User talk:Nickptar/Archive 3
Your user page edit
Hi. Can you please remove that unnecessary and uncivil attack on Kelly Martin from your userpage. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Long time, no see edit
Hello there, mate. I was just taking a stroll down memory lane a wee bit ago and realized I hadn't seen you around for a while, and thought I'd catch up and say that I've always appreciated your measured, reasonable, intelligent tone, such as that you used on the Kelly Martin RfC. Thanks for all that. Hope you're well, and maybe I'll see you around again some day. Take care, Blackcap (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Reading this was a big motivator in bringing me back. ~~ N (t/c) 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're back! Fantastic! That just made my day. Welcome back, friend. I'll be seeing you, I dearly hope. Blackcap (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I LOVE YOU BABY <33.
Erm, archive? edit
|
Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. |
I think it is 80KB+. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
N-bot errors? edit
Dunno if anyone's brought this to your attention yet, but N-bot seems to be occasionally messing up, judging by Skope's fixes. Looking through the diffs, seems to be N-bot's edits which are responsible for the double brackets within double brackets problem. See [1] [2] [3] --maru (talk) contribs 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. It's less a problem with the bot itself than with the pages it's working on - this happens when a list links to a redirect to itself in one of the section headers, which obviously is not a smart thing to do. From now on I'll just manually fix that before running the bot. ~~ N (t/c) 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I LOVE YOU ALE :D♥
N-Bot edit
Out of interest why does N-Bot not have a bot flag? I'm only asking because it seems to be working fine, so I don't check all its edits to the various star wars pages on my watchlist, but it takes up loads of space on my watchlist (obviously a busy bot!). --Tim (talk), (contribs) 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar edit
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| I, SheeEttin, award Nickptar and his bot N-Bot the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for making all these fixes that would take too long to do and be too hard to find by hand (and which really annoy me), and for generally making Wikipedia a better place. |
Deleting my pictures edit
Why did you delete those images on Space War Online?
I put all the right information on them
WP:WHMT edit
Hello. You may or may not remember this, but some time ago you signed up for a Hangman Tournament hosted here on Wikipedia.
For some reason or another, you were placed on the "potential players" list.
The next tournament is about to start, and I was just wondering if you were still interested in participating. If you are, please go to the page (linked above) and bold your name in the sign-up list. This will confirm your registration, and move you to the next slot on the waiting list. If you are not interested any more, please feel free to remove your name from the list. If you haven't responded within 7 days, I will assume you are not interested, and remove you from the list. However, if you are too busy, go to the page anyway and renew your "busy" notice. This shows that you are still interested in the tournament, but still are to busy to participate at this time.
If you think anyone else may be interested in this tournament, please drop them a note and ask them to sign up. Good luck, and I hope to see you at the tournament! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I see that you are an administrator. I would like some feedback on the above article please. Although I have been reading up on policies, I would like to get the opinions of more experienced editors before I proceed. Thank you. Tidaress 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cary Academy IP edit
Nick,
Would you have an objection to archiving, rather than deleting, the Cary Academy warnings?
Thanks, TheronJ 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't see the point of keeping around (besides in the history) months of warningcruft to 700 different people, none of whom are constant editors or serious problems. ~~ N (t/c) 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I blocked the Cary Academy IP for 1 month, then I noticed the note about you using it. Feel free to change the duration if you want. Or if you would prefer you can ask me to do it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't actually affect me (I don't know if this is because I'm an admin or a logged-in user), and sadly I'm inclined to agree, seeing as the vast majority of edits are unproductive. In fact, I don't see why we don't just indefinitely block it. ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is the brand spanking new template:schoolblock. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Old discussion revived edit
Hi there. You commented on this old discussion. I've revived the discussion here, and thought you might like to comment. Carcharoth 14:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a automated to all bot operators edit
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Automated message to bot owners edit
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:2,6-Bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol.png listed for deletion edit
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2,6-Bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-4-methylphenol.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-4-methylphenol.png){kind=link}
Non-free use disputed for Image:RCMP logo.gif edit
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:RCMP logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Smile edit
†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Bot activity edit
I was going over the list of bots and noticed that N-Bot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz talk 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)