This is an archive of past discussions with User:MichaelBillington. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Michael - just tried MWT but I guess I got something wrong as it didn't add me. Apologies and advice welcome (I guess I wanted to see what it was all about) cheers -- Nigel(Talk)07:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the edit summary here, I'd say you've found a bug. This is the first instance I've seen of this occuring, and my apologies for the programme breaking. I'll do some debugging and see if I can resolve the problem. My current concern is that it allowed you to edit without logging in to wikipedia [1], which means that there are 2 bugs I'll be working on today :P, Thanks for trying it out, even if it didn't work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
One less bug for you - I did login but maybe not before I tried clicking. I do have this habit of trying things out first and then .... (RTFM is an alien concept to me!). I'm actually at work (wispering) so I may not get to try it much today but I'll hope to over the next couple of days. Is it very tied to IE (if you have time to answer if not fine)? I kinda don't like it <g> and use FF mainly on wiki now (opera isn't as happy/compatible). All the best -- Nigel(Talk)08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, after a bug report and a discussion on the MWT mailing list (As well as the IRC channel), we've been unable to replicate it, but we've traced it down to a certain subroutine in the programme, which can be avoided using the following method (if you're still interested)
Open up Internet Explorer
Go to Wikipedia
Log in, ticking the "remember me" check box
Close Internet Explorer (finally)
Open MWT, it *should* now add your name to the list, properly now that you can be sure you're logged in. - it should now be working :D
No promise that it will work, but hopefully it will. If it is of interest to you, the bug report can be found here, and as of yet this is the only solution that we can find that does not require editing the programme. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll give a try at home tomorrow - it will be fresh install there anyway - and let you know how it goes. Don't worry about replying to my talk, I'll keep an eye here for a bit. Equally if you want me to test anything I happily will (friends say "he was a fiddler" will be one of my epitaphs"!). Thanks for the response and all the best --Nigel(Talk)12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Kicking the brain hard - I'll try and "break" it again first I think to prove a point for you (not login and then edit). I can rollback my disc so having tried that I can then do it properly. I'll let you know what happens - cheers --Nigel(Talk)15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
MWT update
Though you might not want it!
Final try at work - changed to save password and it put the name on the list
went to "getting recent changes" - screen then had diag lines across it.
Message was - runtime error '5': invalid procedure call or argument.
And closed.
That machine in XPpro fully patched (obviously any other info ask). I try the home one tomorrow - regards --Nigel(Talk)17:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
first login did not "break" - couldn't replicate that at all. However I got the same runtime error. More info if you want it and happy to help. It may well be me - VP doesn't seem to like me either! I do tend to turn off a lot of services that run on startup - possible issue? Hear from you & regards --Nigel(Talk)09:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Same error here, same platform. Happens in 0.7, 0.7.1 and 0.7.4, can't find any other versions available for download – Gurch20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Syntax Highlighting
Hi Michael, do you think it is a good idea to use templates for syntax highlighting? It makes the page generation heavy as hell and therefore uses the performance of the server without any obvious reason. Sorry for this harsh criticism, but I think it is better to notice those things early in their development rather than then having to re-edit thousands of entries ^^--195.190.174.1419:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I, Michael Billington, award you the Billington Barnstar for (reason). If you liked this barnstar, then please leave a message on My talk page so it looks like everyone likes me.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me with archiving again and set me up with one of those neat little archive boxes? Than you. Happy editing!Giovanni3322:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I could help you archive this page again, it seems to have the ability to grow at a massive rate, so it's probably best if you farmiliarise yourself with the instructions at WP:ARCHIVE, as you may need to archive this page a lot in future. See you around and happy editing! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
GIen's RfA: Thank you!
MichaelBillington for your Support!
I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here:
Regarding my latest addition to the "Meijer" page...
What was exactly wrong with my latest addition to the "Meijer" article that warranted it's removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.150.33.19 (talk)
Seems I removed the sentence you added here [2]. As it seems though, I am not the only person who has removed various additions of yours to that same article. See the following diffs:
So I was pretty sure you were a vandal. If you feel like adding something to the article, it has more of a chance of staying in the article if you cite a reliable source that confirms what you added. Hope this explains it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean this literally, you have voted in a number of AfDs lately and there are replies on those pages that you haven't attended to. I reccomend you hit "Watch this page" so you can keep track of further developments. Also, don't base your AfD votes entirely on google hits as it is innacurate for a whole host of reasons. Ask on my talk page if you need me to list them. See you around Deon. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Michael, Thanks for the comments, Yeah I've had a look at a few, and have now started adding them to my watchlist, and changing my perspective on what makes an article notable -- apart from G-Hits. Thanks for the message Mike, See you round --Deon555talkReview23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
MWT problems
MWT is a great problem, but it doesn't work unless the user is using MonoBook skin. Could you please look into this? Thanks. --Ixfd6407:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you "un-fixed" a typo that I had corrected. The "she" in question was in reference to Ivette's male partner Beau, which is why it was changed in the first place. Your effort to stop vandalism is much appreciated though.
I still think this is better. It's barely noticable on normal Wiki background. Long live the cabal! Daniel 7:46pm ACST
Yeah, but you can't use your signiture now :( links are still blue. Mike 8:22pm
LOL, what a silly title :) It's something I'd expect of the Monty Python crew. And see, you can link in white :D Daniel 7:55 ACST
Hm... well i'm thinking that a hidden ("cabal conversation") could confuse people with the amount of whitespace it makes. I wonder if i can make that picture of the bins conspiring can be made white? mike b 8:31pm AEST
Image upload (You know what to do...)
Devilish, you say? When you want to respond, just replace this comment with your own. Keep the tags, though. Dan.
admin reqmt
Recently i saw a notice for admin requirement for this project.I will be more than willing to help for this cause.
Thanks.
plz post me a mesg on this [6]
Thanks, but it was fixed before your message arrived :) -- Longhair
Us humans huh - prone to mistakes and all :) It's the bots you've gotta keep a close eye on. No harm done, and thanks for your vigilence. -- Longhair08:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you, Michael, for your ZOMG SUPPORT on my RFA! It succeeded 95 to 1, with the help of your support. As an admin, I hope to live up to the standards of being an admin. Now... as soon as I hit save... I probably won't get an edit conflict, since I'm posting a new section. :P —this is messedrocker(talk)08:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Bot
What would be the point of running my vandal bot past some random people, as they would only say no. If I wanted to test it I could just let it lose on wikipedia. I have let it run on some of my userpages. Besides its very simple to make as its not like the bot is looking for errors, it simple takes the page and copies it on to itself over and over and over again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.97.25 (talk)
Please show me a time where I said "I am going to run the vandal bot." Lets think about this with some logic. Say someone had a bot that was harmful to wikipedia, it would make no sense for that person to tell all the admins that they have a bad bot and are going to run it as then they will be on the look out for it. Not once have I said "that I was going to run the (insert word here) bot." So you can take your though guy talk elsewhere I am not buying it. 128.227.41.2118:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You my friend lack something called context. IF you read what comes right after that (If I wanted to test it I could just let it lose on wikipedia.) note the word IF. Also if you read the note I left on Gernwol user talk page you would see that I quite clearly said that I wasn’t going to run it. So please go debate someone with your same intellect you are simply wasting my time.
Next time why dont you take the time to read things before you open your mouth.
Could I ask you to watch WP:CIVIL? Insulting a person's intelligence is (yet another) thing that is unacceptable on wikipedia. ... And I wouldn't have known about the vandalbot unless you'd have made it well known. If I am truly wasting your time, then I invite you to ignore this message (or the entire thread), and you can get back to whatever you do in your spare time, and I can get back to my programming :-), see you around and happy editing. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Please show me where I typed "you are stupid" or "you are an idiot" please do as I don’t recall ever typing that. How do you know I am not saying that you are smarter then me? You cant just jump to random conclusion that fit your liking. You can quote all the random wikipedia policies you want (there are about 1,000 + of them) it matters not. Wikipedia was once a great place but now everyone has an ego or is on a power trip, which in turn as vastly degraded the quality of Wikipedia. 128.227.185.16118:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"So please go debate someone with your same intellect you are simply wasting my time." - to me anyway, this is clearly meant as an insult.
Erm.. I think what may degrade wikipedia just a littlw bit more than high egos, may just be a vandalbot on the loose. If you have no plans to run a vandalbot and wish to contribute helpfully, then why not make a new account for yourself, and we can work towards making a better encyclopædia for us all, becaus at the end of the day, that's what wikipedia is for - debates on talk pages only work to inhibit this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Back in the old days, a conversion script was run to convert the old format of wikimarkup (used in the UseModWiki) to the new one. It has a whole lot of contributions lying around. It was probably uploaded with no copyright status and has remained so ever since (but the conversion script gets its name on the page). Does that answer it? - PS: I have no idea who uploaded it.Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. It does answer my question. I'm still wondering though, so "(Automated conversion)" isn't even a bot user? Because it has no contribution associated with it. [8]
I tried that, and it sits on the right side of the screen, and can't be dragged back (probably my fault it got there in the first place). Anyway, I am back to firefox now, which is more farmiliar to me. :-) I'll go check out that article, and thanks for the message BTW. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop threatening me about the Fleshlight page. There's a concensus well documented in the discussion of that page. The site to which you object -- which is not my site -- is among the ones that are part of those the concensus agrees on should be linked there. I'm trying to enforce the concencus against Héous. He's not following the agreed upon concensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.10 (talk)
Having read the talk page, I see no consensus that the link should be added. Infact, quite the opposite, seems that [almost all of] the comments on that page suppost restricting the external links section to be as short as possible. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing the links there now, but no updates to the history. What's going on? FWIW I will not edit the page until this controversy is settled. The 192.18.43.10 user was referring to the discussion about deleting the page, not the page's discussion page. 209.233.24.21802:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the page has changed quite rapidly today. It seems to have quietened down now though (no edits for two hours), so protecting the page shouldn't be neccesaary. Also, if you are still seeing the links, you may need to purge the cache [10], which will show you the most up-to-date version. Hope this helps :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Michael I'm the owner of http://fleshjoe.com/ and I'm curious why you object to having this site linked in the page. It is, by a wide concensus, the premier fan site for Fleshlight, and it has the largest collection of Fleshlight videos, which are of interest for people trying to decide whether to buy Fleshlight. I'm not selling anything on fleshjoe.com, and I don't see why you consider it spam. If you need evidence of the very wide support for my site amongst the users of Fleshlight, check out the Fleshlight forum at http://fleshlight.com/forums/index.php. 209.233.24.21803:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This issue has come up before, relating to other sites, and the clear consensus (on wikipedia) was to restrict the external links section to be as small as possible. [11] Also note that external links to your own web site are often discouraged as spam. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL so its OK for someone else to add the link to my website? That just plain doesn't make sense. The concensus was to allow 2-3 links and one of the selected ones, after a LONG discussion, was my site. Anyways, I think it'll be much more profitable to continue this discussion via email, You're welcome to send me email or give me an address I can write to to reach you. 209.233.24.21804:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just recording the resolution of our discussion via email. Michael has reached the conclusion that my link belongs on the page and he has put it back. Thanks Michael! 209.233.24.21805:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Michael since you decided to allow FleshJoe's link, are you going to enforce it? I saw just now it was deleted again by some anonymous vandal. I think really this page needs to be protected for a while until the spammers go away. Like I said yesterday Im just trying to keep the concensus going, which is impossible, it seems, without an edit war. I dont want to engage in an edit war since that will get me banned. So whats the solution? 192.18.43.1021:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Michael. I noticed your comment about your revert action that you'd "rather not get involved too much". You inserted yourself into this controversial area and set things to the way you wanted them to be. It only makes sense that you stick with it and see this through. Otherwise we'll have constant edit wars, for sure. 192.18.43.1023:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was reading recent changes, and reverted one edit to the page (which I at the time deemed to be spam), and I still don't want to get too far involved in this. Note that by 'too far' I mean edit warring for the link to stay, which isn't how I'd like to contribute here, I'd much rather go and write about Australian history or something. I said on Talk:Fleshlight that I will be making no further edits to the article, and this discussion may be continued there. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE
WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have
deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and
remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is
at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and
removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the
uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.)11:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the award Deon, if only the stylesheets were rendering... This site has gone downhill a bit today, eh? (kicks servers) I know... The best way to stop servers from crashing is to take them offline... it can't break if it's not running! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Logs
I have logs of the whole Jasabella bitch incident, and I'd like to publish them on my RfA, so I need consent from the parties. Can I publish what you wrote? --Rory09615:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new at this, I need your help with the Dragon Wings page I placed, could you help me with the logo and source? I am not sure if it is alright to post the original source URL, am I allowed to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.67.11 (talk)
Madness
For your truly tireless contributions, I award you this meaningless Tireless Contributions Barnstar
Look Mike, your work on that RFCU page was brilliant. 4 Days. 80 edits (and considering the time you put into an edit...). A bloody lot of changes. I could have written a bot to do it if you'd asked, but oh well. Just in case DB gives you 25 barnstars, here's your 26th. Happy barnstar-worthy contributing! --59.167.101.14911:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as Daniel-Bryant didn't, here's your real 26 barnstars:
Note to self: Never, ever, ever say 'DCC SEND me a chicken?', I still don't get why that got me k-lined though. LOL * Mike42 has quit IRC (K-lined) Ok, that's it. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen more and more vandalism coming from the .14 IP recently, and frankly I think it's got to the point where blocking isn't sufficient. I'm looking for a 2O from you, and some names / contacts at the college, because I think it's time its taken to AbRep. I'm a investigator/contactor there, and would be happy to handle the case, and theres definetly sufficient evidence: 14 blocks in ~7 months. So yeah, tell me what you think, and if you think it's a viable option, tell me who I should contact. Thanks Mike, and hopefully, if it's blocked, we can get a soft block + disabled account creation, so legit users aren't effected. Ta, --Deon555talkReview06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering when you'd ask this :-), so here is my entire backround knowledge that I have gathered from the whole saga (and I apologise in advance if this is too long)
Ok, ok, from the beginning. I know for a start that the entire range (61.69.12.0 - 61.69.15.255) is registered to the Catholic Education office, Melbourne, the problem area is mainly 61.69.12.11/20, which appears to be the range used by their proxy servers (the ones all the kids edit though...) Also of note is that those same proxy servers are used not only by St Joseph's, but also by a large number of schools in the area (Likely all the schools who use the Catholic Education office for internet, which I understand to be quite a few). At least one of the schools had their administrator request permanent blocking, which I discussed with CSCWEM here after I found myself unable to edit as a result. Contact details for the office can be found in the relevant WHOIS data (in the 'e-mail' field), and as for the abuse report, here is a suggestion to have them see how severe the problem is:
Add up the total number of blocks, and the total time of these blocks, from all the block logs in that range, then include in the e-mail "The abuse has resulted in a total of x blocks spanning y hours, and if the abuse is continued, editing privilege may be permanently withdrawn" - botha are big numbers I'm sure (for convinience) Here are the links:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
