This is an archive of past discussions with User:R'n'B. 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.

Hy

I have now more resurses books articles defending my article that the federation talked about is not tha sem and not a hoax.

Please, could you help me edit this article and make it stay on the wikipedia.

Thank you. Gall T. Barna (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello R'n'B, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Oxford Road 13 has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary 'Decline prod, uncompelling justification'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to clean up the Holiday page and create a disambiguation page. Now, what do you propose should be done with the 800 or so other articles that contain links to holiday? In particular, what do you propose that {{Holiday-stub}} should link to? I can't figure out what specific type of holiday a "holiday stub" might relate to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to work on that in the coming week. I just cannot do it all on a single day, since it is a major effort. There are also a number of changes I am yet to make to the articles to which this has been split. Besides, there is a lot of discussion that is yet to be held on this in the coming days to work out certain issues, and I am waiting for it to be initiated. Tatterfly (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have created a new template called {{converted}} and given instructions on these types of changes at WP:USURPTITLE for dealing with this and future situations like this. Tatterfly (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientrix is a new innovation in management science. How much information should an article contain. Can you please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadia.kaiser (talk • contribs) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find this guide helpful. And make sure there are references to third-party sources to establish that the topic is notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you decided to usurp the title of Vice-chancellor and redirect it to the disambiguation page, I hope you intend to pitch in and fix the 1,400 or so other articles that contain links to that title and now all need to be individually reviewed and retargeted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a work in progress - any help is most welcome. SilkTork *^YES! 11:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See WT:CSD#Question about G8; the consensus there seemed to be that the page should be deleted, but nobody had done so, so I went ahead and tagged it. GlassCobra 18:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you editing the wiki page for Helen Fielding? How can I get in touch with you regarding this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fielding

Thanks,

Renata99.19.211.185 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not editing that page. The usual way of linking to a Wikipedia page, by the way, is double brackets -- [[Helen Fielding]]. My bot made an automatic edit to that page because it contained a link to a disambiguation page, but other than that I have not even looked at it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're invited! bd2412 T 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I've got this wrong, but so far as I can see, some time back you amended {{db-c1}} so that it places the empty category in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion rather than Category:Empty categories for deletion. I've amended Template:Db doc/othercats to reflect this, put Category:Empty categories for deletion up for {{db-c1}}, and carried {{Adminbacklog}} across to the new category. Could you check over what I've done to make sure it's in line with your plans?

While the db-c1'd categories are placed in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, the category listed in the db-c1'd cat's Hidden categories is still Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Is this fixable?

Bazj (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had to check myself, because other users have played around with that template as well; at this point, it puts the tagged categories into Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for the first four days, and then (when the empty category page is next touched) into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. So, you're right, at this point Category:Empty categories for deletion is never used, although I'm not sure this is ideal.

I'm not sure I understand your last question. What would need to be fixed? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I think I see. If a page has been tagged with {{db-c1}} for more than four days but hasn't been edited since then, it will still show up in Category:Empty categories for deletion, but if the page is viewed it will appear to be Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The solution to this is to "null edit" the page; that is, save it without actually changing anything, which will cause the category listings to update. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I meant (except it's Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, not Category:Empty categories for deletion). I tried a null edit on Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard from September 2009 but it had no effect. The lack of a null edit meant that cats I'd marked for deletion were effectively disappearing from the deletion categories without being deleted, and I couldn't see where they'd gone. All of which means your edits make more sense to me now. Thanks for your help.

Hopefully the deletion of the redundant Category:Empty categories for deletion will save confusion for others. Bazj (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding your edit to Template:Adenosinergics: I reverted it because I don't think it is helpful if "A1" and "A3" lead to the receptor subtypes, but "A2" leads to the general page about the receptor. The alternative would be removing that link altogether, because there are links to the A_2A and A_2B subtypes anyway. What do you think? Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Given those choices, I would suggest removing the link altogether. The only thing clicking the link tells the reader is that there are two different subtypes, A2A and A2B, but the template already tells them the same thing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your input. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're pointing the links in the wrong direction. Plantations grow the plant, not the finished product. Guettarda (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The plantation grows the trees, but it produces the beans. It seems to me it depends on the context. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I like. Just thought I'd say, since often we only hear when people don't like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these links. I thought there was a separate page just for the nomen gentilicum, but I must have been confusing it with another page (perhaps the list of nomina). I'll make sure to link to the right page in the future. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for decline speedy condition to my article. It´s so hard to get the right "tone" for it due to the language change. To read, to understand or to hear a language is so different to write!

I´ll ask a help to a friend. Have a nice 2010 !!

--Rcbatman (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the 2004 film is the primary topic? Actually, I really don't get the point of disambiguation films by year if the (film) is just going to redirect there anyway; i.e. Psycho (film), Carrie (film). I had to do a RM for The Wicker Man (film). hbdragon88 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the 2004 film appears to be by far the most likely target of readers who search for the title The Aviator. I did say "seems to be," since I'm by no means certain of this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As to brackets, I understood how they should look like. As to section 1, this template was an unfortunate experiment that I have not been able to delete. Only templates no 2 and 3 are relevant which were intended to be used together in an 'official and alternative name' template group. If there is a better technic, please advise me. My intention was to create a template which unfolds into two sub-topic A or B, and the reader can choose which one to open. You can see it on my editors page. Advice is appreciated. Kind regardsRokarudi 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that Nathan Kress is a hip hop singer signed to Def Jam South. In addition, the tmplate was created by a user all of whose edits, save one is vandalism. Woogee (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have to be confrontational? I didn't say the template was truthful; I just said that it wasn't blatantly, obviously a hoax. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a db-hoax tag on the article and you didn't even bother to ask my why I thought it was a hoax. If you had contacted me before removing the tag, I might have been less confrontational. Woogee (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Def Jam South has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Woogee (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew it's not ok, because I had to create a page for requesting and putting the deletion banner. I want to delete the file, not it's page. What's all about, there was no such thing before. The file's page or article was already created and there was no distinction between the page and the file. How come do I have to create a page for my file? This is the file I want do delete: File:First music notes of the first Tomb Raider.jpg because it's a dupe for File:First music notes of the first Tomb Raider.png (this one it's on wiki commons, the other is not) --TudorTulok (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to do. Deleting an image page also deletes the image from Wikipedia. If the image is on Commons then you need to request its deletion there; creating new pages here won't fix anything. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting Janet Tanner. You may wish to know that there are still two Redirect pages out there that were pointing at that page. They are: Amelia Carr and Jade Shannon. (These are two pseudonyms that were used by the deleted subject). Could you please delete these pages too?

Thanks, Peteinterpol (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As in coast you added Template:Wikify, what was you intention of that? I cannot interpret your purpose... ayucat (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot interpret it either, and have removed the template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey bud! Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I have been speaking with one of the principals of the New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE"), an online-only collection of about 2,200 professionally written and well-sourced articles relating to the state of Georgia, about potentially migrating their entire collection to Wikipedia. My rough estimate is that this would include at least a thousand new articles, and the remainder would need to be maintained in Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) project space until they could be fully merged in to the appropriate existing articles. If the deal goes through (which it looks like it is going to within a few weeks), can RussBot do the scrape?

Please note that there are a few quirks that will need to be addressed in importing these.

• First, in each case, proper attribution to both the origin project and the original authors must be maintained in the article, along with a link to the original article. The original author is the last line of the original article, but there is some boilerplate text beneath in (see Harriet Powers (1837-1910), authored by "Ashley Callahan, Georgia Museum of Art", for an example).
• Second, these articles contain internal links to other articles in the NGE; once they are imported to Wikipedia, since we will have all articles so linked (note that in some cases they use piping just as we do, so the link titled "quilt makers" in the above article actually leads to their article on "quilt making"). The principals of the NGE are concerned that we maintain the links as the articles are imported, meaning that the NGE link to another NGE article will become a Wikipedia link to the corresponding Wikipedia article.
• Third, most of these articles contain images, but we will not initially be importing those, as NGE has them under a variety of licenses.
• Finally, all will need talk page tags for WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).

This is a very big deal - if the NGE goes through, others will follow, and Wikipedia will get a good burnishing of its sometimes belabored qualities. Not to mention the boost in getting a bunch of articles worth having. We're still a few weeks off from sealing the deal (we are preparing a small import which can be done manually as a "guinea pig"), but I wanted to check with you well in advance, as my go-to person on tasks of this magnitude and importance. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, any project like this would need to get a bot approval. Second, I'd need to know more about the source from which the articles will be imported. Apparently the NGE does not use MediaWiki software. Would you be importing the article text by scraping the HTML text of the webpages, or from some dump of the actual source text? If the former, this is a significant programming task and I'm not sure I've got the time to do it in the near future. However, everything in your request above seems to be doable in principle. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd just be doing a glorified copy-and-paste of text on the page. How long would that take to prep? bd2412 T 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I did what you said, but the name Mercosul already exist before I did. The name should be in portuguese not in spanish, because portuguese is much more spoken inside the Mercosul. --Santista1982 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As I think you understood, my comment was about how you moved the page, not whether the page should be moved. However, it is clear that other editors disagree with you, so you should use WP:RM to start a discussion before trying to rename the page again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't exactly understand why The Skels was removed from Wikipedia. Can you clarify further?

Thanks, Tim Ross ([email protected])

19:44, 24 June 2009 R'n'B (talk | contribs) deleted "The Skels" ‎ (Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://theskels.com/?page_id=6 (CSD G12)) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tim: I think "unambiguous copyright infringement" is pretty clear. The text in the article was copied word-for-word from http://theskels.com/?page_id=6. That page has an explicit copyright notice on it. Copying it without permission is illegal. Here at Wikipedia, we like to stay legal. (I note that there could have been other reasons that would have justified deleting the article, but the copyright infringement alone was sufficient.) If someone with authority to do so wants to give permission for reuse of the text, they need to go through the steps outlined in the Wikipedia copyright guidelines. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Russ: Okay, I'll discuss with the other 'Skels'.

Thanks,

Tim

You declined a CSD on Le Triomphe de l'amour mentioning it's not nonsense :):) I presume you thought that the author, who says within the article that the supposed stuff exists on another wikipedia project (he/she gives a link to the French wikipedia site), wants the stuff to be translated (and so you put a tag requesting translation). Actually, you should click on the link the author gives, then check out why I CSD'd it to represent gibberish and nonsense. I do appreciate the philosophy of le triomphe de l'amour (romantic surely), but it is, umm, nonsense :):):) Have a nice day RnB (I love the name). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw, If you do reply, please do so on my talk page. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, any idea why Russbot on Commons no longer purges empty categories in Commons:Category:Non-empty category redirects ? Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hi there! can you block the article Brandon Boyd its been constantly vandalized by the same person thanks! --Vik.sanchez (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate response to that is to block the individual user(s), not to protect the article. See WP:GAIV for more information. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

R'n'B... thank you for the disambiguation link to "Reconstruction" on this page. I haven't leard how to link to a specific page that could have multiple meanings. Any tips would be appreciated. 63.133.205.1 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgot that I hadn't logged in. the above "thank you" was from Carsonmc. Carsonmc (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If moving a redirected category, if the category you're moving to, already exists on the page, maybe delete the category instead instead of moving it? A matter of pattern matching, to avoid duplicate categories on the page (whose effect besides taking up space I don't know.) Thanks! Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey bud, just wanted to let you know that the New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge the following ten articles, which I have copied to project space:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jesse Hill
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Anne Cox Chambers
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Charles Lindbergh
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Nancy Hart
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Piano Red Perryman
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Georgia Department of Labor
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Trustee Georgia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Revolutionary War in Georgia
  • Moved to mainspace, now at Georgia during the American Revolution
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Sumter County, Georgia

We will be getting these articles in top shape and merging or moving them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well, the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File talk:1944-02-09 letter Shilkret to his son p1.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search This image (and six others with other the same category listings) had their categories changed by a bot in a way that made them no longer show up as commons for the Genesis Suite, where a planned edit will use these original source references! They are also appropriate items for Nathaniel Shilkret.

As a separate issue, "Nat Shilkret" properly should be redirected to "Nathaniel Shilkret" (rather than the other way around), since, although Shilkret was known to the public with both names, Nathaniel is the correct first name,and it as it appears on his autobiography and as it appears on countless semi-classical Victor 78s and as it appears on many motion picture screen credits. The choice of "Nat" was likely made by someone familiar with Shilkret's popular recordings, not with his work as a whole.

