User talk:Matthew Yeager/Achieve

[edit] Joke

Two bulls, an old one and a young one are standing on a hill and down below in the pasture are several cows. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey, I got a great idea. Let's run down the hill and f**k one of those cows!" And the old bull says, "I got a better idea, let's walk down the hill and f**k them all." --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful

By the way- removing the tags from those who have accepted adopters and those who are indefblocked is very helpful, thank you. WjBscribe 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPR

What were you doing on NPR? The page looks awesome. It's pretty obvious that wikipedia is taking over your life, but I guess it could be worse. What does the bot do? Do you realize that 100 of your edits are on your user/talk page?Bryan Duggan 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice name

Small world. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a ton. You're new to Wikipedia, aren't you? It looked really strange in my history seeing "Matthew Yeager" (which is of course my given name)... strange, strange stuff. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

Looks like you got the blanking and I warned the blanker, nice teamwork. :). Hi, keep up the good work. Bass fishing physicist 23:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

seriously, we have been taking care of business ! i've seen you acouple times now, reverting with me against someone or posting warning on someone i was just going to :P good stuff ! Matthew Yeager 23:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihermitalert

I wish you could, but right now the article is listed for deletion here and WP:Canvas prohibits me from talking about it. Also, views such as this, this, and this prohibit the system we have set up, even when this is allowed, and this is allowed. Right now we are moving {{wikihermitalert}} to the WP:DEFCON system, but otherwise I would have been happy to added you to the management system. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Ann McBride

Thank you for your help on this article. The person doing the damage is likely a former co-worker of the article's subject, taking out his personal frustration or something. I am not really conversant on how to fix this permanently. Anyone who can help me out by pointing me to the right place would be much appreciated. Maybe we can get the page semi-protected or something for now? MPWard 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Matthew! About "fixing up the page", it's really very basic, and there's not a lot of information to add. And since the subject is currently no longer on the air, I'm hesitant to do so. There is various information related to her stint on that nationally syndicated show, but much of it is already covered in the article about that program. I'm just trying to get the childish idiots to go away right now (another is back today, I've rv'ed the damage). MPWard 17:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user and talk pages. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on Special:Prefixindex, there's probably lots of these Special pages that I'll be finding out about Thomas [User:Dzubint (talk)] 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pine Ridge HS

after removing the vandalism it looked like most other HS articles, and they all get contested at AfD so a speedy might not be applicable; I will send to AfD. DGG 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why???

Excuse me, but I don't get why you copied my entire user page onto your subpage Matthew Yeager/Testing2. Please, do NOT copy all of that information without my consent. If you want to know how I made anything on that page, please come talk to me, but please do not copy it. Thank you -- KeybladeSephi ^(Talk) _{(Contributions)} 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need permission. Read the far bottom of this page. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mikieminnow

Thanks for reverting the edit on my userpage.Mikieminnow 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem buddy ! Matthew Yeager 07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your bot needs to SUBST the welcome messages you're adding; it's too easy for a vandal to edit your welcome page to something like "stuff beans up your nose", etc., and offend all the new users you're trying to greet. Neil916 (Talk) 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your bot is pretty cool, except it just replaced a vandalism warning I gave someone. I'm not opposed to welcoming vandals, but I don't think the bot should replace other talk page messages. Natalie 01:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for fixing it! Natalie 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yeager Welcome Bot

I was just wondering if you had any form of approval for this account? With bot in the name, it sugests a regulated bot account, however, welcome bots have been widely dismissed by the wikipedia community. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked your bot account and requested comments on WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment there. Regards. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an announcement at the bot noticeboard; you may want to watch that page for comments. I am willing to unblock the bot, to relieve any tension about it being blocked. But, in light of the objections raised by several editors, I think it would be a show of good faith if you don't start the welcoming again until tomorrow (27 April). A delay will give others a chance to comment. Does that seem reasonable? CMummert · talk 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied back to admin board. Matthew Yeager 03:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the bot account. Thanks for being patient with the discussion; the admin who blocked to bot did so while tying to follow the bot policy, but the policy isn't crystal clear and your bot account is an exceptional case. A few people have started to comment at WP:BOWN; this is the place I would look for people who are most familiar with the bot policies. CMummert · talk 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Alright, sounds good. Enam Esru 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review requested - User:Yeager Welcome Bot

I have just blocked this bot for 2 reasons;

• t has not been approved.
• Welcoming bots are impersonal to new users and have been shot down everytime they have been proposed.

Pleaase could somebody review this block and unblock if required? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As an unauthorized bot, a block is definitely justified. WP:BOT does state that human assisted bots "don't necessarily need bot approval," but also states that a consensus should be made before making a large series of edits. Also note the speed at which the account is editing; appears unassisted. I'll leave whether the bot is necessary up to the bot proposal guys. - auburnpilot talk 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Assisted bots don't need bot approval, as I personally post every message the bot composes.

2) At this point, the welcome committee is not staffed to welcome any reasonable percentage of new users. I feel that any welcome (be it by a bot) is better then no welcome. I direct them to my user page if they need help, as well as giving them several links for help. This has been a success as i have already had users ask questions to me because they were not already welcomed and they didnt know where to go \ what to do. I've been able to successfully give advice to these user, who would have normally been lost.

3) I feel this message is personal, even although its not unique, it gives the user someone they can contact and count on for help.

4) In conclusion, I ask for my 'bot' (whom really just saves me time in composing the message) to be unblocked so that i may welcome new users and give them guidance and support that they otherwise would not receive (besides a small percentage).

