| Revision as of 01:59, 10 January 2007 editWikimachine (talk | contribs)8,175 edits Logo for your AntiVandalBot← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:29, 11 January 2007 edit undoRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits re: escalating warnings left by AntiVandalBotNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| Hi! Out of enthusiasm about your AntiVandalBot, I made a logo for it. I posted it in AntiVandalBot's user talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. If you want, you could modify it in any ways you like & maybe take out the "AntiVandalBot" phrase so that it could be applied to all bots in Misplaced Pages. (] 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)) | Hi! Out of enthusiasm about your AntiVandalBot, I made a logo for it. I posted it in AntiVandalBot's user talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. If you want, you could modify it in any ways you like & maybe take out the "AntiVandalBot" phrase so that it could be applied to all bots in Misplaced Pages. (] 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)) | ||
| == re: escalating warnings left by AntiVandalBot == | |||
| Good evening. Thanks for the quick response. On the second issue, I'm more than happy to stick with the standard Test1-4 series. That's all I normally use regardless. My question is more one of theoretical possibility. Most of the warning templates have a standardized hidden reference to the template they came from - always in the format <tt><nowiki><!-- Template:Test1 (first level warning) --></nowiki></tt>. I don't know whether it's possible for the bot to read the page's source code to look for that pattern or not. I wouldn't even consider trying to do that myself but I've seen you code things that I would have said were impossible so I figured that it couldn't hurt to ask. | |||
| Is there some other way that we could add a standardized tag to the most common warning templates so that the bot could recognize them and recommend escalation? Could we switch the template reference from a commented-out line to a line printed in the same color as the background or something? Or, thinking about it more, for this scenario we don't really care about the source template - maybe we only white-text the (first level warning) and ask the bot to search for that specific text in the last 5 lines of the user's page before appending the warning... | |||
| Again, this would be useful but is not essential. The tool is doing a lot of good work already. I'm just feeling greedy... Balance my greed against the evils of feature-creep. Thanks again. ] <small>]</small> 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:29, 11 January 2007
 | Tawker is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Ok, the bot takes care of almost everything I do, I'm swamped with work right now. I'm outta here. If you need anything urgent, email me. -- Tawker 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Tawker/Dec07. Sections without timestamps are not archived |
Archives (by month) @ User talk:Tawker/Archives
A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Vandalism Project
I've heard through the grapevine that since you run the anti-vandal bot that you might be a good person to talk to about getting some stats regarding vandalism. I have recently put together Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vandalism studies with the intended goal of studying vandalism on wikipedia. Any help would be much appreciated. Remember 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
AVB problem
Please check out AVB's talk page. We now have two cases, today alone, where the bot triggered on one edit, but reverted back two edits, and warned the innocent editor from the older edit. And this is just those that have complained. Something is definitely misfiring with the bot. Not quite to the point of hitting the stop button on it, but I am definitely concerned at the situation. - TexasAndroid 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Thanks :)
I apologize, but what do you mean by diff checks?
Thanks again -- Where 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
AVB is.... not a bot?
Is AntiVandalBot supposed to have a bot flag? Special:Listusers/bot suggest it doesn't have one (which is odd). If it needs a bot flag, I think you have to get a bureaucrat to do it. --h2g2bob 10:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, AVB is not supposed to be flagged as a bot. Bots do not show up on Special:Recentchanges by default and we want to see what AVB is doing. Миша13 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that makes sense. Thanks --h2g2bob 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
My Request for Adminship
|
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something; though I suspect my commons bit will be of more use for you. By the way you owe Cyde an "apology" for an edit conflict ;).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC) |
More vandalism from User talk:204.13.204.98 on 8 January
It was on the Houston Grand Opera page at the bottom. Please do something about this idiot. Vivaverdi 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Logo for your AntiVandalBot
Hi! Out of enthusiasm about your AntiVandalBot, I made a logo for it. I posted it in AntiVandalBot's user talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. If you want, you could modify it in any ways you like & maybe take out the "AntiVandalBot" phrase so that it could be applied to all bots in Misplaced Pages. (Wikimachine 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
re: escalating warnings left by AntiVandalBot
Good evening. Thanks for the quick response. On the second issue, I'm more than happy to stick with the standard Test1-4 series. That's all I normally use regardless. My question is more one of theoretical possibility. Most of the warning templates have a standardized hidden reference to the template they came from - always in the format <!-- Template:Test1 (first level warning) -->. I don't know whether it's possible for the bot to read the page's source code to look for that pattern or not. I wouldn't even consider trying to do that myself but I've seen you code things that I would have said were impossible so I figured that it couldn't hurt to ask.
Is there some other way that we could add a standardized tag to the most common warning templates so that the bot could recognize them and recommend escalation? Could we switch the template reference from a commented-out line to a line printed in the same color as the background or something? Or, thinking about it more, for this scenario we don't really care about the source template - maybe we only white-text the (first level warning) and ask the bot to search for that specific text in the last 5 lines of the user's page before appending the warning...
Again, this would be useful but is not essential. The tool is doing a lot of good work already. I'm just feeling greedy... Balance my greed against the evils of feature-creep. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)