User talk:AndyZ

- March 2006 - March 2006 to April 2006 - May 2006 - June 2006 - to October 2006 - to January 2007

Hi, please leave a new message here. Thanks.

WP:ARCHPR

Hey there. I remember your automated peer review process from when I've had a few article listed there. We've since set up WP:ARCHPR an architecture wikiproject peer review - is there anyway your 'bot'(?) could be used to also provide autmatic suggestions for the articles listed there - it strikes me that some people may only list their articles at ARCHPR and miss out on the good technical feedback your bot provides. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LSm

AndyZ,

Thanks for the automated review. I copied and pasted the comments into my Talk page so that I could create a paper trail of comments and my actions. I am a bit busy right now, but I do plan to consider, and answer, every comment. I asked my colleague, Gary Zieve, to review this (he is a Molecular Biologist) and he made 3 very useful edits concerning factural content.

Bob Plaag 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak

Thanks for all the comments! I've tried to take note of them and make changes. One thing though... as soon as I started working on a gallery page, another editor came along and slammed a proposal for deletion, literally within 9 minutes of the article being started. I'd appreciate any comments on whether or not such a gallery should stay, go, or be merged back into the Halfbeak article. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

automated peer review

Thanks for your automated review of the West Indies in England in 1988. Some thought-provoking stuff, thanks. I'll take a detailed look at the suggestions. --Dweller 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we've tackled all of the issues raised at West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Please will you re-run the automated peer review. Thanks. --Dweller 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I think we're done. Waiting now for the GA editors to approve or otherwise. Are we a long way short of FA in your opinion? --Dweller 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I request one for Paul Collingwood, please? As there's a group of us working fast on this, in time for the imminent cricket world cup, it would be great if you could post the results to the article's talk page. I know... I'm cheeky. Thanks! --Dweller 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I tried to retrieve the automated peer review for Joseph F. Glidden House but found it to be non-existent, any help?A mcmurray 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review & geoboxes

Thanks for running the automated peer review of Mendip Hills there are a couple of useful points I've acted on. Can I ask whether the process yet spots geoboxes (rather than infoboxes)? The process suggested I use an infobox but the article already has a more comprehensive (& machine readable) geobox providing the same info - could this also explain the suggestion of getting a free use image when I already have a PD one (of Cheddar Gorge) top right - but it's inside the geobox so may not have been recognised. Thanks again— Rod ^talk 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated PR

Great work on that! I submitted the article Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, and I got the automated; it was very helpful, thanks! I tried to add the script to my monobook, but it didn't work (after bypassing my cache). Could you please tell me what I did wrong? Thanks. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I noticed it worked on a Macintosh, but I use Windows. Should the code be changed to make it work on my computer, or do I have to borrow my friend's Mac every time I need your PR? I'd appreciate any help, so leave me a message on my talk page after you're back if you can. Thanks! · AndonicO ^Talk 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't work either. I replace the url, hit enter, and nothing happens. Oh well. The only two things I got on my friend's computer were the copyediting and date tips though. I noticed that just about everyone had these, so I wondered if they were automatic, and that I shouldn't worry, or if the article needs copyeding and date corrections (which I couldn't fine). · AO ^Talk 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners

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 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Auto peer review

Hey, I'd just like to say thanks for you and your bot in generating a number of automated peer reviews for me. I have a single comment, it often suggests adding an image to the top-right corner where one already exists, just within an infobox. Any chance you could modify the algorithm that searches for an image accordingly? Pretty much all bio's will have an infobox where the image will exist! Minor point, but one I thought worth making. Thanks again, and all the best, The Rambling Man 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewer

I can’t work out how to use the automated peer review. Please can you add it to my script page? (I’m not familiar with the monobook page) Thanks. Simpsons contributor 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3 Revert Violation

Hi, sorry to bother you. I would like to report a three revert violation of a featured article that you supported a year ago. I would have posted this at the Three revert noticeboard, but it appears there is a huge backlog and the page is too big for me to download. The details of the violation are below. Thanks!

User:AllanBColson reported by User:Jayzel68 (Result:)

Three-revert rule violation on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AllanBColson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]

Comments

User is a sockpuppet of User:Derex who has been around at least over a year. I referred to him as Derex at Talk:1996 United States campaign finance controversy and he did not deny this. User led me on a circular discussion over a NPOV tag he added and warned me about the 3 revert rule before he then violated it himself. --Jayzel 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating! I certainly have not violated the 3RR today or ever. I've made several copyedits, some of which deleted extraneous material inserted weeks and months before. However, that's an entirely different beast than a revert. If Jayzel wishes to pursue a complaint against me, I'd ask him to do so at the appropriate forum WP:3RR. The rather large irony behind this is that Jayzel himself quite blatantly violated the 3RR with an obvious sock after having been warned. Having little taste for conflict, I have not reported him, in the spirit of good faith. However, I find this spurious little sneak attack ungentlemanly. I encourage and welcome Jayzel to pursue the matter of this morning's edits at ANI if he's willing to subject his own edits to the same scrutiny as mine. Do you have any idea why he singled you out for attention? AllanBColson 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and though it presumably goes without saying, I certainly haven't violated any WP:SOCK policies either. It would again appear quite clear that Jayzel has. I'm not in the habit of denying whatever mud Jayzel throws my way. He's called me quite a few nasty names, and I haven't the time or inclination to rise to his baiting. So, I find the best course is to simply ignore his incivilities and aspersions. AllanBColson 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Admin attention

Hello, I was going through random articles and found a victim of vandalism, please don't judge me on the article though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_Wheels_of_Steel

At the bottom someone put editlollollollz instead of editors. Skoalman666 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewer

Couple things I wanted to mention that I thought you might be able to fix.

• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, Doesn't, Don't --- This is looking inside of "ref" statements. If I have a title of a article that is "Don't buy xxx" we need to keep that the same. So perphaps the script could skip contractions inside of ref statements.
• It also recommended a change of "percent" to "%", which is perfectly fine. However, it was inside of a quotation, which probably shouldn't change.
• Also, what is the minimum size for a image caption in your script. Seems a concise caption is a bit long.

Just thought I would mention them. Thanks for the great script! Morphh ^(talk) 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills FAC

Thanks for your comments on the Peer Review of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod ^talk 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PR script bug

I think I found a PR script but. See Our Chalet. With the "1350 metres" in the lead, with the nbsp in it, it tells me to not put an s after an abbrev eventhough metres is not an abbrev. If I take out the nbsp, it tells me it needs it. Rlevse 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PR script bug - not working in Firefox

I've been trying to run your PR script with Firefox 2 (with Linux kernel 2.6.17, which probably isn't the problem). The error console within Firefox gives a pretty generic error of "too much recursion" with your script enabled. With your script disabled, it does not give the error. Just in case, I've ripped out all my custom scripts (popups and scripts I've wrote) with the same results. Has this been tested in Firefox 2? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PR script suggestion

Hi Andy, thanks for your PR script, which we use quite often at WP:Chem. I have a suggestion, though, regarding element names. The script suggests that "Aluminum" is the preferred spelling for the metal in articles that use American spellings, but in fact WP:Chem follows international spelling guidelines (from IUPAC) that override local page spellings. After many heated arguments in the early days of WP, it was agreed that all chemistry-related pages on WP should (in theory) use the following spellings, whatever the style of the specific page:

• Aluminium not aluminum
• Sulfur not sulphur
• Caesium not cesium

A good example of this can be seen at sulfuric acid, which uses what some would regard as an American spelling for the title compound, but the article in general follows British English. (Interestingly, Al used to be called aluminium in the USA also, until someone made a typo that somehow stuck...!). So I just wanted to ask if you could pick an example that doesn't mention aluminum as an approved American spelling? Thanks once again for a very helpful script. Walkerma 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for a scan

I have History of the New York Giants (1925-1978) currently under peer review, could you please scan it through with the bot? Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scanned it with the bot myself. Hope you come back soon! Quadzilla99 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DavidBarron.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidBarron.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

	<font=3> Thanks again for your comments - List of Pennsylvania state parks made featured list! Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed at Plymouth Colony

I noticed that you had done some work at History of New Jersey that had resulted in that article receiving featured status. I have been a principal editor at Plymouth Colony, and seeing as both articles are part of American History, I thought perhaps you might have some interest in hlping to improve that article. The article is up for featured article candidacy and several reviewers have requested that I recruit some other editors to look over the article and make additional changes. I would appreciate if, in your free time, you could look it over, make any changes as you see fit, and also make any comments you would like on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks alot, and happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OSX, Safari and Firefox

I could not get the peerreviewer to work on OSX and Safari on files that I had created or worked on extensively, but have discovered that the combination of OSX and Firefox enables it. It's a great tool. I note the comment above about Linux and Firefox 2. I have Firefox 2.0.0.3. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wha happen'd!?!

I don't really know you through interactions, but your work with the automated peer review bot is sorely missed. Come back soon dude. Quadzilla99 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you, I don't think I need to say why. --Michael Billington (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Password changed

I have logged in and changed the password for this user account, and removed its registered email address. - Mark 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that our working assumption is that the account was compromised, right? Do you think the registered email address was an old one belonging to the real user, or a new one put in by the vandal? Doops | talk 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The email address looks genuine. I've sent him an email explaining what happened and asking for an explanation to the community. - Mark 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One could just take this at face value and assume that this was the result of an extraordinarily low strength password and a vandal willing to try the obvious. (Admins: time to add more random symbols to your password!) - BanyanTree 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that the most probable explanation, I'd say, which is why I've kept the new password and not made it gibberish, in case the user turns up and says it was just a weak password. - Mark 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Since my password was already changed, thanks User:Mark) Just got the e-mail (it is genuine): obviously the best password for an admin to use isn't password. I haven't had time recently to go on Wikipedia, with most recent edits anonymous, so apparently my account was compromised and hacked. Sorry for the problems this has caused, and I hope no long-lasting damage has been done. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock}} removed, I think it's best to leave this up to Mark. John Reaves (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(finishing the rest of my unblocking reason below so that involved admins don't have to copy a huge blurb if they deny this unblock)

I don't mind if the WP community wishes to wait time before [if?] unblocking me to confirm the security of this account/my identity; I personally am confused and disturbed by the ongoing admin-hacking spree.

Also, I noted that I am editing from my semi-bot account created a long while back. I understand that I probably should not be editing from any logged-in account right now, but I believe this constitutes the best proof I have that I am indeed AndyZ. APR _t 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the password to AZPR was also "password". Have you e-mailed Mark back? He will know your original e-mail address and will be in the best position to verify your identity. Thatcher131 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It was (I changed the password now) :(. I realize that that also creates more identity problems (great..), but I have e-mailed Mark. APR _t 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark for letting me re-gain control of my account. I am currently changing the password to a much higher security level. AZ _t 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Andy! Ruhrfisch 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And thank you very much User:Ruhrfisch (both for the welcome and for WP:PR/A)! As a side note, Mark has returned my e-mail and has given me my new password, explaining my edit above. APR _t (back on this account b/c I'm still blocked from editing all pages but my talk) 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)