Hello, A4, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Hi. Please don't simply re-add the POV category to the
Holodomor article. There is a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page about this topic and why the category does not belong. If you disagree with the consensus, please discuss there. Thank you.
User:Sebbeng19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)reply
I see there is no consensus in the talk page. On the contrary - the denial of Genocide is a POV.
Please stop. If you continue to
vandalize pages, as you did to
Holodomor, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
User:Sebbeng20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Тут, як завжди цілий інтернаціонал зібрався. Ось, людина, яка розміщує у себе шаблон, що він фанат Кагановича, вже погрожує блокуванням. Напиши йому у відповідь на сторінку, щоб не погрожував тобі, що його дії підпадають під порушення правил про недопущення погроз, і т.д. і т.п. А краще витри цю херню, як звичайну персональну атаку. --
Yakudza21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)reply
This is not a threat, mr. Yakudza, but an official en wiki boilerplate vandalism warning. And pushing a POV against an obvious consensus sure counts as one. And please avoid terms like "херню" (bullsh*t for those reading us), since it is obviously a personal attack. --
Grafikm(AutoGRAF)19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Это именно персональная атака и угрозы в нарушение всех полисов Википедии (see
WP:NPA). Участник, разместивший это, не имеет никакого права делать. Он не должен делать заявлений в таком вызывающем и недружественном. К тому же, разместивший эту угрозу пользователь, более чем никто. Он не администратор - он хам. Да и администрар не может так направо и налево разбрасывать угрозы. Относительно согласованности по Голодомору, то это мягко говоря неправда. Дискуссия на эту тему идет уже довольно долго на странице обсуждения статьи и до согласия там еще очень далеко. В свою очередь, я могу порекомендовать А4 не совершать значительные редакции статей без предварительного обсуждения. --
Yakudza19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
А де можна поскаржитись на свавілля адмінів? Щодо правила 24 годин - тут я дійсно порушив (я думав, що відлік ведеться від 0:00 до 23:59). А от стосовно "вандалізму"
User talk:Sebbeng - це типове свавілля. --
A400:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Можливо, що не варто скаржитись. Спробуй написати на сторінку адміна, можливо він просто не розібрався. А що ти можеш писати заблокованим на своїй сторінці? --
Yakudza01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)reply
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the
three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Привіт Андрію, не варто було витирати попередження від адміна (aeropagitica), а тільки персональні атаки від того Sebbeng. Бо там нічого крім персональних атак не було. --
Yakudza20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Dear Mets501, You are not right about
User:A4bot.
Here you wtore that the username A4Bot is inappropriate, but it is not true.
Here this bot was approved for operations. As you can see the name A4bot was quite acceptible for my bot. Please don't disturb me with incorrect remarks ever more. Thank you for understanding, regards --
A413:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I think you're a bit confused. I'm the one who approved your bot, and never said anything about it being inappropriate. To avoid messages such as the one you received by
Ciphershort on your bot's talk page make sure to only make real edits under your real username and only make bot edits under your bot username. —Mets501 (
talk)15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Now unblocked. Please note that your bots edits don't show the bot bit. I might take that up with the b'crat that gave you bot-status. On a further note - there is some ongoing dispute about the status of the ru-sib wiki.
Agathoclea00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi, on a different note (entirely unrelated to the ru-sib issue): there seems to be a small technical bug in your bot. Regarding edits like this
[2], please configure the bot in such a way that it won't make changes to pages in the "Template:" namespace. Or if it does, make sure that it includes all wikilinks added to Templates within <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Otherwise, all pages that include the template will have the template's interwiki link displayed themselves. For instance, after it changed the
Template:User uk, all user pages of Ukrainian users were displaying interwiki links to the corresponding babel pages on other wikis. Thank you,
Fut.Perf.☼08:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I've been deleting the interwiki deadlinks from the
India article, but your bot keeps adding them (okay, he can't know). Is there a way to prevent it from adding them? There were about 40 interwiki links that lead to empty articles or candidates for speedy delete in other Wikipedias, that will often not be deleted in the near future. —
N-true02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm terribly sorry, I don't know how it caused. Possibly there was incorrect interwiki's in some others wikipedias. But it's not true that my bot keeps adding. It happened only once
[3] --
A410:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, I thought it might keep readding it if I simply removed the links again, so I didn't do anything. The problem is, that the links aren't realldy dead, but just lead to empty pages or pages with no valuable content... or pages that are supposed to be deleted. Is there a way, maybe, to prevent A4bot from adding interwiki links to the
India article? —
N-true15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)reply
OK, I shan't touch the article
India any more. But now I have a great problem with my bot in English wiki. It looks like sombody unlegitimately blocked it. Could you possibly help me see what's happened? --
A423:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure, I don't know much about bots and I'm not an expert on admins' work... but there's a message on
your bot's talk page, that might explain it (not sure, though). I also don't know how to find out who blocked your bot; sorry. —
N-true03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Just to say that the
A4bot just made a strange edit to the
lung cancer page in which it converted
Rontgen equivalent man to what looked like a link to a Romanian language page under
Ro:ntgen equivalent man. That said, it appears there was a typo in the link previously, but I can't be completely sure.
