User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

AfD nomination of David Partlett

I have nominated David Partlett, an article you contributed to, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Partlett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 12:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The nom last 7 days, and I just thought about letting you know today. I was just trying to be polite. It was a blatant copyvio initially but then he changed it. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf

Whyd you delete my page man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmie48w (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing links without discusion

Hello-

I am just curious as to why you can remove links without disussion,but Imust discuss before I re-add?? I worked very hard on my website, and I seriously think that mu website is a comprehensive example of Vacation Rentals... I am a Vacation Rental company Owner, So Why would I or my website not know about the topic..  ? I didt say (the best vacation rentals) I said An Example of ... Please explain why you removed the link,and why you have more authority than I.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlbaker78 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lake Lewisville

Why do you keep deleting the corrections to the Lake Lewisville page. I cited two different sources, and one of those citations has additional citations in a bibliography section at the bottom. Can you please explain why you insist on publishing bad information instead of good, accurate information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.248.75 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. SQL^{Query me!} 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Work page tag

As you yourself wrote, "regarding usage on non-article pages". The template does not belong in the article namespace. Notes pages belong in the Talk: namespace. I have moved Norfolk State University/Notes to Talk:Norfolk State University/Notes and deleted the subsequent redirect. Let me know if you have further questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But don't you think that should have been done in the beginning before the bot started removing tags? Just wondering. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of IEEE Medal of Honor recipients

Hello,

Thanks for your work on List of IEEE Medal of Honor recipients. I wanted to hear your thoughts on merging it with IEEE Medal of Honor - I don't see the point of having two separate articles on the same subject. If it is a length issue, perhaps we can utilize a multi-column layout similar to Richard E. Bellman Control Heritage Award.

What do you think? Jiuguang Wang (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the merge. Could you give a short respond Talk:IEEE Medal of Honor. -- Mdd (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Not sure if you are the person to ask, but since you deleted the Genie redirect I thought you might be able to advise. The editor who argued strongly for the inclusion of the real name, and who also did all the work to actually find it, has a link on his userpage to his own website, where all the information is repeated. I realize there is nothing much that can be done about the external website itself, but I wonder if there is anything that should be done about the link, especially as it at the moment also reveals the real name. Se [1] under Quick links.Thanks in advance--Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Phony orphans

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Phony orphans for use with your bot. The data there is from 2008-03-12 database dump, so it won't include more recent edits (many of which were made by your bot... which is how I found out about it) — but since it's run against the database dump rather than by querying the live site, it doesn't impact site performance and can be more comprehensive. I'll be making one more update to the page later tonight once my analysis script is finished (what's up there now is a sample based on the first half of the data.) I plan on updating that page whenever a new database dump is made available, so it will probably be more useful for your bot on the next run. --Sapphic (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects of specific dates

Hi. Check User:SQL/Months for more redirects to specific dates. Maybe we have to deal them as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of J. E. Macdonnell page

Hi,

I'm interested in gaining access to the J. E. Macdonnell page that was deleted according to the following process:

   * 12:38, 7 April 2007 JLaTondre (Talk | contribs) deleted "J. E. Macdonnell" ‎ (db-rediruser)
   * 23:02, 28 March 2007 GarrieIrons (Talk | contribs) moved J. E. Macdonnell to User:Arhog/J. E. Macdonnell ‎ (not written in style of an encyclopedia article)

in order to review and correct it. Is that possible and, if so, could you advise the appropriate procedure, please?

Thanks.

MacMac9 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleteing "Paul Disastro"

while i apparently was not following the guidlines, instead of just speedy deleting my page you could have just told me to change it back to "User:Paul Disastro". AND FYI, since i am an an accomplished artist, DJ and writer, there was no reason to delete it in the first place. i just had not gotten to the point of adding all my history and accomplishments. i worked really hard on what i was able to post. if you want to get people involved on this site, this is a poor way to start doing it. i am not pleased. Paul Disastro (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Dear Mr JLaTondre:

Thanks for the correction in my User's page...

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So you edited Talk:Urprox Screl....

...so I'll leave you this.

Hi! I see that you have edited Shannara related articles here on Wikipedia.....so I would like to invite you to join the Shannara task force, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the series' coverage on this encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here and helping us out. Thank you in advance! the_ed17 01:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin instructions

Greetings! Regarding the admin instructions: If you think it is helpful for non-admins to have the short version on the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion page then that is fine with me. The move of the detailed instructions to a separate instructions page was done after a discussion at the proposals forum. The idea is to make it easier for new admins by having a standardized location for processual instructions. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie

I have just noticed that you have not been informed of this deletion review [2] of a redirect you deleted. I should have checked earlier that you had been informed, so my apologies. --Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

redirect

Please be careful in redirecting something on which another editor is working. I was busy removing some of the rather outrageous spam from the article. additionally, I think you redirected in the wrong direction foreign Reports Inc. is much less ambiguous that foreign Reports, a totally generic title. If you have no objections, I'm going to redirect back--otherwise I'll just replace the current text with the version I have partially cleaned up & will be working on further. . DGG (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your note, I didnt mean to snap at you, sorry. I'll consider which direction is best in view of your comment. DGG (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "FR" and "NK" from your talk page

Is this possible? That way when it is googled, your talk page doesn't come up. I don't think it's needed anymore. Right? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, arlenoil55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlenoil55 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Surname disambiguations project restarting

Would you be able to look at Wikipedia talk:Suggestions for name disambiguation/Batch 3 and advise? Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One side query. Should Abramović be merged with Abramowicz, or are the names separate? Also, Abrahamsen could maybe be merged with Abramson? Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded to the first at the project page.

As for the name question, I don't know. In general, I would lean towards being conservative and use "See also" instead of merging unless there is a source for showing similar names being related (except for obvious cases like with and without accents). -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

consciousness causes collapse

It appears that the action of a single editor turned this article into a redirect. A revert battle occured where one party attempted to restore the article. The result of this battle was that the page was locked. However it was locked to being a redirect. This has resulted not from a concensus but from the action of one editor. The page is still locked, meaning that in effect a deletion of a page has taken place without going through the correct protocols. I submit that the page should be restored as it was before the revert war took place, and open for editing once again. I am not sure who to approach for this but I approache dyou as you seem to have had something to do with the treatment of the page after the page was protected. Thanks. Irontightarguments (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about deletion of "Rolling Love"

While I was going to create the page "Rolling Love", I realize that the page had been created once and was deleted by you in December for copyright infringement. Since I dont want to repeat the history (and have you or others to delete it again), I just want to know what part of the article was violating copyright? Are we not suppose to create any article that is from Drama Wiki? Eleoopy (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'll do my best next time not to copy-and-paste. Thnaks though-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Akimichi clan

In your close of the RFD for Akimichi clan you say that a soft redirect for this situation is inappropriate. I don't believe that is backed by any policy or guideline, if anything it's something the community should discuss further to determine. I've been using dozens of such soft redirects for almost a year now without incident. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

There was strong consensus to do what we did. Please desist. S. Dean Jameson 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Stop it. No one is "ignoring" anything. The only editor who said "delete" also said "retarget." You've clearly done no research into the issue, have no background in the debate and discussion, and yes, are being process wonky. It's as simple as that. There's no dissent at the RfD against what we did. You've inserted yourself in a discussion you clearly know nothing about. S. Dean Jameson 01:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• S. Dean Jameson was the nominator and he has the right to withdraw it. If you still wish to keep discussion open on this, there are other venues, or you can start another RfD, I suppose. Enigma ^message 01:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RfD Closures

When closing an RFD as keep, please remember to remove the {{rfd}} template from the redirect. There were three redirects that I just removed the tag from where you had closed the debates. Appreciate your participation at RFD. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, and apologies from me as well

I was so frustrated to see the agreement that we had worked out at that RfD undone that I allowed myself to become angry, which I (honestly) normally don't do. My apologies as well. S. Dean Jameson 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Homestore

I'm fairly certain that the Knol for Homestore was created after the article was.-Wafulz (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: vandalism warnings

Thank you for notifying me. It looked to me though like Jnassour was slipping spam for the Category Management Knowledge Group into the article, re the "This is an ad" warning by the other editor. [3] De728631 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Hi,

I have carried out necessary changes in the article Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd.. I have corrected the grammatical errors, (which were not made by me) and also worked on style and tone. Please reconsider the changes and do not delete it. I will be grateful if you could remove the attached to it. If possible for you, will you please let me know if the page can be locked for editing?

Thanking you, --Greatfulreaderr (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi,

Thank you for replying to my message! I will go through the guidelines for the notable corporation.

Thanking you, --Greatfulreaderr (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot you made me...

Hey there. First off, thanks again for the bot you made for me. Second, I replied at the bot requests page again - I think you can post at BRFA now, with no further village pump discussion happening (just include a link to the village pump and people who want to talk about will find it and we can start approval in the meantime). Thanks again and regards SoWhy 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Category based Bot Tagging

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

de-orphaning Library of Congress lists

Hello -- JLBot has been removing orphan tags from the Library of Congress pages such as Library of Congress Classification:Class Q -- Science because all the LoC pages link to one another. The trouble is that they are all lists, so those links should probably not count towards de-orphaning. Obviously that's not your or the bot's fault because the titles don't make it obvious, but would you mind looking into that, please? Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't recall stumbling across any others, but I'll let you know if I do. There seem to be a lot of lists named as the plural of their subject rather than "list of (whatever)" but obviously they're much more difficult to spot. I wonder if we could come up with a way to tag lists, for the sake of bot-ops everywhere.  ;-) -- Avocado (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

de-orphaning script

Hello JLaTondre,

I am a contributor in the Wikipedia in french and I noted that your bot is able to remove the {{orphan}} templates. I am a new owner of a bot using the pywikipedia framework but I don't program in python language. The orphan project in french wikipedia would be interested to know your script you are using to remove this template. Can you publish it somewhere ? :) Thanks. --Pixeltoo (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem that will be an occasion for me to begin in this language. :) --Pixeltoo (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello I m still waiting your publication. ;) --Pixeltoo (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I ve just activated my email account. :)--Pixeltoo (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my mail : [[Image:My.mail.png|120px|border]]. --Pixeltoo (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't received your mail. Sorry. :(--Pixeltoo (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Historic house museums

