User talk:Bob the Wikipedian/Archive/4

Hi Bob, Noticed you've been notifying relevant editors about the poll. Cheers for that, hopefully this'll lead to a consensus and prevent further 'hostilities'. Best, Mark t young (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You will not find something similar as this is unique. Fact is the "marsupial lion" is the species and as a result should be redirected to the page. Cazique (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the kind words when I retired. for the words i made you a new sig. HERE IT IS:<Bob the Wikipedian >

here is the link:'''''<font size="4"><<font color="blue"></font></font>[[User:Bob the Wikipedian|<font size="3"><font color="blue">Bob</font></font>]] [[User talk:Bob the Wikipedian|<font size="3"><font color="gold">the</font></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Bob the Wikipedian|<font size="3"><font color="red">Wikipedian</font></font>]] <font size="4"><font color="gold">></font></font>''''' Wikieditor 222    22:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed a little bit ago that you're on the Highly Active Users list (through finding your user page via recent thylacoleonidae discussions), so I thought I would direct my question to you. What are the rules regarding editing a users talk page, more specifically the removal of comments left by other users? Also, what is the yard-stick for measuring civility? Comments were removed from my talk page by a user whom the comments were about. If they were considered uncivil by Wikipedia's standards, I suppose that's fair enough, but I'm not sure what to do. Is it unacceptable behaviour? Or was it fair? T.carnifex (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying that. Enjoy your wiki-break :) T.carnifex (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bob, in the German Wikipedia you asked for a translation of the article Rhein-Herne-Kanal. Here it is: Rhine-Herne Canal. Cheers, --Mosmas (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Belated thanks for your comments on May 18th regarding, I presume, my edits to the fossil range field for ciliates. I agree that we should cite references for a taxon's stratigraphic range even if a subsidiary taxon already has a reference. My omission was based more on laziness than editing philosophy, and I have now cited references for alveolates as well as ciliates. - Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for putting the box on my page, I didn't think of using one them. Cheers! T.carnifex (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The net had been on the blink for a day or two, but I put my message up while I was over someones house. Yeah, it was a good thought, so thanks :) T.carnifex (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, can you tell me why the "what is a troll" essay was redirected to Meta? Was there any discussion? I think this belongs as a Wikipedia essay ... Slrubenstein | Talk 08:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob,

I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the Palaeo WikiProject? I really think you'd make an excellent contributor. Best, Mark t young (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Marsupial lions fall under WP:Palaeo... In fact, any fossil animal/plant/bacteria or palaeontologist does! Just so you know, you're more than welcome to join. :) Mark t young (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Not long ago you moved Cafeteria to Cafeteria (structure) to allow the former to become a dab page due to the creation of Cafeteria (bicosoecid). I wonder whether, as the author of the dab page, you'd object if I requested an admin move the original article back to where it was, leaving Cafeteria (structure) as a redirect, and put in a dablink to the marine organism's page as a hatnote at the top of Cafeteria?

My reasoning is mainly that the overwhelming majority of searches on the simple term "Cafeteria" will be expecting the food meaning. Dab guidelines suggest that in these cases the much more popular meaning should be the one the searcher finds first. Secondly, the move has caused all the old links to the "cafeteria" article to link to the dab page instead, and these will all have to be repaired manually. I made a start, but have quickly realised that a better solution would be the one I have suggested. Could you let me know whether it's OK with you? There's a small note at Talk:Cafeteria (structure) if it helps make my ramblings any clearer. Cheers, Karenjc 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for your response - I'll go ahead and sort it.  :) Karenjc 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was just curious what the updates to {{Grading scheme}} were for. They all link to oldids so I don't understand the need for a change. I've probably missed something so I decided to ask. Thanks in advance. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems logical enough, thanks for the update! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bob! You're right about the angle in principle, I may switch them for now. However, I believe (will check when I get up to it) that the study you're thinking of only described a neutral pose for the head, and doesn't imply that rhamphorhynchoids were incapable of pointing the head downward at all. Anyway, I think Conways image is really good either way and I'll definitely re-incorporate it as I expand the text. There's sooo much to cover on R., I couldn't help at least get the ball rolling on expanding that pitifully brief stub with more images than content! ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I have no objections to the idea at all, but, as an editor who is associated with a lot of religion projects, that might not surprise you. I do like the idea of maybe having a place in wikipedia where we could reasonably discuss whether a given image, which may or may not be objectionable because of its graphic nature, could be replaced by another image which is otherwise just as acceptable but without the graphic nature. I regret to see that you have seemingly given up on the idea. If you would have no objections, though, I might consider doing a little to revive it (maybe including a name change, I dunno) and see if it could be successful. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that with the current situation we might be very much damaging ourselves by in effect offending individuals who have certain religious codes by making them risk violating those codes by using our site, and some problems with juvenile editors on the same basis. Unfortunately, I am myself not that familiar with with developing new routines. Wikipedia:Bot requests or Wikipedia:Village pump might be better places to go to find someone more familiar with such things. Based on my own limited knowledge of such things, we might be in effect requesting that certain images get one or more "alternates" made mechanically available under certain conditions. We would probably have to have someone add somehow a hidden redirect to another image which would show that other image if such were indicated as desirable in the editors "My preferences/User profile" page. We'd also probably need some people at Wikimedia Commons help list potentially objectionable images that are used, and maybe find other "replacements" which don't have those problems. Having not prepared this response in advance, I might go to the Village Pump first to see if anyone there thinks it feasible. From previous experience, I know it can sometimes take a long time for messages there to get a useful number of responses, so be prepared. But if the idea meets with enough approval there to be viable, then the next step would be to get some help at Commons in finding alternate images and maybe getting a bot created. Keep me posted in any event. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bots do more than just tagging, though. I've seen several articles on politicians and places which were created by bots using public domain text. Unfortunately, I myself am over my head in dealing with any programming matters. Regarding the name, Virgo is good. If for whatever reason you don't like that, most bot creators use a variant of their own name, and there isn't a User:Bobbot or User:Bob the bot yet. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I dont understand so much what do you mean on your post o my talk page, please provide explications on your or my talk page, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian19 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you even read the link in my edit summary? Judging by your incredibly ironic templating, I would guess not. Also, you should probably read this. --Cyde Weys 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've responded on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Bob the Wikipedian. "NORTH" became standard and "NORTHERN" became obscelete in references to NORTH CYPRUS. In Wikipedia, I do NOT know how to make all articles to make this legal change at once. Unfortunately, I make the shifts one by one :( I think making all such shifts at once requires some coding and script. I do NOT know. Please Help. DirenisVarYikilisYok (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I will follow your suggestion. Ctrl + F finds the required changes. Thanks a lot, once more. DirenisVarYikilisYok (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bob, thanks for the warning, but this is yet another sockpuppet from a prolific puppeteer. Typically, all contributions from socks of banned users are rolled back. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I offended you, I do apologize. This editor is very persistent in pushing a particular politically charged POV against consensus. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/February 2009#Bob the Wikipedian. SoxBot X (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ha! I got nominated by an anonymous IP. I don't think my unpredictable busy life allows for any such admin rights, so this was pretty hilarious to me. Thanks for the laugh. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bob, just wanted to let you know the Arbitration Committee has requested that no one places comments next to their votes, instead you can leave comments in the "Questions and comments" section, or remove it all together. Up to you. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is just a rediscovery - http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=9259 Shyamal (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops sorry, I misread something on the net. Shyamal (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

All I was doing was adding to the details of their various brands (there was very little). I just had time to do it today. I found this one great article online about the elves.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply