User talk:R'n'B/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Deletion: Nick Davies

Hi Russ - quite a long time ago you deleted a page Nick Davies. I suspect it may have wrongly been marked for speedy deletion, and perhaps by chance the CSD request was not removed. I'm not suggesting it was deleted against policy, but my concern is to create two articles for two British journalists both confusingly called "Nick Davies" who as well as reporting news have both briefly been the subject of national news coverage and parliamentary questions, one in 1991 and the other in 2009 e.g. [1]. I'm not sure if I ever contributed to the pages that were deleted, but I would appreciate any help or pointers in recovering the content to save additional work. I hold no brief for and have no connection with either Nick Davies - I just see it as an editorial challenge to create a couple of good articles that make clear their notability in future. Discussion on Talk:Nick Davies might be best (I don't log in often now) Thanks. --Cedders^tk 08:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite a while ago -- over six months in fact. For your information, the text of the article at the time I deleted it was as follows:

Nick Davies was born in Manly hospital on May 1st in the year of 1992. He is a good student and a great listener, he also indulges in the finer things of life, like Wagyu beef steaks and fine leather belts. He attends Manly Selective Campus and gets all da Chix.

Needless to say, the article that exists at that title now is entirely different. I don't see anything here worth recovering. Good luck with your efforts. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking: I now know not to bother anyone else. I'm a bit surprised there wasn't content at some point in the past as the page was linked to a long time ago, but there was an even earlier deletion in 2005. Cheers --Cedders^tk 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot?

I'm not sure if your bot could help us out here or not. If yes, it would be a tremendous help. If no, thanks anyways! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone took care of them manually. Thanks anyways. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

John Marshall

Would you kindly tweak up the links? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Stan

Sylheti mafia

How much longer should this hoax stink up Wikipedia? It's an obvious snowball at this point. Why not drag it out another 30 days? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

workspace.com

Thank you for the help in properly moving Artifact Software to workspace.com Dvansant (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kathryn Borel Jr.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kathryn Borel Jr., has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathryn Borel Jr.. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add category redirect template for maintenance

Is your bot authorised to do this? I ask because I don't see it here.--Rockfang (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought that this task was included in this approval, and the bot has been adding these templates (and also fixing double-redirected categories) ever since it began operating. However, since you raised the question, I've gone back and read that page again, and I see that these tasks were not spelled out explicitly. If you think this needs a new approval, I suppose I can go through the process. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Filing a new BRFA is up to you. If you think it is covered by the BRFA you linked above, you could just amend the bot's user page so other editors don't ask in the future.--Rockfang (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted user pages

If I want to come back to Wikipedia and start to edit some day, are you allowed to restore deleted user pages. Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia.--Zink Dawg -- 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to come back, any of your deleted user pages could be restored by any administrator. Whether you do so is entirely up to you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects again

Hi, at WT:Categories for discussion (under the "Dashes in category names" and "En dashes" threads) it's been suggested that we should move from soft to hard redirects for categories. Do you know of any technical impediments to doing that? How hard would it be to reprogram the bot to convert redirects the other way, and then maintain the hard-redirected categories?--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I raised this issue about a year ago at Template_talk:Category_redirect#Proposed_change, and the consensus at that time was to continue using soft redirects. As my proposal suggests, it wouldn't be too hard to change the bot, but I think this ought to get some wider discussion (WP:VP, WP:CENT and/or WP:RFC) before being implemented. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

