| Revision as of 18:11, 6 September 2010 editTom Reedy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,081 edits →Mediator request← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)87 edits →Hello!!!: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{/archivelist}} | {{/archivelist}} | ||
| {{administrator}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| ==Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Vote comment== | |||
| == You missed == | |||
| As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the ] is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. ] (]) 23:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| … the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Award == | |||
| : No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Assistance == | ||
| "I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding ] achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me ] ]. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." ] (]) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can you explain this please? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AElie_plus&action=historysubmit&diff=381693431&oldid=381693147 ]] 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I hit rollback by mistake, and then reverted myself. Sorry about that. ] (]) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :@] As I had reply to ] at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have ] and ] to start 2025. On '']'', ] that removed "{{tq|Material that fails verification be removed}}" per ] with "{{tq|WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH}}" in the edit summary however so lovely we have ] that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "{{tq|WP:BITE WP:FAITH}}"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for ''Lovely Runner'' either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On ], believed to be related to ] which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to ] reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the ]. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per ] and didn't requires ]. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the ] violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> 🎉🎆 ] 🎆🎉 <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jewdefence== | |||
| Please see ] and ]. I think a 4im is more appropriate than an auto indef, but I will not unblock. If you choose to keep the block (I thought he was just tagged, not blocked) please restore the indef tag, but I think in this case, a 4im was more appropriate. -- ] (]) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind, I didn;t see the entire history; good call. -- ] (]) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Need help == | |||
| Hello. I have a dispute about ] article with ]. I couldn't ask for the third opinion as ] was involved. I the request on ] on the 16 of July. There was no answer and the request is archived now. What should be the next step in the dispute resolution. Thanks. --] (]) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Hi Quantum666, I've commented on the talk page. ] (]) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, PhilKnight, | |||
| I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == SPI case == | |||
| :I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. == | |||
| You have mail. ] (]) 00:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban of JRHammond== | |||
| Regarding your question : As I stated in my closing statement, I think a more appropriate action, considering this editor's history, would be to leave the ban in place until JRHammond agrees to specific behavioral changes. ~] <small>(])</small> 22:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :PhilKnight, you suggested on my appeal that I should be perhaps banned for one month. Please tell me, on what basis do you think such a ban is warranted? Please point to what specific things you think I said or did that were in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines that would warrant such a lengthy ban, or any ban whatsoever. It seems to me you based this judgment on the comments of others, but as I have already demonstrated, there have been numerous demonstrably false claims made, including by Amatulic. So I would like to hear from you, if you are going to suggest such a ban remain for such a long period of time, what it is you think would warrant it. | |||
| ::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello!!! == | |||
| :I'm willing to respect and submit to your judgment, so long as you are willing to actually examine this case against me, which I maintain is wholly spurious. To take just one example, Amatulic claimed I went "shopping" for an admin to support my position on the use of the "editprotected" template. That is absolutely false, as I've already demonstrated in my appeal. I am asking for your help. Please assist in this appeal. You're an uninvolved editor, and I will respect and submit to whatever final judgment you arrive at. All I'm asking you to do in return is to examine the arguments for the ban honestly, and learn the actual facts about it, because this ban has been placed on my based upon entirely spurious pretexts, and I am confident I can demonstrate that fact to you if you are willing to compare the claims with the actual facts of the matter. ] (]) 07:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: edit is problematic. You were then advised that your approach was wrong, but went on to make edit. Had I been watching the page, I'd have banned you for a week or so. If you still don't understand what the problem is, then I suggest you have a look at ]. ] (]) 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{talkback|Wgfinley}} | |||
| ::Alright, thanks!! ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::How about the bot? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't understand. You said this edit was "problematic". How so? In what way is requesting editors to state their positions on proposed edits and state their objections, if any, "problematic"? That is precisely how the page on the use of the "editprotected" template states it should be used. So please explain why you find this "problematic". | |||
| ::: Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" ] (]) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Archiving bot ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Next, what are you referring to when you say I was advised my approach was wrong? Nobody ever advised me that stating my intent to use the template if there were no objections was "wrong", and I don't believe it was. I presume you are referring to Amatulic's interpretation of how the template should be used? Yet, there is nothing in the guidelines on the usage of the template that supports his interpretation, and a different admin had already told me that so long as a reasonable time had passed and there were still no objections, the edit could be made! Then along came Amatulic, applying a different standard, which I found to be an unreasonable one. If editors are given a reasonable period of time to state objections, and no objections are made, then there is no reason not to implement a requested edit, particularly not one as completely uncontroversial as the one I proposed, which was: | |||
| ::::: I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. ] (]) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Anyone you know who uses it? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ''After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities".'' | |||
| :::::::: Looking at ] {{u|Rosguill}} uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. ] (]) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::ok ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Completely uncontroversial in that it quotes directly from the actual UNEF mandate itself, instead of paraphrasing a third-party source mischaracterizing what that actual mandate was. This would be an improvement to the article, if it were implemented. I would remind you of the whole purpose and intend of Misplaced Pages guidelines, which is summed up by ]: ''If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.'' | |||
| ::: Next, you point me to ], which defines such editing as "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out." I interpret this to mean edits made to articles, not comments on the Talk page. Yet ''I have not edited the Six Day War article, nor could I if I wanted to, because it is under protection.'' So I fail to see how it applies. | |||
| ::: Even if I were to agree with you that this applies to comments made on the Talk page, in what way have any of my posts or suggested edits been "tendentious"? In what way were any of my posts "partisan, biased or skewed"? In what way did any of my posts "not conform to the neutral point of view"? Do you find the above suggested edit, for example, to be "tendentious"? Please explain. | |||