I await a response before making any reversions. Niel Shell (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)grandson, archivist and editor of the autobiography of Nathaniel Shilkret

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:1944-02-09_letter_Shilkret_to_his_son_p1.jpg"

Thanks for any help you can provide. Niel Shell (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hello send me the link where i can start a new page with any name i dont know how to do that..i create page manually..i wll be thankful to you..noman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam82 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You made this edit and I'm not so sure it's an accurate edit. The current main house was built around 1936... it's not a true example of antebellum architecture. The plantation itself could be refered to as an "antebellum plantation" in that it was a plantation since pre-civil war days. What do you think? JBarta (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back. Personally, when visiting it, I was a little disappointed in seeing just how little of the original plantation was left. Even the slave cabins had been rebuilt at some not too distant time in the past. If memory serves, the oldest structure on the place is an old smokehouse about 15ft across... which indeed IS antebellum architecture. JBarta (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi R'n'B, Thanks for your help with the template! --Bermicourt (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Russ! Hey, I noticed you deleted the previous symbolism page (see here) to make way for the move of Symbolism (disambiguation). While this is the correct location of the page (i.e., superfluous "(disambiguation)"), all of the edit history at the original symbolism (755 edits), was deleted. The reason that this may be a problem is because the original symbolism had been merged to Symbolism (disambiguation), and the history of the original symbolism is now deleted (right?). Does this make sense? That is why, while it may have looked like a cut-and-paste move (see here), it was actually just the changing of a merge from one location to another (although I certainly wasn't very clear about this). Hopefully this makes more sense to you then me, otherwise we're both very confused. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the history of the old Symbolism page before performing the move. Despite what one of the edit summaries said, it did not appear to me that anything of any substance from the old page was actually merged onto the disambiguation page. Rather, the old Symbolism page was an attempt at an article that apparently never resulted in anything useful, and none of its content remains in the encyclopedia. There did not appear to be any reason to save its history, although of course the old history could be undeleted if there were a need for it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Please take a look at User:Arbitrarily0/Symbolism. By comparing the content under the three level-one headers, you can see that content from both of the pages was used in creating the merged page (under the third level-one header). For that reason, I'm not sure why the old symbolism was deleted when its history could have been preserved. Maybe you can enlighten me, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess my original review was too hasty. I've restored the original page history at Symbolism/Old. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. And I've moved Symbolism/Old to Symbolism (disambiguation) (per Wikipedia:Subpages) and redirected it back to symbolism. The attribution is all taken care of now, thanks for your help! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Russ — long time, no talk. I was wondering if you had the necessary time/data/interest to refresh your two pages of broadcasting templates with red links? I've been on a bit of a bender of stub creation to turn the redlinks blue over the last couple of weeks, but it occurs to me that the last run of these lists was about 11 months ago and it might be worthwhile to be working from a more recent baseline.

It's possible that the last completed dump was from too long ago for it to really be helpful, but I just thought I'd check. Hope all is well with you. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the good wishes; same to you. After I got my Toolserver account last year, I've been trying to use it instead of database dumps to generate these kinds of reports. I think I updated the Templates_with_red_links script to use the Toolserver. I'll check; if so, it's just a matter of pushing the button (and waiting) to generate a new report. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's running now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Something went wrong; I don't know what, and I don't have time to fix it now. Maybe in a day or two. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Beggers can't be choosers and all that; besides, it's not like the pages can't be used as they stand. Thanks for the effort! Mlaffs (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The update looks great! Could you also please delete the outdated Broadcasting/02 and Broadcasting/03 pages? Thanks. - Dravecky (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll second that. Everything looks fantastic! Thanks very much, Russ. Mlaffs (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You and others seek to change the status quo (which I support), without any consensus. I expanded on the description for the other entry out of a desire for balance and amity. So, heed your own warning and blather elsewhere. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

You had tagged the article Historical Powers on the 19th of Jan. I tried to improve it. Can you please check it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to tidy up categories, but Herne Bay pier was once three quarters of a mile long, and the pier head is still out there. Since 1832 it has been a very obvious landmark for shipping - so obvious that a jet was able to use it as a landmark for one end of its airspeed record course in 1945. The detached pierhead is still a landmark for shipping. It hasn't been a tourist attraction as a pier since they closed it to the public in 1968.--Storye book (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I really had no idea what you were talking about until I looked at the page history. Apparently the bot changed Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom to Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom. The reason for this, as you would know if you had bothered to look at the category page, is that the Landmarks category is a redirect to the Visitors attraction category. The Landmarks category therefore is not able to contain any articles, and the bot will automatically empty it every day. If you think this redirect is inappropriate, I suggest you propose a change on WP:CFD. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me wise to the redirect. In response to your comment above I bothered to look at the category page, and immediately saw that Category:Visitor attractions in Kent was a sub of Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom, so I deleted the latter, as the former was already among the categories of the page, and we can't have a category with its own subcategory appended to the same page, as per WP. Now all is well.--Storye book (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have nominated Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for rename. I happen to know that you have a tool on the tool server which keeps track of this category, so please make sure that, should my proposal pass, your tool will know how to handle it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi R'n'B, I noticed your reverts on some categories of political organizations by country and understand that they were perfectly correct as I should have filed CfDs for them one month ago. While these moves were well intentioned in order to achieve more consistency, the procedural approach I chose was not correct. I probably din't know better then, but I do know better now, so I filed Speedy CFDs for Category:Taiwanese political organizations and Category:Iranian political organizations. For the others I will set up a regular WP:CFD by tomorrow. Sorry for absorbing some of your time. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also filed a Speedy CFD for Category:American political organizations which I incorrectly moved out of process as well at that time. My apologies. PanchoS (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the redirects I left behind after I moved Sonopresse and the related talk page and sub-page. – allen四names 19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello ... I'm reaching out to you because I found you on the Michael Kenyon history page. I'm completely new to Wikipedia, so need either advice or help to correct Mr. Kenyon's bibliography.

Here's the problem: the source used for his bibliography is incorrect. (I've just written the source site, asking the folks there to correct *their* listing.) In the section listing novels in Kenyon's Inspector Peckover series, the source lists *Zigzag* (1980) as the same as *The Elgar Variation* (1981). The Wikipedia page follows suit.

But I've just read *Zigzag,* and can attest that it has a different plot (and I know from reading both years ago) from *The Elgar Variation,* which was reviewed in The New York Times. Unfortunately, I can't find any URL that summarizes *Zigzag* or otherwise confirms this for Wikipedia's verifiability rules ... nor do I own *Zigzag* or *The Elgar Variation.*

What should I do? CosmoFunky (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you picked me, since I've never edited or even read that page. Maybe someone at WikiProject Science Fiction has copies of these novels or of some verifiable source that describes them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry about that. I picked you because "RussBot" was the second person listed on the History tab for the page, and clicking on that name took me to you. Thanks anyway. And thanks for the suggestion, too - they're not sci-fi, but maybe there's a similar group that can help.CosmoFunky (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey bud, can you scare up a list of all redirects for which "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo", a disambiguation page. Also, could you have RussBot drop {{R to disambiguation page}} on all such pages. If the latter step is too much, I can add the template myself, but this seems like a job for a bot. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, disambig redirects that already have that template can be excluded from the list. bd2412 T 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/User:RussBot/Redirects to disambiguation pages. I figured I'd better run the report first before editing anything, just to make sure it works right. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A surprisingly low number, but that certainly seems to be in order. bd2412 T 07:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, and no one has seen fit to raise an objection, so I'd say have at it. If you'd rather not, I'll hit it by AWB this weekend. bd2412 T 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think an automatic "Unprintworthy redirects" goes along with the addition, and this might save some people some time as well.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be in the template itself, then? bd2412 T 05:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to the source...

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 3. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is not necessary to fix these by hand. Bots will go through the entire list periodically and fix all of the double redirects."

Well, I'll maybe have a look later when I can safely log in as my admin account.  urban f o x  11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've protected all those user pages, so the bot can't fix them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_March_5#File:Delahoya1.jpg i found some more please delete them as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=TicketID%3D3139952&fulltext=Search&ns6=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for correction! Is there any list that this article could benefit of regarding spelling and other correction that are needed. Its really hard for me to do all this alone.