un-subst template

Hello R'n'B! In the course of doing general redirect maintenance, I discovered that three years ago BetacommandBot "subst:"ed the {{R from ASCII}} template already in place in 26 redirect, which strikes me as a singularly unuseful act. I assume that you felt similarly as you reverted a few the following month, as with Leaether Strip. All but 7 had been unsubstituted by you or some other user, and of those, 5 had more appropriate tags, such as {{R from title without diacritics}}; the remaining two (Klutae and Panserbjorne) I unsubstituted myself. I then looked and saw that neither WP:TSUB nor WP:TMR specifically address the subject of substituting redirect page template messages. Do you still feel that the unsubstituted template is preferred and have you gotten any heat from reverting such substitutions? -- ToE^T 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'd looked at your recent contributions, I wouldn't have had to ask if you still feel the same way, given edits such as this ("un-subst redirect template" Barons Methuen). I had also wanted to ask someone about removing extraneous text following the redirect (often material that has been merged), but I see that you have done a fair bit of that recently as well. Armenian printing houses was on my hit list, but I see that you performed a history merger on it, commenting "moved Armenian printing houses to Armenian printing: Fix cut-and-paste move". Is there something special I should do if I run across other recent cut-and-paste moves that could benefit from a history merger? -- ToE^T 11:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Answering myself, I've learned of (and put to use) {{db-histmerge}}. I've also noticed that many other redirects with extraneous text warrant a {{R from merge}} tagging along with the text removal. -- ToE^T 11:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I've been away and am still catching up. Thanks for your interest in helping clean up these redirects. {{db-histmerge}} is indeed the right one to use when you find a copy-and-paste move. As for the subst'd templates, I recall seeing a guideline somewhere that said not to subst these templates, and it makes sense to me since the content of the template or its categorization scheme may change at some point and it would be impossible to track down all the subst'd instances and make them conform to the new scheme; however, now I can't find the guideline in question. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to mention, I have a list at User:RussBot/Long redirects that may interest you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh ho, that's why I can across so many of your edits. I've been working with the 14 Sept pages-articles dump with redirects sorted by line count. I do wonder if Rich was intentionally messing with you here, with 276 lines but only 317 characters. I almost feel bad about having cleaned that one up. -- ToE^T 05:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat redirects

Yes I saw the redundancy, now the way it arose was there was a {{soft redirect}} on a cat. So the reason I didn't use one or the other was:

Soft redirects are categorised in their own tree.
Possibly (useful) hard redirects for cats may arrive in future.

But I'm inclined to moving the category redirect template to just using the soft redirect category. What do you think?

On having both types of redirect in an article, I probably agree with RussBot not changing them, but the current hard redirects are harmful because (when they work) they hide the non-existence of the category.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Sorry for dropping in. I helped Rich a little with soft categories, so I noticed you posts on his talkpage. I left a note there, and will say so here as well, with your permission, that I would support removing the old Category:Wikipedia category redirects in favor of the new ones, because they have the more correct name.

Yesterday I saw an example of a hard redirect (on the same page as a soft redirect) making an empty category count as non-empty. Which is for me all the reason needed to remove it. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscrape speedy declination

Hi, just browsing a few maintenance things and noticed you declined a speedy (db-hoax) on the basis of this website listing the player as a former notable. That site, however, is a wiki-scrape with some standard intro and new/talk gumpf and reformatting of tables. Compare the above link with G.D._Estoril-Praia, or to choose a random club, [2] with A.S. Bari. Just to give you a heads up...--ClubOranje^T 10:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. The speedy deletion process is only for pages that are obviously inappropriate, where there is no conceivable chance that anyone would want to keep them. I don't see it as my role to make judgment calls about the merits of particular sources; that's what AfD is for. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Is there an easier way to clean up a page move than to visit the 180+ pages and manually modify them? — X S G 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, not really. You can use tools like AWB to speed up the process, but someone still needs to look at each page. The problem is that while most of the pages in question probably intended to refer to the musician, it's impossible to be certain that all of them did, since there has in fact been more than one person with that name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

Hi, R'n'B. Because you declined a speedy on John Todd (occultist), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush pretzel choking incident

Hi there. Please restore this article as it's not the same article because content and sourcing has been added. Also, consensus can change. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The decision to delete was not based on the strength of the sources, so the fact that you have added to the article doesn't change the basis for that decision. Yes, consensus can change; that is why we have Deletion Review. Restoring the article would just be an end-run around that process. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I understand your point of view. I recreated it in good faith and I don't think it qualified for G4 since it was significantly altered, but it was fairly soon after the AfD so maybe I should have waited longer. Would you be so kind as to restore it to my userspace so I can continue to work on it? I will try and wait at least until the new year before reintroducing anything to mainspace. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As you wish; restored to User:ChildofMidnight/George W. Bush pretzel incident. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Russ. Much appreciated. And remember to chew before swallowing, especially when watching football alone on a couch! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirected categories