| ::: Thanks for your time. Like I said, if I've done something against policy, I'm willing to accept the ban, but I need to know what it was, specifically, that I've done that was in violation of policy. I can't very well not to it again if I don't know what it was I did wrong in the first place. ] (]) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Until now, I was arguing that an indefinite ban was going too far. However, based on the above, I'm no longer convinced. Just because you keep arguing, doesn't mean you are right. For example, repeating over and over the change was uncontroversial doesn't make it so. If other editors disagree with the change, then it isn't uncontroversial. Have a look at ]. ] (]) 12:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If you are going to argue that I am not correct, kindly point to any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. The facts are as I've stated them, and my logic is sound. Kindly address the substance of my argument, rather than engaging in ad hominem argumentation. ] (]) 13:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I've already said, if other editors disagree with a change, then it isn't uncontroversial. ] (]) 13:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Again, if you are going to argue that I am not correct, kindly point to any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. The facts are as I've stated them, and my logic is sound. ] (]) 13:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: It is an uncontroversial fact that "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities". That is what I meant in saying this is an uncontroversial statement, and I was perfectly clear on that point, so please don't deliberately misconstrue my words or their meaning. ] (]) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Given that other editors have disagreed with your proposed wording, it isn't uncontroversial. ] (]) 13:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I didn't say my proposed edit was uncontroversial. Clearly it is, for whatever reason. My point, again, was that it is an uncontroversial fact that ''"After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), 'to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities'"'' Again, I welcome you to point to any error in fact or logic on my part that would go to demonstrate why my proposed edit is in any way inappropriate or unreasonable. ] (]) 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Mail == | |||
| You have mail. --] (]) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == A topic ban violation? == | |||
| Thanks.--] (]) 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Technically, it doesn't violate WGFinley's ban (see RJ's talk page), which restricts RJHammond only from ] and its talk page, not from discussing it elsewhere. The spirit of the ban is another matter. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, he cannot go like that ;.--] (]) 10:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What is your objection to the comments I've posted on users' talk pages? There are no Misplaced Pages guidelines forbidding editors from engaging in discussion on users' talk pages for the purpose of improving articles. ] (]) 12:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are topic banned, and you are using the editors talk page as the talk page of the article, besides you are ] the editors, not improving the article.--] (]) 12:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I was banned from editing the Six Day War article and its talk page. Period. As for your assertion I'm "pushing", if you disagree my proposed edit would improve the article, you are welcome to state your argument as to why this would not be an improvement, such as by pointing out any error in fact or logic in my argument. You'll find that you're unable to do so. ] (]) 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have to agree with JRHammond here. WGFinley's ban, if you read the words, apply to the article and its talk page. Other editors are in control over their own talk pages, and if they feel inclined, they can request that JRHammond cease using their talk pages to discuss ], and delete his comments. (PhilKnight, sorry for having this discussion on your page; I won't comment on this matter here again.) ~] <small>(])</small> 04:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree he technically hasn't violated my ban, he's very close to ] though by engaging in debate over his edits on the talk pages of admins who could edit or others who could participate in discussion. Further he's moved on to the article at the center of the disruption on ] -- ]. I let him know that carrying the disagreement over there would not be welcome and got bitten of course, I expected that. I have a small glimmer of hope he can edit on that article and be productive but I don't think he's off to a good start. --] (]) 05:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: If PhilKnight would prefer me not to comment on his talk page, as Amatulic suggested, I would be happy to comply with any request from him that I not do so. As for the contention that I'm "gaming the system" (or "close to" it), I would point out that the whole purpose and intent of all Misplaced Pages policy guidelines is summarized by ], which states: ''If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.'' I've been commenting on talk pages for the purpose of improving the article (and I haven't broken any rules in doing so, anyways). Finally, I would observe the fact that I began participating at the UNSC 242 article prior to your ban on me. ] (]) 06:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == You are mistaking == | |||
| Hi Phil, all my topic ban violation blocks (3 of them) were posted not because I was disruptive (I was not, one statement I got blocked for was found to be helpful by at least 2 admins), but simply because my personal blocking admin believed I violated my topic ban. Having said that I am not asking you to change your opinion about blocking the user. I am glad the user will not get blocked after all, as I specified at his talk page. So please threat my message as a general message about topic ban enforcement. Regards.--] (]) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Mbz1, I guess you're talk about the above thread. Ok, thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No Phil, I was commenting about . Sorry, should have posted the link in the first place. Regards.--] (]) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediator request == | |||
| I have filed a mediation request on a policy matter concerning a contentious topic, specifically ] as it relates to the guideline ] . I'm almost totally ignorant of the process, but the mediation page suggests that a mediator be solicited to referee. I have asked ], but apparently he is out for some reason. Would you mind taking a look at it and consider filling that role? Or perhaps suggest someone who might? ] (]) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah! I just now saw that you commented on the request to block one of the participants in this mediation request, ]. Given my experience with this topic, it might be problematic for you to accept my request. I asked because you were not involved in any other mediation at the moment. Could you recommend someone to ask? ] (]) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
|
| edit |
You missed
… the master of Abu4real1995: Joseph4real1995. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Assistance
"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding Lovely Runner achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me Ultraviolet Rollback. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." Puchicatos (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight As I had reply to Aoidh at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "
Material that fails verification be removed
" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH
" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE WP:FAITH
"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive
Hello, PhilKnight,
I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. Liz 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits.
Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLi7HgSuhI Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello!!!
I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? Cactus🌵 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about the bot? Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Rosguill uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)