Thank you for your time and I respectfully welcome any decision. My intentions were nothing but for the best. Thank you, Matthew Yeager 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5) Although the speed of edits is high, every post is composed, then i review it. If i manually approve it, its added to the jobs to be completed. I can choose when to run the bots "edit" feature. For example, I can choose to have the bot compose 20 messages, then i would go through and ensure each message is correct, then i can tell the bot to edit and then it posts the messages. This can be seen as the edits are made quickly, but then there is substantial down time in between runs, as i am checking the messages. Matthew Yeager 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are approved manually, then the bot doesn't need approval. But the high edit rate is discouraged (the AWB folks also have to keep their edit speed down); a delay between edits should be added. I recommend lifting the block now that the operator is here, provided he agrees to lower the edit rate. CMummert · talk 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lowered edit rate agreed. down to say 5 - 6 edits a minute (pretty sure thats the guildline) unless you will allow me to do more, either way is cool with me. thank you for proposing an unblock. please let me know if/when it will/has taken place. Matthew Yeager 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've blocked several blatant vandals recently only to find a message from this bot already on their talk page welcoming them (eg User talk:Ockasekrockaway). There was a user the other day welcoming blatant Mr Oompapa impersonator socks [1], and thanking them for their contributions. Sometimes, auto-welcomes are just silly. It seems the height of impersonability. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

5-6 per minute is acceptable for AWB and so it should be fine. If nobody else (including Ryan Postlethwaite) comments in 15 minutes or so, since Ryan asked above for someone else to unblock if required, I'll do it. I'm going to reread the bot guidelines in the meantime. Either way someone will let you know. CMummert · talk 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the bot issue, it's still semi-automatic welcome messages, and something the community is not warm to. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot has been fixed to never over write previous messages. it should have never been doing that to start.

although the community is not 'warm' to the issue, as explained above, this seems to be the best way to help these new users who dont know what is going on. currently, without the bot, I watch 50 new users at a time go by without a welcoming, direction, or a person to go to for help.Matthew Yeager 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an announcement at the bot noticeboard to draw attention here.

I am willing to unblock the bot, to relieve any tension about it being blocked. But, in light of the objections raised here, I think it would be a show of good faith if you don't start the welcoming again until tomorrow (27 April). A delay will give others a chance to comment. Does that seem reasonable? CMummert · talk 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is justified. The Community has for good reason been long opposed to welcome Bots. This account is in rather a catch 22 situation. If it is a bot- its unapproved and should be blocked. If its not a Blot its name is against username policy and it should be blocked. In my opinion, if someone wishes to welcome users they should do it personally. Often users who are welcomed ask questions about Wikipedia to the account that welcomed them which a Bot cannot answer. Looking through the Yeager Welcome Bot's edits, it appears that users are welcomed indiscriminately. Accounts that have never edited have been welcomed, which is a waste of time and creates pointless pages. It also appears that a couple of usernames that are aginst policy were welcomed. Put simply, I believe that this "Bot" (while the creation of it was well-intentioned) is more detrimental to the project than beneficial. WjBscribe 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking the bot would be appreciated. I will withhold any actions from the bot until a decision is met. If its decided that the bot shall not be needed, then i shall wish to retire it as appose to having it blocked. This way it may be used to greet users the 'old fashion way'. Does this seem acceptable ? Matthew Yeager 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe - I think that the username is acceptable (the bot policy is somewhat complicated). The section on assisted bots says that they don't necessarily need approval and that a separate username is recommended. Since the user has agreed to discuss the issue, my personal opinion is that the bot account can be unblocked as a measure of good faith. I won't go over your objection, however. CMummert · talk 03:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This one area where username policy is fairly clear: "Names that... Imply an automated account, such as names containing "robot", "bot", or a variation thereof." In my opinion using scripts to welcome users is fine so long as:

• It is done by an account that doesn't claim to be a Bot- why have impersonal welcomes anyway?
• Only users who have actually made edits are welcomed.

I don't understand why Matthew Yeager doesn't just welcome users with his own account- which would seem much friendlier. That being said I have no objection to a courtesy unblocking while discussions continue if you really think that would help... WjBscribe 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree it would be more personal to use his actual username. I'm going to unblock, as a courtesy, since the M. Yeager has agreed not to run the bot setup until discussion proceeds. Even though the bot being blocked shouldn't affect much, I think if I were him I would breathe easier if my bot account wasn't blocked (and I have one). CMummert · talk 04:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks to both of you for the agreed unblock. the only reason i didnt use my own account is after ready the BOTS section which said that if you were planning on making edit a large number of edit for a specific reason then that would be allowed. so i figured that i would have a normal account specialized in editing and reverting vandalism and then a separate account for welcoming users and answering beginners questions, so that the normal account didnt get flooded with those questions. that reasoning + using scrips to compose the message sent to the user, i figured that justified "bot" being placed in the name, as the naming convention for human assisted bots does not mention not having 'bot' in the name, nor does it recommend a different word that should be used. so from that, i picked a separate account and to use the word bot in it.

I would be willing to apply for a name change and then use that separate account as originally intended, yet without the high rate of impersonalized welcome messages. a name without bot, but an account separate from my main account. example: Matthew.B.Yeager. sound reasonable ? Matthew Yeager 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me- I think a more personal username to welcome people with would be a lot friendlier. Please do check whether the accounts you welcome have actually edited. Unfortunately most new accounts never edit Wikipedia- there doesn't seem much to be gained from adding hundreds of pages a day to Wikipedia for such accounts. WjBscribe 04:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

awesome, it appears we have reached a solution that we agree on. I will be checking to ensure accounts have edited. thank you all for your time and i'm glad i was able to work with patient and reasonable administration. Matthew Yeager 04:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)