Further to the above Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories is probably useful for Russbot to iterate over since it contains the categories that have articles that need addressing. Rich Farmbrough, 10:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Nice idea, but the script as written is designed to work on multiple wikis, and unless this same category scheme is implemented on all the other wikis that have category redirects, I can't use it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a list of the wikis? Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

I run this script on commons: no: and simple:, but there may be other users running it elsewhere. There is another problem, though; the contents of Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories actually shows all the categories that were not empty the last time their category pages were touched, not those that are non-empty now. I can get the current information more simply through an API query. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that#'s just category lag, although there seems to have been a bug since the last big release of WikiMedia. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC).

Parish councils of England

Hi Russ. I notice that User:RussBot is disambiguating parish council by changing the link to [[Parish councils of England|parish council]]. But Parish councils of England is itself a redirect to Parish councils in England, though the redirect page was only created a week ago. Does RussBot need updating to point directly to the relevant page and so avoid creating unnecessary redirects?

Example diffs:

Thanks for your work on this. Richardguk (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now, thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I messing up?

Hi R'n'B, I was in the process of removing the {{R to disambiguation page}} from some redirects where I understand it to be incorrectly placed when Amalthea questioned if I was doing the right thing. Could you please check out User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page and let me know? Thanks. -- ToE^T 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the Alexandra Burke template.

Hi there, I noticed you have deleted the Alexandra Burke template. I'm leaving this message to say that I have started a discussion about this on the Alexandra Burke talk page where you may wish to add your thoughts. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Severino de las Alas

You declined speedy of the article. I now tagged the article for copyvio investigation per policy: GFDL-only is no longer a valid license since dual licensing was adopted (see WP:Licensing update#Content restrictions). --Bluemask (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DAB challenge list

Heya, just to let you know, next month's list will have 500 dabs instead of 250. BTW, the list is based on the top 500 linked disambigs, sorted alphabetically, and taken from the most recent list - so November 1 will be based on the list that was generated October 31 morning. That means the data in the list is about 14 hours stale, but I do this to avoid huge no-brainer dabs in the list - like when someone switches a redirect from the proper target to a dab, and it simply needs to be switched back. (Thought you'd like to know the method behind the madness.) --JaGa^talk 11:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That explains why my list has never been quite the same as yours -- I've been using the top 250 as of the 1st day of the month, while you've been using the top 250 as of the day before. (Is it exactly that, or do you make any adjustments on the morning of the 1st?) Thanks for the explanation; I'll make the necessary changes to my scripts before the end of the month. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No adjustments, just top 250. I'm sure there's a better way, but I haven't worked it out yet. --JaGa^talk 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what happens if a page was in the top 250 on October 31 but it is not on the list on November 1 (because it was one of those redirects that got switched back, for example)? What if that page comes back to the list on November 2? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was top 250 Oct 31, it will be in the list. When the list of this month's dabs is created, a list of links to those dabs is created as well. The 14 hour lag gives people (usually yourself) the chance to fix those no-brainers before the list of links is created. Since you (theoretically) fixed the redirect during the 14 hours before the list of links was generated, the links via that redirect won't make the list - and won't show up as points in the contest. I thought it would be awkward if people got 1000s of points for regular maintenance. This gives a chance for maintenance to get done without looking like a points grab. Probably over-thinking everything but it's worked OK so far.

Also, once the monthly list is created Nov 1, that's it. It won't be modified until the next month. --JaGa^talk 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Advertising

My page "Soundview Executive Book Summaries" has been removed due to Blatant Advertising. It was a company page with factual information about the company. I was wondering if you could tell me exactly which parts were questionable so when I try this again, I don't make the same mistakes.

