User talk:Josh Parris/Archive 3

Deletion review for SPoT Coffee

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SPoT Coffee. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Notability/Reason for SPoT Coffee Article Existence

Dear Josh, If there is such a thing as a notable coffee shop/cafe, this certainly is one. Well known to both locals and visitors, it has been prominently featured in several newspaper articles, and has won several awards as "best coffee" in regional coffee contests. Being a top regional attraction for locals and tourist coffee lovers alike, an article should exist to inform people who are interested in its history, services, and future plans. A prominent part of the local atmosphere, this company is also expanding locations to areas outside Western New York, including Rochester and Toronto and soon to more locations around Canada and the United States (it is mentioned in the article that 37 new SPoT Coffee locations in the United States and Canada are planned to be in production by 2012.)

I do not see the reason why this article was deleted at all. Please let me know why you disagree and what I could do to improve it so that it can actually exist on Wikipedia. -- Megan (talk) 7:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweeebis (talk • contribs)

A notable coffee shop? How about the one Lloyds of London first operated out of; got any multi-billion dollar insurance markets started in Spot? Remember, that coffee shop only became notable after the fact, once Lloyds was a success (and even then, notability and all, you still can't find out how much the pastries cost - because there's no article on that shop!). But since your article is not about a single shop, but a chain (of four shops), perhaps a comparison against, oh, Starbucks - for example - would be appropriate, what with their 15,000 outlets. If in the event Spot Coffee manages to reach 37 outlets in the next five years, it still wouldn't be notable. Try getting listed on a stock exchange, or being the company that successfully plotted to overthrow the Pope - that's notable. In the meantime, perhaps spot coffee would like to put your article on their website, I know businesses are always looking for good copy for their web presences.

Read w:Your first article and that should make it clear the kind of articles that go in an encyclopedia. There are 128 entries in the category:Coffee Houses, looking at a random one - Café_Central - shows that it helps to have the intelligentsia meeting at your shop before they overthrow a government. Josh Parris 04:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Josh! I've got a note from you that the content submitted by me is going to be deleted!(content name is CallinEurope) Could you please explane me why is that considered advertising? It's just a page saying about a company's activity, like hundreds and thousands of other pages. can ou plesea tell me why other pages have the right to exist and the one mentioned by me does not? many thanks in advance. RoundCube1 (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Windwall

Hi Josh, I'm wondering if you had a chance to read the comments and footnotes that I referenced in response to your questions regarding points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles regarding the article that you and I were discussing. The article was deleted by Coredesat a few days ago! I worked the entire weekend researching and re-writing to substantiate the points we discussed... it's all there!

I had the unfortunate luck of meeting Coredesat on his first day as an editor. I can't really tell for sure but it appears that the day he deleted my article was his first day on the job!

I read through the deletion process and I understood that if the writer is able to substantiate her work, then the article survives regardless of the number of deletes. If that is the case, then it appears Coredesat may have deleted my article prematurely, perhaps unknowingly going by majority vote rather than reading through the points I was making. I'm hoping you can shed some guidance.

Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Windwall 21:25, 17, January 2007 .

Salk School of Science

Hi,

I noticed that you contributed to the AfD debate on this school. I have made a contribution to this debate in which I discuss why the school is notable, and edited the article a bit. Any comments you could make would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your help with this.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The improvements to the article have raised it's WP:BEEFSTEW rating to 7/10. I have changed my vote. Josh Parris 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Say what?

What was this about? [1] Stevage 05:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I intended to revert this - I'm going to a) blame my tool b) not use it that way in the future Josh Parris 05:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I got that one - after I made my change. Stevage 06:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I would Like to do

"You are encouraged to ask for feedback about the quality of an article at any time. Ask your fellow editors for their opinions, list outstanding issues and areas to improve on article talk pages, get other editors involved. Networking to identify like-minded Wikipedians is one of the most important (and enjoyable) aspects of the project."

This is why I want to do this. I would like to get other peoples opinions on the issue before I post it on the site. I feal that it may be to opinionated or biased to be posted at this time so I have contained it within my own page for editing before "releasing" it.Stanler 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:HighInBC for some context Josh Parris 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

G-force

G-force is not an acceleration due to gravity, it is a general term for a measure of apparent acceleration (for example in centrifuges and in aeroplanes or rockets). It's now found in g-force. I've also separated out the discussion about the algebraic quantity g into standard gravity.WolfKeeper 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The term acceleration due to gravity always refers to the effect of gravity on a body from the point of view of an inertial reference frame, so g-force was out of place in the article of this name.WolfKeeper 03:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RFD for Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

I have suggested that Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), a redirect page which you created, be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. If you would like to comment in the discussion, it is found here. -- Black Falcon 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

STEP & Step - disambiguation pages

I combined these 2 pages according to the following standard:-

Page naming conventions

"Usually, there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation.

For example, "Term xyz", "Term Xyz", "Term X-Y-Z", and "Term X.Y.Z." should all redirect to one page."

I noticed you reverted my changes to both STEP and Step. Is there something I'm missing?

Regards, JohnI 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've not missed anything. It seems I haven't been keeping abreast of changes to dab policy. Your change was correct. Josh Parris 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For a minute there I thought i HAD missed something. Regards, JohnI 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Fist Pound

If your edits to Fist Pound were intentional, they were unhelpful and vandalistic. If done by mistake, please be aware of your Wikipedia actions. Muslim astronomy and greetings have absolutely nothing to do with each other. XParadigm777x 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That's the last time I use CorHomo. It swapped in another article. What a piece of shit. Josh Parris 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Request: Lost And Found (Christian Rock Band)

I've been trying to edit the photos so they'd be better and not in a long line, but everything I do just causes them to overlap and makes the page look like a mess. Can somebody please help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_and_Found_%28Christian_rock_band%29 Stein Auf! KagomeShuko 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Josh Parris 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Triple_J_Hottest_100_Volumne_12.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Triple_J_Hottest_100_Volumne_12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you help change my user name?

Hey there Josh, how are you? listen i need to change my user name, so can you tell me how, please? Due to privacy issues.

Pece Kocovski 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Train (MMORPG)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Train (MMORPG), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Train (MMORPG) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Train (MMORPG), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:MelbStation/rev

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:MelbStation/rev, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:MelbStation

A tag has been placed on Template:MelbStation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Christine Nixon (TV interview).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Christine Nixon (TV interview).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Inline engine (aviation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Inline engine (aviation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Inline engine. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Coming Home Network

Greetings Josh,

This is not the first time I have attempted to have CHN listed with Wiki, and each time I change what is recommended to me.

The CHN is an inspiration to thousands of people, every day over a million people visit their site for support. It is an invaluable resource for people studying conversion and/or looking to convert.

I have referenced numerous outside sources. What else is needed. The same reasoning could be said of far too many other pages on Wiki, so I am lost. Your help is appreciated, thanks in advance--R Rodgers 00:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

Look at WP:N Josh Parris 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that 5 to 6 ministers contact this network each week is not note worthy? These men and women lose their jobs, family and friends sometimes due to their convictions to Christ what is not note worthy of this? The phenomena of conversion to the Catholic Church even with negative media is huge, not to mention when it comes to ordained ministers. --R Rodgers 01:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

Look at WP:V Josh Parris 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" taken from Wiki's pages

The Coming Home Network is covered all over the internet, I have listed a handful of references and interviews. I stated earlier it receives a million plus hits a month! Has over 40,000 members, runs conferences and retreats annually. Was founded over ten years ago, and it is directly and indirectly sited through other accepted Wiki articles on others Catholics and Apostolates. If CHN is not note worthy then anything to do with the work of CHN and/or Marucs Grodi must be suspect in Wiki articles, however, they are note worthy even with suspect content --R Rodgers 01:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

Why is it that while in discussion with you another "admin" is able to delete a page we are discussing?--R Rodgers 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

As too wp:v the references offered are accepted by Wiki, how can you claim CHN not to be valid? You are interpreting the rules of wiki to your wishes. No reasonable person would question the existence of CHN. Just as I would not question the validity of you being a person can you prove this for me with my interpreting of Wiki notability rules?--R Rodgers 02:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

I'm unable to delete pages, I'm not an administrator. An ongoing discussion on the talk page of CHNI (as per the instructions on the notification box) might have stayed their hand, but I suspect they took a look at the request, looked at the page and decided that on balance the article failed the guideline stated (WP:A7). Read Wikipedia:Your first article and take it from there. Perhaps an opening sentence like "CHNI is a organisation supporting ex-ministers, notable for the large amount of negative press the Catholic church has attempted to generate about it" might swing it. Josh Parris 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Josh,

You are the first person in my history with Wiki to offer any thing outside the mechanical use of its guide lines - this I thank you for, except the negative press comes from Protestant faiths, they are affirmed right upto the Vatican.--R Rodgers 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNI (talk • contribs)

Thanks tons from me too

I had no idea my little entry was so error-laden. I am trying very hard to make all the format corrections you have identified for me. I really appreciate it. Alfred Bernhart in case you don't remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshould (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Biju Mathew

Greetings Josh, given below are the links to secondary reliable sources which have given this person significant coverage:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/apr/09us1.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6394/is_/ai_n29395963
http://www.rethinkingmarxism.org/cms/editors-introduction-12

Kindly advise why the above do not satisfy the notability criterion.

Regards

--Satyashodak (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Millard Brunton

I'm sure you're right - this is a hoax. I have taken it to AfD here. How did you spot it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for SPoT Coffee

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SPoT Coffee. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Onsert.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Onsert.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For the code contribs

Thanks! I foolishly ignored the warnings... Josh Parris 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix

I saw your edit [2]. What is the bug? Perhaps I can help. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_11&diff=prev&oldid=337187308 is the bug Josh Parris 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have to take precautions for the unlikely case another template name will contain an "=" sign. Anyway, it was speedily deleted just now. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WildBot BRFA

Apparently IP69 asked you a question and he or she wants you to answer it. Maybe you know what s/he is referring to. @harej 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WildBot

Yes, it kept me on my toes. I fixed the problem it addressed. ----DanTD (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect templates

When I go to Betty C. Hearnes, I notice it has the redirect template but nothing shows when I get to the page... I don't understand the point of the template... what am I missing? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... sorry, not what I meant. When I click on the redirect page it's not actually showing anything that shows in the template! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm...

The article is clearly vandalism. So don't be so serious. D :)--Defender of torch (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Srsly? T'was a joke, one I knew would be short-lived. You got a laugh, hopefully? Josh Parris 11:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How comprehensive?

The bot's banner message implies that it finds ALL dodgy links. Is this really the case? If not it might be advisable to subtly adjust the wording so that it hints there may be more that it didn't find... Perhaps you could indicate that it searches for frequently-linked DAB pages?

EdJogg (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it gets direct links to every disambiguation page; it misses out on redirects. I'm not going to make things less clear just to increase the precision of the wording, especially as it's a transient situation (I'm working on getting these in too). Josh Parris 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. It is so useful that I'm sure you'll get all the help you need to improve it. Keep up the good work! -- EdJogg (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WildBot speedy tagging

• Talk:Draft of my portal

Hello Josh Parris. Having taken a quick wander through CSD, I can see this bot creating a lot of extra admin work. This page was tagged within one minute of the article being created and being tagged for CSD. The link is also a bit obscure - if you want the deleted content let me know. Perhaps build a day's delay before tagging? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is: putting something on the talk page now means the talk page has a history. If that talk page is associated with a speedied article, it also has to be deleted. This adds to the administrative burden on the admins.

At a guess, this would increase their burden by 10%, which is a fair whack. I'll just run off and get some more solid data...831 pages created (and not deleted) by WildBot. 67 deleted edits => 7.5% of pages with ambiguous links require deleting.

10.2% of new pages have ambiguous links when created. Of these, about 7.5% get deleted.

If WildBot had admin privileges, this wouldn't be a problem - the bot could do it. Monitoring deletes is simple task. As it is, the bot could easily tag the talk page for deletion if the main article is deleted.

The difficulty is, the figures were quite clear - immediate tagging is vital to get editors to act on the identified problem.

I will seek advice. Josh Parris 13:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently pursuing an avenue (Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#db-author bot) that ought to take the bulk of this burden away. Josh Parris 04:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking. Despite the comments elsewhere it always takes more than two clicks (at least six for a poorly researched deletion) when talk pages exist whether they're tagged for deletion or not, but I'll leave it in your hands. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will change the WildBot so that when a CSD tag is placed on the article, WildBot will notice that and tag the article's talk page width db-G7 (if valid), and have the proposed bot delete it. That should make the talk page disappear before a human even evaluates the CSD. If the CSD is removed by anyone, WildBot will recreate the talk page, and the cycle will continue. Josh Parris 11:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation page

Hi, please see the note on the talk page of the article List of scientists whose names are used in physical constants. Have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that bug, all fixed now. Josh Parris 10:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this bot planning to remove the messages automatically after a link is fixed?

Is this bot planning to remove the messages automatically after a link is fixed? I hope we don't end up with hundreds of outdated warnings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It puts every page onto its watchlist and keeps an eye on changes. With the removal or addition of ambiguous links it updates the message; when there are no ambiguous links, it removes the box. Give me a holler if it ever fails to do that. Josh Parris 12:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very useful bot/message. Just found it for first time on new page Rolling stock of the Watercress Line and corrected the (many) links, which saved a lot of time searching.

Small request: could you adjust the message to say that the bot will clear its own banner? I was following the instructions and removing it manually but ended up with an edit conflict because the bot got there first (which, I might say, was pretty impressive!)

Could be a useful tool to run on all pages, but I guess the scope of that is a bit large maybe?

EdJogg (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't guarantee the bot will clear it's own banner, because at the moment it's running on my home PC, which isn't a 24/7 professionally monitored data center. I'm hoping it will transition over to toolserver, at which point removing the message will be viable. I've just tweaked the message text.

For the same reason, I don't want the bot running against a broader range of pages yet; it's still proving itself, and its functionality isn't all I want it to be (see below). Josh Parris 11:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the change of wording. It's just right. :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The current message is "the bot might remove this message" which is not very helpful. I had to removed one myself in case the bot does not. This message imply that the bot is not very reliable. I have left a message below that I do not think that the bot should leave a template, but that it should add to the discussion with a new section on the talk page and therefore a something that is permanently visible on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Banner

Why does the bot add a banner? The only option after the correction is made is to remove the banner, so removing any record on the talk page. The normal way of bringing something to discussion is to add a new section on the talk page, and this is kept on show on the talk page or in the page archives. I think that it would be much better if the bot added its comments as a new section on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a few reasons why a banner is used. The bot constantly updates the banner as ambiguous links are removed - that would look a bit odd in a conversation. The problems it identifies are (hopefully) transient in nature, so there's no real need to keep a publicly viewable history of the issues and their repairs. Also, the problems are purely mechanical and don't require humans to have an extended discussion - or any for that matter. I figure, once the problems are fixed, why clutter up the talk page, which could be devoted to more interesting things? If you feel strongly about keeping a record on the talk page (rather than in it's history), just cut-n-paste the list of pages out of the box into a new section. Josh Parris 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yuanfangdelang

Hi, the disambiguation on PRA has been solved. Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanfangdelang (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear! Josh Parris 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tennessee Three

Thank you for reverting that page back, I couldn't work out how to revert/undo all those edits. Thought I'd have to do it manually. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can highly recommend WP:Popups as a very handy tool. Josh Parris 23:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a look into it. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Love this bot

I just love this bot. Try as I may to check all my links, this thing always finds one (or more) that I misssed. So many bots seem to just do trivial things that really have little or no impact. This one really does a good job. thanks GloverEpp (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very pleased that it's of assistance, and that the reception has been so positive. Josh Parris 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that, GREAT bot! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When the bot blanks the page...

...and it's the only author, can it instead replace it with {{db-author}} ? This would preclude "db-author" bot. –xeno^talk 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that would demand "db-author" bot. "db-author" bot bot would immediately and automatically honor any db-author tag which complied with the rules for {{db-author}}: only one author, including the tagger, if the page is in User: or User Talk: then that author has to be the associated User:. WildBot tagging pages as such would only increase the load on admins, and given it's created thousands of Talk pages in the days it has been running, I'm not prepared to risk the wrath of admins by tagging aggressively like that without a bot to take up the load and delete validly db-author tagged pages. Josh Parris 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... Maybe right. Can you give me a list of blank pages where the bot is the only editor? I'll nuke them from orbit. –xeno^talk 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- it's the only way to be sure.

Not immediately; I can't get access to SQL on toolserver, and while I intended to crawl through WildBot's contributions to figure out turn-around times, I haven't built code to do so. Right now, there's no validation code for g7 tagging, although I will be building that very soon. Can you wait a few days? Josh Parris 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm notoriously impatient. ;p In fact I didn't even wait for your reply! LOL –xeno^talk 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And here I am on IRC just right now, bothering the overworked admins of toolserver, claiming it's a national security issue that I get sql access yesterday, damnit!. Josh Parris 20:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually was about to apply for ts access a few months ago, but I think the forms weren't working properly or something, and I lost interest. I don't know how to write queries anyway =) –xeno^talk 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got access. Now it's a race. Me, who doesn't know the schema, vs the rest of the world. Josh Parris 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If by "the rest of the world" you mean "MZMcBride" then yes, you are in a race =) –xeno^talk 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:WildBot/NukeFromOrbit - don't ask why it's there. Josh Parris 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Be aware: not everything's in article-space (check the bottom), and feel free to nuke the list after you've nuked everything on the list. Josh Parris 22:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All gone. May as well keep the page itself around for the next run. (One is already blue again, WikiProject tag. I guess these need to be deleted as soon as possible after the query! –xeno^talk 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for {{db-author}} bot - lightning like reflexes. Ah well. Josh Parris 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't quite work out what's going on ...

On Talk:John Cooper (actor), your bot has twice put {{User:WildBot/msg|1=John Cooper}} with the edit comment: Found ambiguous links to John Cooper.
There is NOTHING ambiguous about the link (singular) to John Cooper which appears on John Cooper (actor). What's going on? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The first line reads "For other similarly named people, see [[John Cooper]]". That would be the John Cooper the bot's talking about. Fixed it for you - per the instructions, if you want to explicitly link to a disambiguation page, just throw " (disambiguation)" on the end of the title, there's meant to be a redirect there. Josh Parris 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.

May I suggest that you add the link WP:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page to the edit comment and template that your bot produces?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding it to the edit comment is an excellent idea. It's already in the template. Josh Parris 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess that's an indication of how thoroughly I didn't read the template ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot

Hello. I just has my first wildbot spotting while doing new page patrol and enjoyed fixing the links. I know that the bot adds the pages it "tags" to it's own watch list, but does it add these pages to any category, or anywhere else that I could assist in fixing the links it finds? Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

After a bit more thought, I suppose reviewing the bots contribs does this just fine. Beach drifter (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you enjoyed fixing links to disambiguation pages, you could look at WP:Disambiguation pages with links which lists a fair number of them! The current number of ambiguous links in Wikipedia is about 1.1 million, so there's a bit of a backlog. Josh Parris 07:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tintumon

Hello Josh Parris. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tintumon, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The second weblink is sufficient for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  12:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Queens Plate?

Clue me in, because this edit by you makes no sense to me? Handicapper (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot was responding to this version of your page, which contains a link to Queens Plate, an ambiguous term. You disambiguated that term in your next edit to Queen's Plate, blanking the talk page at the same time (beating the bot to the punch).

