User talk:NaomiAmethyst/Archives/2010/December

Barnstar


Cluebot
Just wanted to know if you could tell me if I have ever beaten Cluebot to a vandalism revert? Thanks and please respond on my talk.TucsonDavid (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your help.TucsonDavid (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Cobi. Thanks for adding info to the anti-vandalism bot census. You have added the User:ClueBot/Source for both ClueBots. But, is that really the ClueBot NG code? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the IRC topic the User talk:ClueBot NG source code SVN repo can be viewed @ https://cobihome.external.cluenet.org:8443/svn/cluebotng/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.242.85 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for fixing my mess :) T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal/sock puppet help
Since you have substantial experience with vandals, I was wondering if you'd help me with a possible sock puppet conflict. I am not sure if I can properly handle it and need help with IP users on the Chinese Democracy article making the same unconstructive edit (see history)? I do not know how to handle sock puppetry properly, so is there a way to check out if 168.19.18.46, 168.18.215.120, and 72.152.152.88? The edit issue and even edit summaries are pretty conspicuous and suspect to ignore. Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan


 * From what I can see here the first two IPs are related to the same university, however the third IP does not appear to be related at all. You can use WHOIS to check this, you will find the link at the bottom of the IP talk page or the IP contribution page.


 * However, from what I can see, the issue the IPs seem to have is the source that you are using to state that an album has sold over 5 million copies? I have checked the source you are quoting and it is a blog.  As per Wikipedia's Verfiability policy blogs are largely not accepted as reliable sources because absolutely anybody can create them and claim to be an expert in the field.  I would suggest that you find another source to back up the claim that the album has sold over 5 million copies, a source that complies with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy and is classed as a reliable source and use that in the article.  I am willing to bet if you do that then you won't have any trouble from those IPs.  However if you cannot find a reliable source then you cannot put this information in the article.


 * In this case this isn't anything to do with sockpuppetry, only the first two IPs seem to be connected to the same Uni, you may even find it's the same person making the edits but they have access to more than one computer. In any case the IPs are correct to make the revert in this case.  I hope this helps.--5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how it is a blog. Where does it say this, how is it a blog? Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked about my previous question here, and I now understand. Thanks for your responses. Dan56 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

ClueNet
You may also be interested in ensuring that File:ClueNet Logo.png is licensed appropriately with permission verified. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ClueNet


A tag has been placed on ClueNet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC hit and run
Cobi, sorry about last evening. I picked your brain for a good hour and then... poof, my wifi went bust. I didn't get back on until this morning. Thanks again for all of your explanations; they really helped and the whole thing was quite interesting. Maybe I'll pop in IRC later. Ocaasi (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join right now. I (Crispy) am there right now (I missed you last night), so if you'd like any additional specifics about the core algorithm, I'm available to explain it.  Crispy1989 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks. Ocaasi (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)