Sincerely, Amandalangen (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Amanda, I saw two major problems with the article. First, it had no references to significant coverage of the subject company in independent, reliable sources, which would tend to show that the company is notable. Most of the references were to the company's own press releases, and the others did not contain substantial coverage of the company (such as a map and a directory listing). Second, the tone of the article was that of an advertisement, not of an objective description. For example, the article said, "With over 31 years of experience in business publishing, Soundview's goal and purpose is to provide busy executives with the business information they need, when and where they need it, in a concentrated and easy-to-use format." That sounds like a business slogan. The article also said the company "is the pioneer of the book summary concept," a classic example of a peacock term. These are just a few specific cases, but this problem with the tone and viewpoint of the article is pervasive; as the speedy deletion criterion says, it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become an encyclopedic article. If that is what you want to do, I encourage you to review this guide to writing your first article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

high- temperature collectors

could you please copy paste my information ba0ck into my sandbox? i was not ready to publicly publish that page, i thought it was still on my personal page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartychick (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notifying of deletions

I apologise for ignoring this message. I have now formulated my policy - see this exchange. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of category members

Hey Russ, Is there an easier way of generating a list of members of a large category such as Category:Disambiguation pages (>10^5 members) than either walking the category pages 200 members at a time (&limit= does not seem to apply) or parsing pages-articles.xml for the various templates and category links that lead to inclusion? (The latter method was easier for Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages as it was limited to redirects (a small subset, by overall size, of pages-articles) and had relatively few methods of inclusion (one template, four redirects, and the one category link). -- ToE^T 01:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you use the API, you can get more than 200 entries at a time from a category; I think you can get up to 5000 if you have a sysop or bot account. But that's still pretty slow for a huge category, and I'm not aware of anything else you can do to speed up the process. If you just need a text file listing the page titles generated, I could probably do that from the Toolserver. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Word Alive

Hey R'n'B. I know I shouldn't have re-nominated TWA for speedy deletion again due to rules, but I really should have. The page was already deleted not five days ago (see here). I had to re-nominate the page here, and was wondering if you could look at my reasoning for deletion.--Krazycev 13 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I reviewed your speedy request, I couldn't see that the page author had requested deletion; it didn't appear that way in the page history. If I had known that, I would have gone ahead and deleted it anyway. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, should I close the AfD with the result being delete?--Krazycev 13 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a plan. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Krazycev 13 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices

They are trying to delete this. Please comment. 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Stan

New Providence School District

I noticed in the history of New Providence School District that you had edited that article recently. Please see what you can do as I can not keep up with the IP user who seems to be vandalizing it. -- allen四names 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP user stopped long enough for me to revert the edits. Please check up on the article. -- allen四names 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Soft vs. hard category redirects

I've started a proposal to switch to hard redirects, which can be RfC'd once we're sure we've got all the issues mentioned. Please have a look at WP:Hard category redirects and edit/comment if possible.--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

National Universities

Very thanks by your remarks on redirecting pages R'n'B, I'll try the next time, if I do perform a similar move, just by redirecting it without cut the page's contain. On the other hand still I believe that the correct vocabulary to name National University page it is National Universities given the fact that are so many. Thanks again --Carau (talk)

Carau, I would just note that under our naming conventions, only the first word in a title should be capitalized, unless the title is a proper noun; and titles usually should be singular. So, National University (Philippines) for the name of a particular university, but National university for the general concept. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, i need your help here. I just want you to Correct spelling and language (If you don't mind), thanks --Σύμμαχος (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Festivalul Astra Film

Hi, I saw that you declined the speedy for Festivalul Astra Film. But isnt it same as ro:Festivalul astra film? -- Raziman T V (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your nomination did not include a link. I did try to find such an article, but failed due to the difference in capitalization. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had given the nomination by clicking CSD at the top of the page. Dont remember getting an option for adding the correct ro article. Sorry for the trouble -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:People from Breslau and historical names

Who has authorized the bot moving all pages from Category:People from Breslau to Category:People from Wrocław like in Karl Rudolf Friedenthal and Heinrich Koebner? This move is a breach of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)# General guidelines (point 4) which makes it clear that "Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400". It is just as non-sensical to call these German people citizens from Wrocław as it would be calling ancient Greek people of Byzantium citizens of Istanbul. The whole Category:People from Breslau needs to be refilled (as all related ones). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who authorized it? Well, Category:People from Breslau has been a redirect since the page was created on 1 November 2007, so I guess the user who created the page authorized it. My bot does not decide which categories are redirected or what the targets will be; it just looks for existing redirects and then recategorizes pages accordingly. If you have a problem with the redirect, or with category naming conventions more broadly, I suggest you start a discussion on WP:CFD. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your restoration of unverifiable content