Having explained that to you, do you have a suggestion as to how could the message box be changed to make things clearer? Perhaps breaking up links from this article to disambiguation pages and defining "disambiguation pages"? Josh Parris 21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynn Bayonas

Hi

Just to let you know, I think I've managed to fix all the disambiguation links in this article now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :) --5 albert square (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to be of help Josh Parris 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sabor (disambiguation) vs. Saborna crkva

Your bot placed a warning, but this link was intentional - one generic term that is a disambiguation page links to another derived generic term that is also a disambiguation page. Thoughts? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped the bot. It is specifically meant to test for disambiguation pages and hasn't. I'll run some tests and get it working correctly before I restart it. Thanks for alerting me. Josh Parris 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that the bot was still watching that page after the code fix to test for disambiguation pages. Fixed, restarted. Josh Parris 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It happened again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird, it was still in the watchlist. It's not anymore, and I made a test edit to Sabor (disambiguation) to confirm it won't do it again. Sorry for causing this bother. Josh Parris 04:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, what about Stankevičius? The link is also intentional. Renata (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stankevičius is not a disambiguation page; the bot only ignores ambiguous links on disambiguation pages. To show you're intentionally linking to a the Stankiewicz disambiguation page, link to Stankiewicz (disambiguation) - then the bot won't bother you. Josh Parris 11:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lex regia

I saw your template: Enchiridion: none of the definitions proposed fits. It is a Roman law collection. Festus here is the Roman grammarian, lexicographer. Manus is a legal term of Roman law concerning marriage. Gentes is the plural of gens a grouping of families who believe to share common ancestors. Eutropius is the Roman historian. Thank youAldrasto (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Aldrasto. Best if you apply those changes to the article, following the instructions in WP:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Josh Parris 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oskar Lebeck

I just created the entry and Wildbot claims it has links to the disambiguation page for Pogo. I think Wildbot is malfunctioning as I found no signs such a disambiguation link exists. Ugh. What is happening? Dgabbard (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn. I realized I needed to tweak the link and just did so. My bad. Sorry, I fixed it.Dgabbard (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad it worked out. Josh Parris 00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot malfunction

Your bot made a weird edit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_by_national_governments_to_the_2010_Haiti_earthquake&action=historysubmit&diff=340487419&oldid=340484950

I've reverted it.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It did it again, I'm not reverting it this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_by_national_governments_to_the_2010_Haiti_earthquake&action=historysubmit&diff=340492184&oldid=340491772

Should I press that big red button? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, pressing the big red button would be appropriate. I've stopped the bot; I was under the impression that I'd fixed that particular bug, but here we are again. The bot will be running again shortly. Josh Parris 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And there we go. Josh Parris 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for wildbot template

I saw one of wildbot's talk-page templates for the first time today. I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before, and I want to congratulate you: this is one of the awesomemest bots I've ever seen!

I noticed that the template explains what happens when ALL the dab wikilinks have been removed, but it doesn't explain what happens when ONLY SOME of them have been removed. (Based on the template that appeared at Talk:Graham Court, I immediately fixed about half of the identified dab wikilinks; I was unable to fix the others.) This leaves me confused as to whether the template at Graham Court will automatically update.

Therefore, I would like to suggest some possible changes to the template:

1) It can indicate whether (and when) there will be any automatic updates BEFORE all the dab wikilinks have been removed,

2) It can include a "force update" button, permitting me to manually request Wildbot to update the page.

Thanks, and congratulations on making a great improvement to wikipedia. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to mention that WildBot keeps the template up-to-date. Given it operates on an average response time of about 15 seconds, I could easily include a "force update" button, but like the "door close" button in lifts it wouldn't actually be connected to anything; the bot would just keep on doing its job. Josh Parris 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Just fyi, Talk:Graham_Court hasn't been automaticlly updated in about 24 hours, but maybe I'm not understanding the tech stuff. Congrats again on the coolness. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but Graham_Court wasn't on the bot's watchlist (every message-boxed article goes on the watchlist). Once it was added, everything went well. I can't think of any way it could have failed to get onto the watchlist, so I'm going to blame evil pixies. Josh Parris 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

One more proposal. I have seen other to-do templates which transclude the pages they appear on into a central category (for an example see the template at Template:Refideas/doc#Free_sources). Why don't you include a hyperlink to such a category in the template. Tthere will be some people who treat that page as a to-do list, and that will expedite the removal of dab wikilinks by making the process systematic. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion, I'll work on appropriate linking. Josh Parris 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)