User:Modulatum/archive5

I thought you said you'd stop. Quote: "Sorry, won't happen again". It is obvious you're editing blindfolded (metaphorically speaking), because otherwise you would recognize when a piece of text is in another language and doesn't need "correcting". I'm talking about Romanian nouns, where I had to revert your copyediting twice in the exact same spot. — AdiJapan ☎ 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Gah. My mistake. MOD 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lake Victoria

You've twice now "copyedited" Lake Victoria's first image, Image:Lake Victoria composite satelite photo.JPG to correct for the spelling of satellite. It is quite clear that you did not review your edits in either instance, since the nett effect was to break the image link. Please stop doing that; until MediaWiki allows renaming of images, the name will stay that way. dewet|✉ 17:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-uploading the image is your perogative, however you have posted its copyright information incorrectly - it is not under the GFDL. Please make be careful to properly attribute copyrighted works to their respective owners. Furthermore, its an image from the commons which you've now duplicated on en.wp; its completely unnecessary, and only doubles up space. Can't you live with the misspelled image name? dewet|✉ 17:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Going through your other changes, you are seriously bordering on vandalism. It is very clear your are "flying blind" as it were, since your "copyedits" are simply spell-checking and often replacing incorrectly according to the context:

• [1] This should be "fo" and not "of".
• [2] You cannot wikify the name of an image!
• [3] The correct word is "for", not "of".

I urge you to immediately start being more careful, or I will be force to report you for vandalism (since you haven't replied to my original objection at Lake Victoria above either). You simply cannot search-and-replace in a robot-like fashion — otherwise this would've been done in MediaWiki software long ago. dewet|✉ 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Your edit to genocide hid the previous vandalism. Not intentional was it? Meggar 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapcore

Traitor, Judas. To give rapcore rock-people. Rapcore is rap + elements rock/metal. They (rock-people) to have Nu-metal: rock/metal + elements rap/hip-hop. LUCPOL 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'm hip-hop fans. I'm like hip-hop/rap/rapcore. I dont like Nu-metal/metal/rock. I'm listen to Cypress Hills, Limp Bizkit, Kottonmouth Kings etc. I know - Rapcore is rap + elements rock/metal. True good! LUCPOL 13:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucpol, it's the first time I've heard about one which likes Limp Bizkit and dislikes Korn (I and others have been always used to the opposite). But anyways, please don't revert genre order on the article about rapcore. OK, Cypress Hill is one of the very few exceptions, but Kottonmouth Kings, Dog Eat Dog, Molotov, Puya, Pillar, Project Wyze, P.O.D., Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, etc., feel themselves to be more rock bands, and they often try to reduce/discard rap vocals (e.g. Limp Bizkit's "Results May Vary", P.O.D.'s eponymous album and Linkin Park songs such as "Breaking The Habit", "Numb" and "Crawling"). Egr, 9/5/2006

Haha, me, traitor? Listen, if I wanted to betray some abstract concept, the least I would do is have integrity about it. And betraying the brand new rebirth of rap-rock for rap is pointless. Rapcore is rock instrumentals with hip-hop lyrics. That's the way it's been and don't try to go around claiming it isn't. Besides, I don't even like rock. For me to betray rap in favor of rock is pointless, as is your entire tirade. MOD 13:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both of us like hip hop. What we don't want to betray is something called accuracy.--Urthogie 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

{{stub}} on user pages

I'm sorry to bother you, but please do not put the {{

Gresham College

You have made a "copyediting" correction to the above article twice now, and I have reverted twice. It is an exact quotation from the cited source. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the cited text at [4] which is:

The geometrician is to read as followeth ... [emphsais added]

Why have you changed the quoted word "geometrician" to "geometer" three times? Is the reference incorrect? Do you have a better reference? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning: You have now exceeded the three revert on the article Gresham College. If you have a reason to make a single word change in contravention of documented sources, you need to explain it on the talk page of the article. If you revert again in 24 hours, you will be temporarily blocked. Please reason with the other editors and do not attempt to own or control an article against consensus. Geogre 18:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you