I don't care what you consider "not cool". You restored original research that was previously challenged and removed. (Cannabis rosin). I put the appropriate tag when the article was edited down to no content. I'm aware of the guidelines and find your restoration of original research (Medical, at that!) to be antipolicy. Mjpresson (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I care what you care about? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you feel the same way about WP: Verifiability.Mjpresson (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you are able to read my mind. If you took a different tone, I would respond differently. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't restore removal of unverifiable original medical research to articles in this encyclopedia. Mjpresson (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It seems to me, however, that the question of whether the information (formerly) in the article is OR and/or unverifiable is precisely the issue that is being discussed on the AFD page, and that blanking (for all practical purposes) the article preempts that discussion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fb templates deletion

It looks like all templates which I nominated today for speedy deletion are deleted already. I can promise you :) that next time I will use db-t3. For clear, all nominated templates have own equivalent without letters "abb" in name. For example, "Fb team abb Aktobe" could be deleted, because I improve or has been improved already template "Fb team Aktobe". In this way, after improvements, all abb templates can be deleted which are located in category. Do you have any idea how to speed up this process? --Verwolff (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

New request.

I've been seeing quite a few "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo" where "Foo" is not (or at any rate is no longer) a disambig. Can you generate a list of these? They ought to be either retargeted to the appropriate disambig, or deleted. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've been away for a few days and am behind on responding to messages. I'll take a look at this later in the week. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. I'm catching them here and there as it is. bd2412 T 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting. A little longer of a list than I thought it would be, but when I read your note I was afraid it would be thousands! I see a few recurring patterns already. "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo Bar" when it should just redirect to "Foo"; or "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo" when the appropriate disambig page is at, say "FOO"; or "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo (surname)" (or just "Foo") which is a set index of people sharing a surname, for which there is nothing else to disambiguate. For some policy reason as to which I am hazy, indexes of surnames are no longer considered disambig pages. However, in the surname case, I don't think any harm arises from leaving the redirects as is. The rest I can fix over the next few weeks. bd2412 T 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, having gone into this list a bit, I think most of the redirects are actually harmless, and am inclined to leave them. bd2412 T 20:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Feric Feng

Thanks for speedy deleting... did you salt? Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I asked for salt - same guy.

No, it was only the first recreation since the AFD, so that didn't seem to call for salting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carson Mansion of Eureka, California

Second Empire (architecture), by broad definition, would have to include Mansard rooflines, archtop windows, and a prominant central entrance. None of these features are present in the Carson Mansion, a house of many prominent features. Why do you keep adding Second Empire to the architectural description? Norcalal 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at the page history? I did not add Second Empire to the architectural description. All I did was change [[Second Empire| Second Empire (French)]] to [[Second Empire (architecture)|Second Empire (French)]], because the original link was to a disambiguation page. After you reverted my edits, the page still listed Second Empire as one of the architectural styles, just with a wrong link. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Saqib Qayyum/Saqib

Hi, could you send me text that got deleted along with page? --Saqib ^talk 09:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unclear ... (Sorry.)

Hi Russ,
Due to your extremely polite and considerate language, I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you're saying.
It's clear that you are saying: "Did you check 'What links here'?".
But once I do that, it's not altogether clear what you're saying I should do next.
From past experience and other knowledge, I would expect that you are saying: "Did you check for, and fix, double re-directs?" But rereading it yet again, I can see that you are saying something different.
I think you are saying: "Did you fix the redirects?"
If not, then sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand.
If so, then I would ask: "Why?", because the "move" dialogue says that WP automaticly fixes those.
I'm sorry to bother you, but could you please clarify this for me?
Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Before yesterday, Stephen Baker was the title of an article about an American football player. Various other Wikipedia articles (about 76 in this case) contained links in the form [[Stephen Baker]], and most of those probably were referring to the football player, although of course it is also possible that some of them were mistakes and meant to refer to an article about another person with the same name. Today, Stephen Baker is a disambiguation page and the article about the football player is entitled Stephen Baker (American footballer) (oddly, because in the U.S. we don't use the word "footballer", but that's another issue), but those other 76 articles still have links to [[Stephen Baker]]. What WP:D is saying in the passage I quoted from is that, if you wish to move an article to another title to make room for a disambiguation page, you should check all of those other articles that link to the old title and update the links where necessary. The software does not automatically change those links, nor can it be done by any automated process because of the problem that some of the links might have been wrong in the first place, and need to be changed to refer to an article about a different "Stephen Baker." By the way, the same issue arises with the Steven Baker page, which had even more other articles linking to it; but, in both cases, many of the links were through templates and I have fixed those already. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

