User talk:The wub/archive29

Archives

2005: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2006: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2007: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2009: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2010: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2011: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2012: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2013: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2014: J F M A M J J A S O N D

2015: J F M A M J J A S O N D

Article Rescue Squadron: Welcome[edit]

Glad you took up my invitation! Welcome!

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found

Hi, The wub, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jerkin"[edit]

The article that was here before was perfectly fine. The new one dumbs it down and gives the most false information about the movement. And if deletion was because it was "not notable"... I can tell you that Jerkin is a dance movement just like krumping. And in about 2 weeks there will be a music video airing MTV/VH1/BET/etc about the movement, and there is also a film in progress about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.191.141 (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. Until then, or until some other mainstream media pays the slightest bit of attention to this, the article stays deleted. the wub "?!" 09:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I noticed you were on the deletion logs for this page.. it seems to be salted. I'm not sure if you know but there has been some local coverage in the LA Weekly about this "trend", and it appears there is an interest in this article to exist. Can you restore the article so sources can be added and it can be brought up to standards? thanks riffic (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving for BLP AFDs[edit]

There's a backlog of closed discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. The wubbot hasn't edited the page in two days, it seems. لenna vecia 23:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should work on the next run through, tomorrow morning. the wub "?!" 23:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have the bot do a run on the above page daily? The number of AFDs added and closed each day is quite high. At the moment, we're approaching 180 AFDs on the page, which is difficult for some systems to load. لenna vecia 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is something wrong with the bot or what? It's not archived this page in around a week. We almost up to 300 AFDs on the page, which comes close to locking browsers. لenna vecia 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of things wrong with the bot:

It was never really designed to work on deletion sorting on this kind of scale
People keep changing back and forth what pages it's supposed to be archiving, throwing in redirects etc. despite the fact that such changes should first be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Despite the existence of excellent scripts for deletion sorting, people still keep adding all sorts of malformed bits to the pages
The number of debates being added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people is absurd. I'll start a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting later on, but right now I have to rush off to work.
Shockingly, I have a real life and can't spend every day babysitting it.

For now I replaced the page with the CatScan link, which has the same (better?) results with far less overhead. the wub "?!" 07:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand - further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. the wub "?!" 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange hiccup in wubbot archiving[edit]

Wubbot seemed to have problems archiving one section from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations:

This attempt removed one entry from the main
along with adding two entries to the archive
the one it couldn't delete deleted
the duplicate efforts removed

Thought you might be able to debug, although if this is the only hiccup, it might be ignored. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:The wubbot/delsortlist[edit]

I've over time noticed some delsort pages that are not getting archived. here, here, here and here are a few examples. There are others. It looks like you use User:The wubbot/delsortlist as your source for what pages to archive. Is it OK for others to edit this page? If so, is there anything else that needs to be done to get the archiving rolling on missed discussion pages? If you would rather others not edit the source list, would it be OK to provide you with a list of those I find not being archived and just let you handle it? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it, the bot should start working on them soon. Sorry, it's something I kind've forgot to do for a while, and the changes to the other list got lost on my watchlist. the wub "?!" 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, someone straightaway went and redirected Arab. I don't know why I bother sometimes... the wub "?!" 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one got redirected, the addition of the rest are greatly appreciated. So your "bothering" is a worthy effort, even if, for one part, it turned out to be unneeded. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about a week since Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators was archived. Is that related to this issue? Should I expect it to start up again soon or is more intervention needed? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling, it hasn't been archived since June 21. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Thanks so much! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup 4[edit]

Starting discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 4. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahesh dilemma[edit]

This has been closed a few days back, but wubbot doesn't appear to know that, as he has been on both WP:DSI and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science to archive old discussions, but hasn't got his nose around this. Can you take a look? Thx -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closer used an unusual template and forgot to subst it. I've fixed it, should get archived on the bot's next pass later this evening. the wub "?!" 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thx. I thought the Polltop template was a bit odd, but I figured it was another standard use one that I wasn't aware of. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Sci Fi Channel original films[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocturnal Breed[edit]

Hello wub, could you please close the above AfD, marking it "nominator withdrew the nomination"? The arguments brought forth, while they don't sway me very much (or "rock me like a hurricane," to stay genre-appropriate), make it seem clear that this article will be kept and there's no need taking up further space and time. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You just managed to catch me before I logged off for the night. :) the wub "?!" 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, natti natti then! Drmies (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers...[edit]

For the page revert. Saved me having to think of something witty to say back! :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar[edit]

I do not understand your recent commnt on a statement by Lar:

Make a statement on a request for arbitration, throw in some evidence for an ongoing case or even help draft decisions in the workshop. E-mail the arbs as a whole (it's arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org by the way) or individually. Or just use good old fashioned talk pages. Then complain that the ArbCom doesn't consider advice from the community. the wub "?!" 09:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want Lar to complain about ArbCom? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. It was a reply to your comment. the wub "?!" 10:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was it a reply to my comment? I never said that ArbCom does not consider advice from the community. What do you mean to be saying? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup 1 August[edit]

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Afd top[edit]

Hi, I have modified {{afd top}} to allow discussions to be collapsed when transcluded in the log pages. Please see Template talk:Afd top#Proposal. (I am notifying you as requested in the documentation.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup[edit]

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]