking for individuals to help review Therapies for multiple sclerosis, as he is considering nominating this article for GA status.


 * Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc Template
Are you running a bot, or actually looking at the article talk pages being tagged? Because I have a few on my watch list, and those disputes are over now for at least a week. Jeffpw 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot and new RfC template format
Your bot seems to catch other templates. Probably needs some tweaking. Just making sure you're aware of it. Cool Hand Luke 03:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do the dates that RfCs are initiated no longer show up on the RfC list pages? The dates are very useful for having an idea of how recently a discussion was added. Also, the new addition to the template ("please make sure the template tag adheres") is pretty ugly, & especially annoying in those cases when the template tag was done correctly. Thanks. --Yksin 16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dates no longer appear because they're no longer part of the reason parameter -- they have their own parameter now which is used to sort the different bullets chronologically. I can probably figure out a way to allow the time to show up as part of the reason. As for the new black-bordered notice, that is a very temporary thing that will be removed shortly. MessedRocker (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia
Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Either the RfC bot doesn't work or both sets of instructions are wrong
I put up an RfC on Talk:Anti-Americanism. After several hours, it still hadn't appeared on either list of requests for comment on politics (Requests for comment/Politics or Template:RFCpol list), so I rechecked everything. The message pasted in the template image said to write everything with bangs instead of bars, so I replaced the appropriate bars with two bangs each. It still hasn't worked. A quick look shows that the bot has not updated the former list since at least August 19th, and it shows the exact same entries on both lists. I strongly suggest that people determine the correct instructions for RfC tags, and correct the bad instructions. I also suggest that people find out why the RfC bot has not updated the appropriate lists. Also posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment Jacob Haller 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am having a similar probloem with Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Bsharvy 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)