(I'm puzzled as to how I got the impression it was done automaticly. Oh well - I know better now.)

oddly, because in the U.S. we don't use the word "footballer" - Mea culpa! Well, before I go check the "what links here", could you please move the page to a better name, and advise me of the new name?

You explanation and advice has been very helpful. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already moved the page to Stephen Baker (American football), which looks fine to me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that! ;-) (Though really, it didn't take me much to work out what the "standard" was ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Codespring

Posted yet again. Given the spammer's persistence, maybe it's time to protect the page? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Carlos Zambrano

I wasn't the first person to move Carlos Zambrano while the Requested Move discussion was going on, [3]. Also, I wasn't the first person to begin with the arrogance, "Zambrano, the pitcher, is by far the most well-known of the two Carlos Zambranos". Wikipedia isn't made solely for Venezuelans or for the United States; Carlos Zambrano (the football player) is highly well-known in his native country (Peru, added tha the plays for his nation's national team) and is also highly well-known in Germany (He has played all of his professional football career there, since a very early age; and is part of one of the popular teams of Germany). My argument boils down to the proposal for a disambiguation page. The two Zambranos have achieved great notability in their respective fields, and when fans of each of the particular sports will be looking for the articles of the respective athletes, it is unfair to give the priority to one or the other. If there was, let's say a "President" or "CEO" of a major company, named "Carlos Zambrano," then it would make sense to directly wikilink the name to him (then have a hat note leading to the disambiguation page); however, this is not the current case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "move" tab?

Hi -- you corrected my cut-n-paste move of Angelico Chavez and told me I could use the move tab instead. But I don't see that tab on any of the pages--just read/edit/view history. How do I find it? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, it should be next to the history tab at the top on an article (two right from "edit this page"). Regards So Why 18:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah--found it--it was in the drop-down menu that I never pay attention to (the arrow next to View History). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT

Hi there R'n'B. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards So Why 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Heavy lifting

Are their bots that fix piped links or whatever it's called? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you ask on Bot requests, you might want to think about whether the links you want to "fix" are really broken. A lot of piped links are useful. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean if a page is disambiguated to fix the old links that need to be retargeted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DPL#Tools and reports. A bot cannot fix these links automatically because someone has to look at them and see what the meaning is, but there are tools to assist in speeding up the review. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hawaii Theological Seminary

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hawaii Theological Seminary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Theological Seminary. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ἀλήθεια 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

regarding Foundation for the Preservation of the American Family (FPAF)

Hi there! Thanks for your message The page was speedily deleted by Bearian (talk) yesterday (that's why you said it's empty), and I also message him about it just to explain the purpose of creating a page for the foundation. We will try rewriting it again with a neutral POV. Thanks again Freehelplist (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Schober Schubert

Hello,

would it be possible to put the Schober-article in the right section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.105.6 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the question. Which article? The right section of what? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. In future, you can use this page to request creation of a new article, or create an account so that you can make new pages yourself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Military of Cyprus

