User talk:A930913/Archives/2010/Oct
bot for NPPHi A930913, one thing that is pretty much specced at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Bot_to_find_article_creators is really just a report - there's been at least one false start in the past. Our normal methods of spotting and flagging Autoreviewers are great at identifying the editor who writes twenty very similar articles on submarines or beetles in one session, but less good at spotting the editor who once a week submits a well referenced article on a notable Roman - but those are the articles that take a lot of patroller time because multiple patrollers will look at them, decide they don't understand and can't check offline sources so will leave it unpatrolled. However because of the sensitivities of leaving lists lying around of editors who may or may not meet a certain criteria, it is probably safest as an emailed report. ϢereSpielChequers 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC) TskI'm just having a little joke. I'll revert it in a couple of days. No need to be so hasty, after all Wikipedia is never finished, and all that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.5.194 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Untitled messagemy bad, I tried to undo what I did, was an honest mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.243.180 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:A930913/vandwarnUser:A930913/vandwarn, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A930913/vandwarn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:A930913/vandwarn during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pilif12p : Yo 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |