User talk:Slakr/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

SineBot signed an unsigned2 template

After adding an {{unsigned2}} template to a comment, SineBot signed it. I reverted. --50.53.52.45 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SineBot dead

SineBot hasn't edited for over three days. Could you look into the issue? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

There is a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ansel Elgort. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SineBot

It appears that SineBot has been down for a while. If you are busy elsewhere in real life, is there an alternate maintainer to restart the bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As an anti-vandal who welcomes many new users, I am also missing Sinebot. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've brought the issue to WP:BOWN. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on vacation then subsequently sick. Should be back now. --slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Its me, remember?

Please revoke talk page access.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SESRIC

Hi there,

May I learn why my edit on SESRIC moved ?

Thanks Ozguvec — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguvec (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ozguvec: User:Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) isn't an actual user, thus the page name you chose was invalid. Check out WP:USERPAGE for more info. --slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

3rr.php ?

Hello, I was wondering if you migrated your great 3RR tool to wmflabs (or elsewhere). I can't seem to find it but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Thanks! - tucoxn\^talk 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Want to open-source the code and see if another maintainer will step forward? I miss 3rr.php and reluctantly use Twinkle's ARV as a substitute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea where it went. Apparently the toolserver disappeared, and I think there was some paperwork or something that I have to do somewhere. I'll have to dig around and see what's going on. That also wasn't the only script I had on there, just the most used, so I'm sorta interested myself. --slakr^\ talk / 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

SineBot message question

Right now the bot message says "Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment". Would it be possible to change that to "Type four tildes"? After all, the bot explains how to add them with the signature button, so we can assume that people will type the tildes if they don't use the button. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The bot messages are all substituted templates (e.g., {{tilde}}). The relevant Template talk: page is where you'll wanna make that request (or straightaway modify the template itself). --slakr^\ talk / 03:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nok Nok Labs Article Deletion

Hi Slakr, I think you may have been the administrator making the decision to delete/redirect the Nok Nok Labs article. I wanted to understand the rationale for replacing the Nok Nok Labs page with a redirect (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nok_Nok_Labs ). I'm scratching my head as the article is now well substantiated (initially there was a press release referenced, but I modified the article to provide proper attribution). I realize that every article must stand on its own merits, but when I compare to other, similar companies in the IT security space (Adallom, PrivateCore, Skyhigh Networks, ThreatMetrix, Vormetric) I see the Nok Nok Labs article having as much if not more substantiation/citation.

Nok Nok Labs is one of the founders of the FIDO Alliance (where the redirect goes). I could get members of the FIDO alliance to weigh in with comments on the deletion if that would help illuminate the topic (unfortunately the AfD comment period passed without their weighing in.

Thank you for any clarification. --Cryptodd (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to also request deletion of the articles listed if you believe they, too, fail our policies and guidelines. --slakr^\ talk / 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

SineBot not edited since December 18

See contributions. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's running but something must have changed in The Matrix, because it's having trouble editing. I'll investigate. --slakr^\ talk / 23:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done — apparently this was an ssl issue. It affected ProcseeBot, too, so it'll be catching up with blocks it wanted to make over the same span of time. --slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Super-opt-in option?

Please add a super-opt-in feature, e.g., {{Autosign}}, where I can authorize SineBot to always sign my talk posts without calling me out for having made an unsigned post. This would increase the ease-of-use of the talk pages, making the Wikipedia discussion process more user-friendly.

Using this template might result in wording such as the following in the absence of my signature:

Posted by Thisisnotatest (talk) (signed by SineBot by request)

followed by the time.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a complementary post at the Signatures talk page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The nag is to reduce reliance on the bot, which avoids a 1-to-1 ratio of talk page posts to bot signature posts. --slakr^\ talk / 00:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've revised the complementary post to make it a change to Wikipedia itself rather than to your bot. It doesn't matter to me whether it's done by Wikipedia or your bot, only that the process be automatable so that I don't need to remember to sign. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Signing a signed post

Hi, recently SineBot auto signed a post of mine which I had already signed with 4~'s on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ErikHaugen#Hello.21_There_is_a_DR.2FN_request_you_may_have_interest_in. This however has started happened since I added colours to my referenced name. Is there anything I can do? DocHeuh 03:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heuh0 (talk • contribs)

See?^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heuh0 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Heuh0: You accidentally removed the links from your signature when you added the colors. Put them back and it will be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Test. DocHeuh (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, my bad. DocHeuh (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Highjump

Hi Sklar, Please have SineBot go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Highjump and sign after the edit made on or about 27 Dec 2013. I cannot edit there. Thanks. Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) @Tjlynnjr: I don't see any edits made during that time period, so there's nothing to sign. Also to note that SineBot does not go back in time to sign unsigned comments - if it misses a comment, it misses it. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The entry I referred to was below the last edit of 06 Oct 2013.

Sorry. Best wishes for 2015. Tjlynnjr (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

Weight of chains edit war discussion

Thankyou, for notifying interested parties about the discussion. The editor who brought the complaint didn't bother to notify anyone except me and misrepresented both the content dispute and his own involvement, bringing the complaint a few hours after his own edit was reverted by me, and without any attempt to resolve the matter on talk (over Xmas too). Whatever the right or wrongs of the content, this is not the way to resolve matters. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No prob. --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GRTC BRT stations

The articles deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Lawn (GRTC BRT station) have been quickly recreated by the original editor. I bring this to you attention as the closing admin. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've WP:G4ed them and let the guy know. --slakr^\ talk / 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert of AfD relist

Kindly assume good faith. I was unaware that you had left the previous message; you will observe from my contributions that I was not online after your message until after someone else had left a message on a completely unrelated topic. Your actions completely failed to consider that consensus held that this institution was of a type that is considered inherently notable; this would be acceptable were the voters all SPAs or otherwise non-established users, but some of the participants were established users whose opinions must not be ignored freely. Moreover, you inserted your own opinion into the close and flew in the face of long-established custom with this kind of institution; when you disregard consensus and give a supervote, you should expect to be reverted, and threatening the reverter and assuming bad faith is nowhere near appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Except I didn't close the discussion; you did. I relisted. The point of the relist, if you read my rationale as well as WP:RELIST, is particularly important when non-policy arguments are being used (e.g., "it's inherently notable" is not substantiated via RFC in the community nor in the relevant guidelines @ WP:NSCHOOL nor policy @ WP:NOT#DIR, something brought up by someone in the discussion). Someone might say that in a discussion, but that's why it's important, when closing a discussion, that the policies behind the arguments, if any, be taken into consideration. Personally, if I were looking to accuse anyone of supervoting, it's more likely the person who explicitly removed my relist, deleted my rationale, ignored the underlying policies, and closed it as an "obvious keep." :P That's, of course, if I were wanting to accuse people of supervoting, which I'm not. ;) On a related note, I normally try to assume good faith when at all possible, but let's be honest: you've made at least a few edits to your talk page since mine, so it's not unreasonable for me to assume you were ignoring me after several days. ;) Don't get me wrong, I understand that we're volunteering and there are time constraints. I get all of that, because I have to deal with that too (and no doubt I, too, have accidentally ignored people). Still, it would help to answer when people ask (or even proactively drop a note when you revert someone in that manner), especially if they feel (or are likely to feel) their toes have been stepped on. I just hope that perhaps you consider, at least in the future, that maybe—just maybe—people like me are trying to help and aren't simply out to get their own way. Again, FWIW. --slakr^\ talk / 05:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that you ignored everyone who participated in good faith, so no notification was necessary, and that my monitor, at least, didn't show anything above BohemianGal's statements. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: "Ignored" implies wanton disregard, but I admittedly did weigh the arguments per deletion guidelines for admins, hence the relist. Let's recap:

• "secondary schools are routinely kept at AfD as long as they can be proven to exist...." — invalid argument, contradicts guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL, but does mention the GNG later in it, so that's at least partially a valid argument.
• "As a degree-awarding institution should be kept per longstanding precedent and consensus." — invalid argument, contradicts actual community-wide consensus embodied in guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL.
• "We keep all degree-granting universities and colleges with a real existence" — invalid argument, contradicts actual community-wide consensus embodied in guideline @ WP:NSCHOOL, contradicts community-wide policy @ WP:NOT#DIR.
• "Finally, if the sources are the primary concern of whether the article should stay or not, all other Dutch University Colleges like Amsterdam University College should be removed as well because they are heavily based on primary sources (more so than Erasmus Univeristy College)" — invalid argument; no policy substantiation; obvious example of WP:OTHERSTUFF.

It doesn't matter if the comments are made in good faith or not (well, excluding obvious socks, for example), it's basic AfD closure 101: you don't count votes, you basically count and weigh valid arguments, with priority to policies then guidelines then local consensus, should it be obvious and not severely contradict the two former. At best, if you had to pull my leg to close this, it would be a no-consensus (certainly not a delete). Don't get me wrong, if I'm actually screwing up, I'm more than happy to admit that, because I'd like to know what the right way to handle situations like this is and where that's written for future reference.

And by the way, I'm not even asking you do anything. If someone thinks the article should be deleted at some point in the future, that's up to them and they're free to renominate it or whatever, as I couldn't care less (and I'm certainly not going to take it to DRV—god help us all :P). So please, don't feel like you need to justify or defend anything, but my point is that this response is basically all I was asking for in the first place: your reasoning and a sort of heads up. :P

Whatevs.