Why do you insist on redirecting the MoC to the Greek Cuypriot National Guard when there are two de facto countries on Cyprus? And each with its own armed forces. The Cypriot National Guard of the Greek Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot Security Force of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the Cypriot National Guard is the military of Cyprus. If you want to have a list of "military organizations in Cyprus," that would be a different story. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Cyprus is the CNG the military of then? Since there are two Cyprus areas run but seperate governments.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, the government of the TRNC does not claim, nor does any country in the world recognize it to be, the sole legitimate government of the entire island of Cyprus (thus making it different from the situations in Korea and China, for example). Only the (what you insist on calling Greek) Republic of Cyprus claims to be, and is internationally recognized as, sovereign over the entire island. Therefore, only the Republic of Cyprus military can be the military of Cyprus. The TCSF is a military force in Cyprus. The redirect should not come as a surprise to anyone; Republic of Cyprus is a redirect to Cyprus; Politics of Cyprus is an article about the Republic of Cyprus; and on and on and on. You are suggesting that Military of Cyprus should be treated differently than every other Cyprus-related title on Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Kokoro

I would like to move the novel to a subpage and move the disambiguation to the main page because I don't think there is a main subject. For example there is a Nigerian snack of the same name. But I have not completed work on my redirect fixing cyborg yet. Do you have any suggestions for how to resolve this problem in the meantime? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(just passing by) I don't think the snack food is something to rely on if you want to make such a request; this is a seminal work in modern Japanese literature. I'd suggest opening a move request through WP:RM if you want to see what others think. Dekimasuよ! 09:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouse articles

I've put in many references in various lighthouse articles to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Your bot has been altering it to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Maybe you want it to be University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? Thanks for your good work. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Can you give me a link? All the ones I've gone back and checked, such as Grosse Point Light, Old Michigan City Light, and Michigan City East Light, appear to have the correct link to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Russ, I think all or most of the lighthouses in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana and Michigan. Start with Sturgeon Point Light. Then drop down to the Michigan lighthouse infobox, and follow those links. Go to Toledo Harbor Light and do the same thing to Ohio. Likewise with Milwaukee Breakwater Light and Wisconsin. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

My bot did not edit Sturgeon Point Light, Toledo Harbor Light, or Milwaukee Breakwater Light. I thought you had some concern about edits my bot made. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Russ, You are correct. I was suggesting that your bot might 'rethink' the edits you made (as to form, there was nothing 'wrong' with them, but form might be slightly different), and I was also inviting you to 'bot in' on these other articles. Sorry to confuse or mislead you. There are so many articles that I thought your bot might fix them in a direct and expeditious bot-like manner. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

FYI

There is a new category, Category:Latin name disambiguation pages, that is causing some trouble with the processing of The Daily Disambig (and possibly the toolserver). I'm not sure how to get that straightened out in either case, but I'm guessing you do. Dekimasuよ! 09:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles in that category don't seem to contain any disambiguation templates (as listed on MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, therefore they aren't recognized as disambiguation pages by the software or by the bot that assembles the Daily Disambig. Do you consider that a problem? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I shouldn't say that. My bot doesn't look at the disambig pages at all; all it does is count up the pages listed on Jason's toolserver report, and I don't know exactly what algorithm Jason uses to determine which disambig pages to list in his report. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll contact JaGa when I get a chance, then. Thanks for the reply. Dekimasuよ! 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

cf. User talk:Nono64#Latin name disambiguation pages. Dekimasuよ! 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis

Dear R'n'B:

I saw your editing recommendations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

In-line citations will be placed into the article.

With respect to Peacock Words -- could you please help by listing the peacock words you found, so that they may all be addressed? Otherwise we may miss one, or several, which you feel are important.

Thank you for your assistance, and we'll get to work on it!

Regards, MBernal615 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis (Peacock Terms)

Russ,

I provided in-line citations for the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

When you get a chance, could you please inform me of the Peacock Terms that you think should be addressed?

This would help me, so that I don't miss any PT's which you think are significant. I want to make sure I address all of them.

Thank you for your assistance!

Regards,

68.173.125.102 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis (Peacock Terms - Part II)

Russ,

I wanted to make sure you received my correct signature for the above note (Nelson Antonio Denis - Peacock Terms).

I typed the four tildes but it yielded something else.