You seem to be running a spell-checking bot. It is causing problems; see the above section. What's going on? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I see this isn't anything new.
  Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Modulatumbot made it quite clear this bot was not to be run. Am I missing something? —Bunchofgrapes (talk
  ) 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• ...And in case my response to your email bounced or something, let me make sure you know you can still edit this talk page while blocked. I'm keeping an eye on it, but if I'm not around, you can also attract the attention of other admins with by putting the {{unblock}} template onto this page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Summary for any other admins: I got one a very brief email from Modulatum, with no real information in it. Please unblock him if he says he'll stop running the spell-check bot. (Do not unblock if he says he has a fix for this or that bug in his bot;
  WP:BOT and logic both make it clear that no unassisted spell-checking bot is ever going to be safe.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk
  ) 03:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um. My primary purpose as of recently has been to mass-copyedit a lot of pages. Scripting assists in this. I make mistakes. With a fix, usually most future mistakes are averted. If I were to stop, the progress I've done so far, the rate of it anyway, would be extremely impeded. However, if it means getting unblocked and getting anything done at all, so be it. I don't want the misfortune of being limited to do what I like to do on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my spell-checking bot made a few ethical, not criminal mistakes, as it has corrected a few words I did not pay attention to and made changes to spellings of filenames (which in all seriousness should be correct in the first place). Like I said, if disabling it would get me back on Wikipedia, I have no choice, but to comply. That's all. MOD 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that we don't accept spell checking bots and as indicated above it was made quite clear that the bot was not to be used, why were you using it at all? I may take your word that you won't run it again, but I'll only be willing to shorten the block, not lift it. --pgk^(talk) 07:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really think the miniscule problems it caused, which could easily be fixed, were that important, so I kept running it. It's not really through defiance or rebellion, more through trying to get things done. If you shorten the block, that's fine. MOD 10:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirm clearly that you will not run the bot in the future and I will unblock immediately. A brief note as to the sort of damage the bot was causing: look at the above section in talk. It was edit warring, "correcting" a "misspelling" in a direct quote. Nodody has the time to go through all its contributions and see how many other things like that it did. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not edit warring. The bot automatically combs through recent pages to establish a network of other pages it navigates. The bot is not operational and will not be live on Wikipedia anymore. MOD 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, you are now unblocked. Given that you've been told not to run a spell-bot before this latest incident, consider yourself on probation now: if you are found to be running a bot like this again in the future, expect a long-term block on this account. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood. MOD 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries

ʘ

ck 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:WikiProject User Scripts for a tool that forces edit summaries. Makes it easy.--Urthogie

09:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is now a user preference that does the same thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit??

This edit is sumarized as "copy edit" but appears to be wrong. I have reverted. If this was correct, please explain. - Jmabel | Talk 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is another instance of the reasons why unsupervised spelling bots are a Bad Thing - see above. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to User:Urthogie/curious - warning 1

Thank you for experimenting with the page

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Urthogie

14:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for gratuitously warning me for inserting a sentence in your personal article that has no value to Wikipedia anyway. Lighten up. MOD 16:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted anyone to know about it I would have linked to it.--Urthogie 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please refrain from moving images around in articles and resizing them. They may look OK on your monitor but not all monitors have the same display attributes. If you must play with things please use the sandbox. 82.30.73.87 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The golden age of hip hop for deletion?

I see that The golden age of hip hop is up for deletion. I wonder what you think of this. P.O.N.Y. 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. MOD 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

0.77

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Cameron Nedland

14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've made an article, but it sucks.

Cameron Nedland

15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

sorin cerin

Thank's for Emil Cioran.Is another philosopher,Sorin Cerin.First who talk in philosophy about neo-ontology.Somebody want to delete him page.Why?Envy?Marylin

I'm sorry, what?

Image tagging for Image:ChubbRock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChubbRock.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musicians

Wikipedia is in sore need of a policy on for musician pages, and you have been active in this area before. Therefore, please provide your comments and opinions on the policies there. Thanks in advance!--Esprit15d 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex

09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is perf2?

see title. Simply south 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Phat Farm.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot

06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)