User talk:slakr
|
slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi? |
Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)
| Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | |
|
Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted?
Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism?
If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed?
All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)".
If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page?
Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed.
Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed.
Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available?
Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't!
You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
How do I report users for misbehaviour on Wikipedia?
Hi I'm new here, a conversation between two users has basically turned into fisticuffs. I told the two to calm down and have a break, they went on being aggressive and one of them is outright denouncing and threatening the other.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Check out the dispute resolution process. If someone is making threats, you might also consider a post to the administrator's noticeboard. --slakr\ talk / 20:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sinebot question
More of suggestion I suppose. Why not have the bot simply add a regular signature without the — Preceding unsigned comment added by ... portion? I feel this would be slightly less disruptive as it takes up less space on the page. -- John Reaves 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- It simply uses
{{unsigned}}et al templates, so what you see at those is what you get. --slakr\ talk / 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just saying that I am happy to have you unblock if you think that's best, off to bed now. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Deeeleeete Award
Thanks! Kind of funny... shortly after your message, somebody thought I should be deleted. [1] [2] Can the Cyberban be reprogrammed to provide defense? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
User:SineBot mistake?
Hi there. I'm guessing SineBot shouldn't be signing stuff here? It Is Me Here t / c 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's a talk page, but ftfy --slakr\ talk / 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Phil robertson merge..
I'm kinda new to all this but does this mean that the information in that article must be merged into the Phil Robertson article? If that is the case I must disagree with this assesment... given tprimarily the topic of the article wasn't about phil robertson nor A&E but the controversy over the remarks...and secondly the only call for a merge was striked out when issues of being undue were raised... (to examplify how undue it would be I refer you to the duck dynasty article which many are trying to reduce... including myself... its huge! and some suggesting trimming it down to a paragraph) but anyhoo... If merger of this article is not neccessary then I apologize for wasting your time.. although I do believe it had potential as a stand alone article...I would surely have to consider disputing turning the phil robertson page into a proxy for a controversy that in essence was about the remarks rather than the man.. alll assesments on the issue where in relation to the words/actions and beared little or no opinion of the man,the show, or the company that produced the show.....sure they started the national debate but they were not the focus of the debate... thank you for your time Nickmxp (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's basically de facto delete. However, as the arguments for delete pointed out, the main issues were the event's independent, lasting notability (rather lack thereof) and the merits of forking to its own article from its parent(s). In almost all cases (including keeps), nobody was arguing the article's entire content was truly lacking in secondary source coverage or otherwise completely delete-worthy (contrast, for example, with a non-notable company, person, etc...). Taken in concert, I took that as consensus to keep the reasonably keepable content, leaving the matter of where it truly belonged to be sorted out elsewhere. Whether or not that's on Phil Robertson (I assumed, mainly given the rationales for POV-forking and him being the originator of the comments and ensuing controversy), Duck Dynasty (as I noted a lot of the article's content is already there), and/or a combination of both is more a discussion for the editors of those respective pages, but the close templates only seem to allow one article to be stuck in the field. :P
- In contrast, had it been flat-out deleted it wouldn't have addressed—and would have contradicted the logical intent of—many of the delete votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "delete because it's a POV-fork") as well as the keep votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "keep because it's too big and needs its own article"), as outright deleting the content (instead of merging it back to where it was forked from) would have even further solidified an alleged POV fork's intent (i.e., to presumably whitewash a source article) while obliterating the content, citations, edits, and updates that had happened in the meantime. In short: simply deleting would have been the antithesis of both sides' arguments.
- Basically, the thought is that if the content was spun off from its parent article(s) for whatever reason, but people later decided it didn't need (or shouldn't have, etc...) its own article, then it logically follows that it should return from whence it came (instead of disappearing down a black hole). That's part of the idea behind ignoring a flat "!vote" count in favor of fulfilling the perceived/applied/practical intent of what's actually being said (e.g., "I'm saying <delete/keep/comment>, but I really mean <whatever> because of the rationale I'm giving and the situation at hand"). Hence, a "merge" in this instance seems to fulfill both consensus and practicality by making it a lot easier for non-admins to copy the content back to its ideal location(s), as a true "delete" would have otherwise immediately killed all of it and required either userfication, a temporary undelete, or direct admin editing action to get at the deleted revisions.
- --slakr\ talk / 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Toolserver
Could you give an answer for User_talk:Slakr/Archive_19#Your_toolserver_tools? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for recovering deleted page
Hi Slakr, I was disappointed at your deletion of the wiki page of the [Society for Intercultural Dialogue] was deleted. The organisation is fighting an important battle to protect the heritage of the ancient city of Varanasi and would like to share resources that others can avail of for similar initiatives in their countries. Is there any way to revise the page and propose it again? And is it possible for me to recover the last version of the page since I edited it and did not save those edits elsewhere? I would really appreciate if you could give your advise on how to improve the page and on how to recover the last version of the page on wiki. thanksVrindadar (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)