Here it goes again (with correct signature) and thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 07:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about RussBot

I see that Template:Room is listed on User:RussBot/DPL/Templates. I am not certain what listing it on that page means or does. The links listed there are to disambiguation and/or redirects. The template is supposed to link specifically to certain disambiguation and redirects in addition to specific targets. That is because many terms (hallway/passage/corridor, or living room/lounge) have slightly or significantly different current or historical meanings. It is good to have direct links to these alternate article titles, though they are visually identified as being effectively synonyms for the main term. I just wanted to check that your bot isn't likely to go through and rewrite those links attempting to "fix" something that's not actually broken. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That list is now outdated; a more current list of the same information is available at http://toolserver.org/~jason/templates_with_dab_links.php. It means that the template contains links to disambiguation pages; simple as that. Whether the links are appropriate or not is something that editors need to determine using their own judgment. In the majority of cases, however, it is more helpful to readers to link directly to articles about a substantive topic than to disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Word Alive

On certain websites it says that The Word Alive was on Billboards heatseekers # 15. Does this establish notability or do I actually have to have found them on the Billboard site to possibly have the page restored? Just curious, I'm not trying to annoy anyone. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If the page cannot be restored, please tell me sir. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article was deleted as the result of a discussion, so you would probably get a better response by asking the people who participated in that discussion. According to the guidelines, "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" are generally notable; but like anything else, that must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Without knowing what sources you are planning to rely upon, I don't know how to answer your question. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make the links but here are the url's.

I hope these are reliable sources, but I'm just not completely sure. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the discussion where the page that I created is here. You were the person who deleted it. I'm not sure if you knew cause you put the wrong deletion in the discussion link. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I deleted it because you had recreated it after the deletion discussion, and then asked for it to be deleted again. As for your other question, I don't know enough about these sources to comment. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information you have provided me with. One last question? Am I supposed to talk to the person who deleted it the first time and the other people in the discussion? Just trying to make it clear what I need to do to see if I can get it restored. Sorry if I am bugging you sir. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you try asking User:Juliancolton or User:Krazycev13, since they seem to be somewhat knowledgeable about this topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time Russ. --Łoshɢooþii (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Antonio Denis -- Peacock Term removal

Russ,

I did not receive feedback from you regarding the Peacock Terms, but I went ahead and identified/removed what could be construed as PT's from the Nelson Antonio Denis article.

Please review, and thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Russ,

Thank you for your review of Nelson Antonio Denis.

The page is stronger now; the in-line references a big help.

Regards,

MBernal615 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Calcium sodium phosphosilicate

Hello R'n'B, I wanted to create an article for "Calcium sodium phosphosilicate", but it seems you deleted one at 8:11, 20 July 2009. I don't know why ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galmicmi (talk • contribs)

I deleted it because "‎(One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (CSD G7))." In other words, it had nothing to do with the topic or content; someone created a page (which contained the text "hh") and then decided it was a mistake and blanked it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answer, I created a page for Calcium sodium phosphosilicate which redirect to NovaMin -- Galmicmi (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering a change

Heya, I've been thinking about that A1 article - its list of links is almost entirely redirects and is still pushing 100! It bugs me that A1 pretty much is guaranteed a permanent spot on our list from now on, and you gotta figure there are more like this.

So I'm thinking about not counting redirects as links. Still count links through redirects, but not count the redirects themselves. It'll take some work, but I've some time off coming up so I'll have the chance to do this.

What do you think? It would greatly affect the numbers, but that may be a good thing, since a redirect to a dab isn't necessarily undesirable. And redirects would no longer give undue weight to dabs' link count. --JaGa^talk 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that entirely, if you can program it to work that way. For the pages that I monitor, I don't count redirects as links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've coded the change. I'm not going to make it live before hearing from you, but I'd like to deploy it for tomorrow's run. The only way it'll affect you that I can think of is about 9,000 dabs will leave the list, which could be a problem for TDD. --JaGa^talk 17:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. The only problem for TDD might be a little bit of bloating of the hidden lists for one day, but that's not a big deal. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. We'll see how it goes tomorrow. --JaGa^talk 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

double redirects

Hi, I fear I've made a bit of a mess in moving List of The Bill characters to List of characters of The Bill along with its associated lists. I'm in the process of manually fixing the double redirects but there are over 100 (the name of each character redirects to the list entry, which redirects to the new title), thus, any help from your bot would be very much appreciated! Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Xqbot has already taken care of it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)