| Revision as of 01:09, 17 September 2008 editMaxim (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators40,757 edits →Re: adminbots: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:17, 17 September 2008 edit undoCyde (talk | contribs)28,155 edits →Re: adminbotsNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| I use ]'s adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. '''<font face="Rockwell">] (])</font>''' 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | I use ]'s adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. '''<font face="Rockwell">] (])</font>''' 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| In response to your questions: Yes and yes. And common practice regarding blocking adminbots is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Especially if the bot has been running for awhile with no problems, blocking the bot is a much worse decision than leaving it alone. --] 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:17, 17 September 2008
|
|
RFA
Hi, took a chance and nominated myself for adminship. Cheers.--LAAFan review 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- It failed prematurely. But that isn't the reason for this message. I thought you being my Admin Coach would be good, but I have regrets. Can I possibly be let out of the Admin Coaching deal, to find an active coach?--LAAFan review 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. Cheers.--LAAFan review 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the fast catch
on my talk page :) +sj + 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
unsigned template
I don't care if the default size is small or not; but your edit also undid the addition of a CSS class "autosigned". If you'd like the size to be small the right syntax is <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">...</span>. See also Mediawiki talk:Common.css. Your recent edit put that template out of sync with the other unsigned templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk page protection
Hello, on this IP user's talk page, should it actually be fully protected? It's the talk page of an IP user, so shouldn't it be semi protected? Just wondering, thanks. (P.S. I really admire your "anti-grawp" work!) SchfiftyThree 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't matter, no one will be editing that page. And thanks. Prodego 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For protecting Economic crisis of 2008 from vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Re: adminbots
I use Twinkle's adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. Maxim (☎) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to your questions: Yes and yes. And common practice regarding blocking adminbots is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Especially if the bot has been running for awhile with no problems, blocking the bot is a much worse decision than leaving it alone. --Cyde Weys 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)