--slakr^\ talk / 06:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Opening source of SineBot

Hello, slakr,
Are you able to open source of SineBot (mostly signing), ’cause such a bot is needed on other projects, not only Wikipedia?

— 109.68.234.45 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

SineBOT got a barnstar. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet! =) Thanks :) --slakr^\ talk / 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

nice code, User_talk:SineBot

Slakr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SineBot

--  David  Adam   Kess\ talk / 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky

Hi Slakr. Would you explain how the "delete" arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky established that Austin Madaisky failed both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and WP:NHOCKEY? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I could, but I doubt that I would be able to do so in a way that would satisfy you. The arguments raised by the editors involved were fairly very clear, and where there was believed to be ambiguity in the guidelines, your opinion simply wasn't the one the others in the discussion shared. --slakr^\ talk / 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please try. I would like to understand your close better. I thought Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ clarified what "non-routine secondary coverage for sports" was. I don't understand how the sources can be dismissed for being from "people connected to the topic matter" when no such connection was provided.

I likely will avoid participating in ice hockey AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Madaisky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bonner now that I know the sources I find do not meet the high standards that do not exist in other topic areas. Cunard (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, enough of the talk about not participating, because nobody's asking you to do that, silly :P. More sources are always good. :D Anyway, I believe their main argument wasn't that they weren't independent so much as the coverage was too run-of-the-mill/routine. For what it's worth, I've noticed people's interpretation of the GNG (as far as what constitutes routine coverage) varies by subject areas. The bar seems lower for less-broadly-popular fields (e.g., academics) and higher for mass-appeal ones (e.g., athletes)—at least, that's from what I've seen people argue. *shrug* --slakr^\ talk / 03:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Just venting my frustration at having wasted time futilely looking for sources. ;) Thank you for the interesting comments about the different interpretations of GNG by subject areas. The athlete standard seems very high to me because it's easy to dismiss all the newspaper articles as routine, leaving only athlete topics that pass WP:ATHLETE or have had entire books written about them. Cunard (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A Call to Action deletion

Hi Slakr-- Sorry to meet you in what seem to me these strange circumstances, but then I am new to Wikipedia. I am the original author of the A Call to Action page. I was surprised to find that it had been deleted since the first time I heard about it was from a third party. I don't quite know what your role was but I note that no deletion summary has been provided. The article attracted a great deal of attention and controversy for a supposedly non- notable topic and from the first this much of the consensus (such as it was) appeared to come from a narrow band of opinion. I really fail to understand how this organization did not meet notability criteria which refer to mainstream news media since its chair was interviewed on the Today programme and other places as representing Catholic lay opinion, and it was on BBC new site. It was referred to a 'booming new organisation' in another article in the Independent, and appears copiously as cited in Catholic Independent News and all UK Catholic national weeklies. It has a national organization involving every diocese, and has had official representative meetings with the Cardinal and several of the bishops (again as cited in the press). It has run 3 major national conferences with hundreds of attenders, and these themselves attracted attendance in the hundreds. There is no doubt at all that it is the main Catholic progressive organization in the UK with priests and lay members and distinguished theologians. I would very much like you to review and reverse your decision without further ado. Please do not be influenced by the numbers arguing for delete-- there is something of a stich up here and they by no means amount to a consensus. With thanks for your attention Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I do hope to hear from you shortly. How can I see the deletion summary? Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary policy-based argument that was advanced was that it failed our standards for the notability of organizations, while some also added concerns over its non-neutral tone. There is no "deletion summary," apart from the discussion by the community --slakr^\ talk / 14:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I have also just completed a short revision of the text and will also be seeking further advice. I do hope that you will now reconsider for the reasons copiously explained above so that we can avoid a full deletion review, and look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Thank you for your reply. You will note that I have provided for you above a short rebuttal of the view that A Call to Action does not meet Wiki notability criteria-- these include interviews on Today programme, BBC main news items by the BBC religious advisor Robert Piggott, and other articles all over the place. I hope that you will now reconsider and look forward to hearing from you. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not my argument; it's the input of experienced editors from the community, in good standing, who were involved in the debate. My role is mainly just to check what the main arguments are and that they align with the existing consensus of the community, as reflected by our policies and guidelines. Although you believe that the article might meet them, that belief does not trump that of the rest of the community, who in this instance appear to believe to the contrary. --slakr^\ talk / 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Sorry, but if you take out of the reckoning those editors, only one of whom is an Administrator, who have a record of editing wars and deletion requests for all progressive RC entries -- (documentation available) you will find that there was not a consensus. Your phrase 'the rest of the community' even without that is completely wrong, as you will see if you examine more closely. I am definitely going to ask for a deletion review if you are not able to reconsider Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly convinced of your views with abject certainty, so it appears there's nothing more I can do. --slakr^\ talk / 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" I am not a person who takes offence easily, and I am sure you are doing your best, but I find your last remark rude and far from objective and neutral. It is quite unnecessary. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oil, a lot of oil for SineBot