Regards, Camdan (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, your bot keeps on changing the category of Jonathan Littell from French Americans to American people of French descent. Littell has a double nationality but he does not descent from any Frenchmen. Please fix your bot. Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My bot is not broken. There was a decision on WP:CFD that Category:French Americans should be a redirect to Category:American people of French descent (as you can see from looking at the page history of Jonathan Littell). The bot just carries out the redirect. If you think the redirect is incorrect, you can take it up on WP:CFD. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is back - as you were the deleting admin on a previous iteration, I thought perhaps you'd like to know. Signed, your friend on newpage patrol :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Please stop your vandalisme on Malaysian Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas's articles. The PGK roles is fight against terrorism, not fighting Greys and aliens. I hope you can stopped it.218.208.195.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC).

Please show me a specific edit of mine that you think was "vandalism." And please don't throw around accusations you can't substantiate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my article "Saint Francis (PA) Cross Country" has a confusion introduction to those not familiar to the topic. Can you help me out with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to start with, the lead sentence says "Saint Francis (PA) Cross Country is a Division 1 athletic program held in Loretto, Pennsylvania." Is "Saint Francis" a college, a high school, a day care center, or what? And what is it in "Division 1" of? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made what I think are the necessary changes. If it works can you please remove the tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It still was not very clear to readers who were not already familiar with the topic, so I've made some further revisions and noted additional needs for improvement. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my userpage. Thanks for your post. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, noticed you've been busy disambiguating wiki-links, but don't you think that "John O'Donovan" should either redirect to or be the primary article for the scholar? Regards, Cavila (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that. Obviously the scholar is the most linked on Wikipedia, but usually as a reference rather than as a subject himself. If someone were searching for the name, I'm in no position to speculate as to which person they would most likely be interested in. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your daily update to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig appears to have the markup for the Cats hard-coded into it (which is IMO probably in itself overly aggressive, i.e. inflexible and an impediment to collegiality). In any case, i suggest adopting my revision, which is part of gathering all the links-related Category:Disambiguation pages under L. Thanks in any case for your work.
--Jerzy•t 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, which seems like a good idea to me. I'm sorry you find the hard-coding of the categories unpleasant, but it is simply a practical approach to the fact that so much of the Daily Disambig text has to be generated fresh each day. It is easier to hard-code the relatively minor parts that remain unchanged than to write a more complicated script to parse and revise the old text each day. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• With such a pleasant & cooperative bot-driver, any burden it produces is certainly tolerable. And i see your point. But, on reflection, have you considered putting, e.g., the fixed stuff at the bottom into {{Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig-footer}} or {{Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig/Footer}}, so that appropriate parts can remain more directly subject to the collegial process? (There would be some mildly tricky parts about NoInclude and IncludeOnly, to control which Cats have the template in them and which TDD, and if that's intimidating i'd be pleased to code and/or explain it -- it being something i don't recall having had to do, but have previously understood clearly for 5 min. at a time while my interest lasted.) A 1-time chg to your script, to make it transclude (not subst) the template, instead of hard-coding in the footer, would enable any editor (within any protection parameters that applied to the template page) to make a change that would persist past the daily updates.
  --Jerzy•t 06:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  

• Done - wish I'd thought of that myself. (But it won't be implemented in the page itself until tomorrow's run.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• You realize, don't you, that i had an advantage in thinking of it? Bcz i didn't have a quick fix, i was better disposed to find the elegant one.
  --Jerzy•t 19:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  
• I inserted a Cat for your template itself, and it appears to work right, without subst'g. It appears to me your script does subst, but plain transclusion has what is in my mind an advantage, namely making it clearer how to adjust the footer without being privy to our previous discussion.
  --Jerzy•t 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  

