This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ONUnicorn (talk | contribs) at 21:02, 23 January 2007 (Out of curiosity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:02, 23 January 2007 by ONUnicorn (talk | contribs) (Out of curiosity)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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).
My bot
should probably have a flag so people's watchlists won't get saturated by bot edits. This was brought up by Larry V. Since my bot made about 600 edits this week, which I guess half the pages Larry is watching, it probably should be flagged so this can be prevented. Can you see what you can do? --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Lemme do some poking -- Tawker 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Questions for you
Greetings.
First question: did you take "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block" are controversial into consideration with regards to me in Dec.?-Cindery 04:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Heads up
I have made a request for membership on the bots approval group. I have received only one response by User:Mets501, who suggested I drop the group a line and let you know about my request. Thanks. HighInBC 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity
Is there some reason that AntiVandalBot is only editing one page? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)