Look at SineBot's talk page! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Range blocked user returning in another range

On Dec 11, 2014 you range blocked 2001:1388:106::/47 explained here for disruptive editing. The user has returned, same geo location, Lima Peru, as 181.66.157.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 181.66.157.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making same disruptive edits to same articles. Some good, some bad, lots of work to sort them out and in net not helpful to project. Since this is pretty obviously the same user, this is also block evasion. Current range looks to be 181:66.157.0/24 and doesn't look to have much potential for collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	How fast does this bot block IPs and proxies? t 1234567890Number c 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Biological Imperative's page deletion

Why was it deleted? I don't know how to restore it and I'd like to at least copy the contents for my own reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.240.37.94 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

SineBot not editing again

Not edited since 5 this morning (UTC). See contributions. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jetboil again

It appears the Jetboil article is devolving into near edit warring again. If you could keep an eye on the article and the talk page — and offer any advice and council, it might increase the chances of a positive outcome. Thanks.842U (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion that might require changes to your bot

Please review the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Should unsigned templates be substituted. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

your bot is fantastic , nice code !

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.199.189 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Best Bot Barnstar
	How fast does this bot block IPs and proxies? t 1234567890Number c 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Once it confirms it as open, it's blocked within a minute or so. --slakr^\ talk / 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about SignBot

SignBot doesn't seem to be adding {{Unsigned}} when I forget to sign my comments on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Is there something about that page that keeps SignBot from editing it? Or, is there something that could be done to get SignBot to edit it? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It skips non-whitelisted template additions to be safe (e.g., someone adding talk-page notices or something else complex). In this instance, {{ping}} was part of the comment. --slakr^\ talk / 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So should {{ping}} be added to the whitelist, since people will want to sign a post when adding it? Thanks! 03:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

Glad it works here!  :-) GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey Slakr, Thanks for all the work u do!

Hi I was wondering if I could continue putting up comics that I have made on my talk page Ben drowned xxx (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Ben drowned xxx

@Ben drowned xxx: Please see what Wikipedia is not as well as our user page guidelines (e.g., things you should avoid putting on your user and user-talk pages). --slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

SignBot for Wikidata

Thought I should point you toward this. Would be great if you could pop over and comment, perhaps you could run the bot for Wikidata also? Cheers. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there ...

Hi Slakr, since you seem to be in and out, and may not have seen this ping, could you take a look at this request I made of you: [1]? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

SineBot on other-language wikis?

Hi Slakr, do you think SineBot could be easily adapted to run on other-language wikis? Tropcho (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to run Sinebot myself, one place one time

If I find an unsigned comment, I'd like to fix that before replying to it, so ppl know what's going on (I'm not replying to myself!). If Sinebot didn't take care of it automatically, how can I ask it pretty please to do so now, just for this one comment? It's really tedious to do a good job of this manually myself.

I'd have thought others would have asked this before, but it's not in the FAQ. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @A D Monroe III: You might be interested in User:Anomie/unsignedhelper to help with adding {{unsigned}}. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Good morning. Last year I updated a Wikipedia entry that someone created about our company because it was incorrect. However, the changes I made to the page were subsequetnly deleted. However I don't know why they were deleted. I want to create a new page for our company and would welcome your feedback as to what was wrong with my last entry. The company name is ClearView Wealth Limited. I modelled the entry on a similar company in Australia, AMP Limited, so I am not sure why my entry was not suitable. Thank you for your help. 124.47.134.54 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Slakr, I'm not sure if you got my earlier request as I forgot to sign in. My question is about a company page I edited last year for ClearView Wealth Limited. Someone created a page for our company but it was not correct. So I updated it using as reference another similar Wiki entry for AMP Limited (a company which is much like ClearView). But you deleted the whole ClearView entry and I'm not sure why it was not acceptable. I would like to create a company page again and just want to be sure what I can and can't do. Thanks for your help. Maplepond (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

SineBot signed something that was already signed, and that included a link to the user's user & talk pages

I reverted it for now. I just wanted your opinion on it. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Hey Slakr!
Is it possible to run your bot on our german wiktionary? Please do not start it instantly just give my the answer so I can ask in my wiktionary :) Greetings, Impériale (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:SineBot

Hi, hopefully you have time for a quick question. Why is it called "SineBot" and not "SignBot"? Was it a typo? Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)