I posted a request for creation of an article on G2 Worldwide -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G2_Worldwide -- which you recently deleted due to not enough context to identify the article's subject. After reading through all the materials, I posted a suggested title and description. I also posted resources in the article page, as I wasn't sure where else they were supposed to go. Following that I was told they were not supposed to be placed in the article page, so I deleted them. My page was still deleted, however. What can I do to resubmit my request for an article? I am an employee of the company and therefore, didn't want to write it myself based on the COI. Corpcomm200 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you try Wikipedia:Requested articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've reviewed the section you mentioned. It seems that with the backlog, it may be better for me to just write the article myself and put it up for review. Since I now have a listing under Requested Articles and in my user page (that you created), where should I now write the article for posting? Corpcomm200 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going to stop my winning streak :) Having a dickens of a time finding good disam candidates from the monthly list. Oh well. Had to end eventually :) Good job. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't jinx me!  :-) I doubt I'll be able to keep up this pace all month; and, as you say, a lot of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it was tagged for speedy deletion as at the time there was just one author for the article. Although I did not create the page, I am trying to add content to it and fix the references. I have added a discography and external links section, but want to check because I don't want to do a lot of work, just to have the article deleted. The tag on the talk page said to remove if there was only one author on the article, so I did remove it as I am the 2nd contributor. Marva Wright certainly seems to notable enough to qualify for her own page. Thank you. BurienBomber (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, I don't see any evidence that this article was ever tagged for speedy deletion. The talk page was tagged for deletion because it was empty; that is all. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for what I am a bit spoiled your page. I've already corrected. But tell me one thing: why did you deleted the page about Charlotte Barnes from the movie "Bandslam"? Is not the barbarism in its own way? Because there are so many pages about fictional characters. Why remove them? Is Wikipedia is not used for the accumulation of all knowledge? Redirect to another page most likely will not carry information.

Sorry for my English. I'm from Ukraine, but I love to read Wikipedia in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.61.129 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the page history. I did not delete the page. I did not redirect the page. All I did was clean up a redirect created by another user. I get a little tired of being accused of such nice characteristics as "barbarism" for things I did not even do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, it is polite to sign your messages on users' talk pages by placing four ~ signs at the end, like this: ~~~~. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit, and I am, to say the least, confused. If you were not an editor of longstanding experience (and an admin, at that), I'd probably accuse you of editcount padding at the least, random tagging as more likely, or even vandalism, at the worst. But you are who you are, so I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just confused. My questions:

• Why have you dated this tag as "April, 2009", when it was placed here in February of 2010? This looks to me like the move of someone trying to falsely establish a premise based upon the longevity of the tag, but I've not taken the time to investigate whether or not you have come back to this page yet. Of course, in a few weeks one could make the claim that this had been here for a full year, but, unlike a POV or citation-needed tag, I can't understand how this could be used by someone in this manner. So I'm confused.
• Why have you even placed this tag in the first place? It says to look at the talk page for more info, but as far as I can tell, not only have you never posted once to this talk page, no one else on the talk page has spoken about the need for this to be updated.
• And if you really believe something is out of date, wouldn't it be just the teeniest bit of courtesy for you to indicate which of the approximately 700 sentences are the ones that you believe need "updating"?

This is a strange edit, and I'd like some explanation, if you don't mind. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply from a friendly talk page stakler: RnB did not add the Update tag, only moved it to the top from line 295. Please consider a more civil wording of your sections in the future. Thanks.  7  01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My stalker is correct; I did not add the tag. In retrospect, moving the tag to the top of the page probably wasn't helpful. And I agree with the original post, above, at least in part -- the part that says "I'm just confused."  :) Since you took the trouble to provide a diff of the edit in question, which I appreciate, you could easily have seen that the purpose of that edit was to fix a link to a disambiguation page. So neither "editcount padding" nor "random tagging" is a reasonable inference, and I won't even dignify the other one with a response. Finally, just by looking at the diff, it appears to me that whoever originally added the {{update}} tag in the "Hydrology" section probably was looking at the sentence that says "These arrangements will end in 2008 with the completion of the ABCWUA's Drinking Water Supply Project." Seems reasonable enough to me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was a valid explanation, I was just at a loss to see it. Thanks. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't notice that you were just moving the tag from another spot. My bad. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Russ; is there any possibility that your bot can do the kind of edits that are necessary to change the subcategories of the 8 categories listed here at CFDW? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a simple search-and-replace operation. I might be able to do it in the next day or two. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, my friend. It's about time for a new wave of these. I have grand plans. Can you slice them up as you did before, into reasonably sized chunks in alphabetical order, and with links for each page alphabetized as well? Cheers! bd2412 T 01:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See User:RussBot/Templates with red links. One of these days I have to do something about reordering that list.... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my stalkerage, but nice, Russ. Hope you don't mind, but I've gone in and done a numerical sort on the Broadcasting list - the original output went 1 link, 10 links, 11 links, 12... 19, 2, 20, etc. Pretty psyched that list is down to a single page, too. Mlaffs (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good sir, thanks! bd2412 T 23:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You tagged 藍莎·拉薇 for speedy under R2, but this name is plainly in a foreign language, and only English-language titles can be speedied under this criterion. However, I've nominated it for deletion; please check it out at WP:RFD. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is user WuNation even a Wikipedia Admin/Moderator?