Sorry, I've blocked your bot, as it again made that controversial edit on
Ingria. As you know, there's been a long-standing warning against bots engaging in that edit-war (see also
here). Please fix your bot so it won't be making edits which you know are contentious and likely to be reverted again. Of course, you are free to work for the inclusion of that link in some other way - but please use proper dispute resolution then, and if you need to make contentious edits, make them manually and with proper explanation. Bots must not be used for pushing an opinion in a dispute by revert-warring.
This bot can be unblocked any time as soon as the owner explains how they are going to stop it from edit-warring.
You blocking is not legitimate because there was no any consensus about interwiki's in article
Ingria. Also there is no police that forbid to interwiki's to this article as well as there is no police forbidding to add interwiki's to ru-sib wikipedia. --
A410:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
You apparently didn't take in what I wrote just above. There certainly is no policy against linking to ru-sib, but there just as certainly is a policy against revert-warring. Bots must not revert-war. It's a dispute,
work it out. But don't use your bot to push your opinion mechanically.
There is a policy only about 3 revert editions, but my bot did only 1 edition for today, so you did unligitimate. --
A410:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit-warring is forbidden generally, whether it's a slow edit war or not. 3RR is not an entitlement to keep making fewer than three. This particular edit has been made and reverted dozens of times over the last months, which makes the continuing of the reverting certainly a source of disruption.
Fut.Perf.☼10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I've said what I had to say about this, and I must go now and will be away for a while. Your best bet if you want a review of this block is to put up an unblock request in the normal way. Note that the block has been only against the bot account,
A4bot (
talk·contribs), not against the main account itself. You are aware you yourself are still free to edit whatever you like, right?
Fut.Perf.☼11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course I am and I'm not going to spend my time for the Ingria article - I do know you will abuse your adminship to block me too. But you are doing unligitimately and must to do something you stop doing like that. Unfortunately I don't know how to do "unblock request in the normal way" --
A411:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Of course I won't block you -- I didn't block the revert warriors on the other side either, did I? But I still ask you, if you want to deal with the article, please use responsible dispute resolution methods. -- An unblock request is made by putting up {{unblock|reason=blah blah blah}} here on your talkpage (or that of the bot), with a brief explanation for your request filled in for the reviewing admin.
Fut.Perf.☼11:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked my bot unligitimately, abusing his adminship for his own purpose. Discussion could be seen above.
Decline reason:
Your bot is edit warring on that page. You must configure it not to do so. Once you have, and you show us how you fixed this, we will unblock. Administrators: Do not unblock without consulting a
WP:BAG member or interwiki bot operator who can confirm that the bot is now functioning properly. — --
ST47Talk·
Desk12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I second this unblock denial. Sorry, A4, but bots might revert human editors only in case of vandalism. Enforcing one side of a dispute by a bot is already bad, but doing that only because that way is technically simpler to implement is worse.
Tizio12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)rreply
It is not true that I use my bot for Enforcing one side of a dispute. I run this bot automatically in all language wikiprojects and english was not an exclusion. So the blocking was unligitimate - you don't have any policies for blocking. --
A415:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Nobody has ever said you did that intentionally. However, the edits of your bot are effectively, even if unintentionally, supporting one side of a dispute. This is the problem: disputes are for humans, not for bots.
Tizio15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
It seem's to be your POV, but there is no such police in english wikipedia. Thus the blocking was not ligitimately. I'm terribly disturbed that english administrators are so unlawful to abuse their adminship for enforcing their side of disput --
A415:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
As it's clear by now, there is sufficient consensus that these edits are harmful; the block is therefore appropriate per
WP:BOT. As for the policy saying "bots must not edit-war with humans (apart from vandals)", I agree this is not written in any policy page; a lot of other obvious things are not written anywhere; this one could be added to
WP:BOT, if really needed.
Tizio17:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This is awfull. And what does mean "can confirm that the bot is now functioning properly" in case when the bot is blocked? --
A417:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the urgent request above I show anyone intrested in that my fixing the problem is the next:
while starting bot to make interwiki's to the article
Ingria or starting to make a lot of articles which could include the article Ingria to ignore english wikipedia by extraction the line usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'A4bot' from my user-config file.
There was a detailed discussion of the issue at
Your "Sib-wiki" promotion, please cut it! threads that you
commented out. Other editors are welcome to read it omitting entries in Ukrainian left in defiance on my opposition to using non-English in en-wiki space. Anyway, there is enough English there to get an overall idea. --
Irpen20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
In that topic I argued that siberian wiki is a full value wiki project (not en external site, as
User:Irpen thought) and it is a disrespect to Wikipedia fondation to withdraw syberian interwiki. As you now request for deletion syberian project is not satisfied quite for a long time. Therefore it's terrible that I must obey the lawlessness in the english wikipedia. --
A421:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Awarded to A4 for outstanding global translation efforts for Wikipedia. Your work is recognized and appreciated. Thank you for all you do.
♫ Cricket02 (
talk)
20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)reply
A4 Bot
The bot puts Ukrainskii names last name first contrary to the way that names are listed in other similar languages. Is this intentional? Why the inversion?
ClaudeReigns (
talk)
20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
We have such rule for naming pesons in ukrainian wikipedia, it is almost the same as in russian and continues the soviet tradition of encyclopedia namings. In any case interwiki bot names articles as they are named in wikiprojects. --
A4 (
talk)
11:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)reply