He/she put a Speedy Deletion notice on Wu-Tang Clan videography because Wu-Tang Clan might not be notible enough?

• Revision Differences [here]
• User WuNation: WuNation
• Page in question: Wu-Tang Clan videography

Can I undo his notices without retribution? Lyrical 4Shadow (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this SPI. Frankly, I'm wondering if Averette just outed himself again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Heya Russ, I'm about to make a change to the dab scripts (unless you've any objections). I'm looking into the hatnote issue - namely not counting intentional links to disambigs produced via templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates (with the exception of {{dn}}). Unfortunately, the only way to do the check properly is to get the page content and parse it, so this will be an expensive operation.

In my investigations, it's occurred to me that it would be safe to automatically ignore direct links to X (disambiguation) pages. Of course, redirects to these pages are unpredictable beasts and absolutely must be looked at, but direct links are, in the vast majority, going to be intentional dab links - "other uses" hatnotes, "See also" lists, etc.

If I automatically ignore these types of links, the number of hatnote-containing pages I have to retrieve and parse drops quite a bit, so it would be a big help there.

The hatnote fix will take months, but the "ignore X (disambiguation) direct links" fix could go in for tomorrow's daily build. Would you have any objections? The only affect on WP:TDD would be another larger-than-normal drop in totals. --JaGa^talk 08:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking I should be using Category:Hat notes instead. Well, I'm just getting started with the hatnote stuff. --JaGa^talk 09:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "ignore direct links to X (disambiguation)", I hope you mean "but only when X (disambiguation) is a redirect to X". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean when a page links directly to X (disambiguation). If that link is via a redirect, then it's still counted as a dab link. But if a page, usually by hatnote, actually has a X (disambiguation) link, then it can be ignored. --JaGa^talk 10:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But where the disambiguation page is at the X (disambiguation) title -- for example, Collision (disambiguation), you still need to count pages that link to that title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good example. Check out What links here for Collision (disambiguation). What I'm proposing is to ignore the direct links - those from Collision, Impact, A Collision, Collision course (disambiguation) and Collide. You'll see they're all intentional dablinks. I still will count the 40-something links coming in via the Collision (telecommunications) redirect page. I got the idea from a comment by ShelfSkewed. It's the first step in my project to eliminate intentional dablinks from the lists. --JaGa^talk 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I'm just concerned that when there is a primary topic X, then links to X (disambiguation) which is a separate disambiguation page are not necessarily intentional. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a real-life example? I'm not sure I'm getting the gist of your meaning. --JaGa^talk 11:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at Collision (disambiguation), you seem to be right; however, I would suggest you do a dry run to see if there are any X (disambiguation) pages that have an unusually large number of direct links. If there are, that may indicate a need for exceptions; if not, then you don't need to worry about it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there should be no incoming links in article space to "Foo" if "Foo" is a redirect to "Bar (disambiguation)"; the link should either be piped through "Bar (disambiguation)" or through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirecting to "Bar (disambiguation)". On a somewhat deeper note, redirects to disambiguation pages ought to be much rarer than they are. bd2412 T 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to correct myself. Redirects to disambiguation pages other than the perfunctory "Foo (disambiguation)" redirecting to "Foo" should be rare. bd2412 T 18:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm gonna hold off for now, run some more tests. No rush. I'll get back in touch when I'm ready. --JaGa^talk 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)