Thanks so much! Re: this offer, no can do until they make a Mac-friendly AWB, unfortunately, so until then I remain indebted to those of you willing to lend a hand. TravellingCari 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

please

take a look at this, where your name also appears, please: User_talk:Jennavecia#blanked_-_why.3F

Cesar Tort 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

de-orphaning Library of Congress lists continued

Hey. I was just reading up on the Library of Congress, saw the tag about deorphaning the classification pages (like Library of Congress Classification:Class Q -- Science), and logged in (I try not to...too addictive...) to remove the tag because I can't imagine that there would be any reason for anything in the entire universe except the other Library of Congress classification articles to link to it. This is a very, very specific-purpose article. If there are some new rules about deorphaning that I'm not familiar with (possible), could you let me know? Because I think otherwise labeling these is counterproductive in that they'll never be cleared. Thanks. Elf | Talk 04:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:JL-Bot and {{Inprogress}}

I have decoupled inprogress from {{inuse}} and it is being used for something else now, if you would like to adjust your bot. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note of thanks ...

...for doing the legwork of closing my enormous RfD nomination. Even with automation, that sort of thing is a pain to do, so I like to make a point of acknowledging it, especially since it's voluntary. Quite frankly, RfD wouldn't run half as well without your contributions to the nitty-gritty of the process. Meanwhile, I don't intend to do any more big nominations like that soon, which I'm sure is a relief. Again, thanks - and keep up the good work. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: (user page should not redirect to an article)

Where does it say that in the rules? 15:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Comment added by Xitit (talk • contribs)

SmackBot

Thanks, it should have been just doing some snake redirects. I'll review those redirects manually tomorrow (it's only 1000 or less). Rich Farmbrough 01:50 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_16#Banned_users

Halfway through the discussion, the relevant content of Ban (law) was removed from the article. I'm going to suggest block (internet) as a target instead... --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

70.234.97.76

What are you refering to? Please stop, vandalization? It wasn't me, I swear on the holy bible it wasn't me. Is somone using my IP to do somthing of some sort? Please show me whats been going on!-Chipmonk328 (I assume since it sent it to me its my IP: 70.234.97.76) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.97.76 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 November 2008

I see the thing you sent me. That wasn't me. I would never insult the Choctaw, as I have Choctaw blood. In fact, I have Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw, I have a huge reason NOT to insult native americans. That wasn't me, and I dont know why somone was able to do somthing and make it appear to be from my IP address and I hope you are able to find out who the vandal is so I'm not falsely accused of somthing I didnt do any longer!--Chipmonk328 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.97.76 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Korean name

I didn't realise the problem was so widespread when I took Choi Jin-sil (disambiguation) to RfD, but I believe SmackBot has created redirects for all 1000+ uses of this template, resulting in absurdities such as Shin Jung-Hwan (footballer) (disambiguation). And not just this template, but other surname templates such as {{Chinese name}} as well. I don't think the templates should simply be left uncategorized, but I'm not sure how best to proceed. Perhaps a CfD to rename Category:Surname disambiguation templates to Category:Surname clarification templates, or something? PC78 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, I see you had the exact same idea before I even suggested it! :) Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BD Substitution Problem

Thanks for telling. This is a result that yesterday I acted a bit hasty and I forgot to shut my bot down before going to RfD. I'll try to fix the mess asap. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is not better way than manually handling them :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I fixed everything by hand. I also fixed all occurrences of BD added by other editors after the RfD started so the articles don't appear in the Category. If they are any left overs please inform me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

response required

Please responed to the discussion you posted on my discussion page regarding the actions you took on my user page, thanks. Uncovertw (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies

Sorry about putting up that RFD. I am new to this and at first it sounded like I had to. O well, I appreciate the edit. Psynought (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Skyroof redir → Sunroof

Sorry about posting to a closed discussion, but I found no other direct venue for preventing or overcoming Wiki's potential trademark infringement resulting from Lowellian's comments, opinion and redir. It appears intellectual property rights were NOT considered by the admins. I contacted admins regarding the delete and redir, which resulted in restoration. It was not given 5 days before final delete, though I was in the process of adding significant detail to the restored article.

• DONMAR takes its long held Skyroof trademark rights very seriously and will continue to take all necessary steps to protect it.
• USPTO upheld SKYROOF registration, even after long opposition in the TTAB.
• Mercedes, Mitsubishi, GM, and Nissan recognized DONMAR's Skyroof rights through license and/or legal settlement and/or judgement.
• Lowellian claims "skyroof" is used in casual speech as an alternative term for general sunroofs, yet "skyroof" is not listed in dictionaries. Wiki inclusion would represent an authoritative reference to the unique aspects and history for both automotive and architectural products.
• Lowellian also stated the redirect should be kept, as the two terms are sometimes confused. Such a redirect actually promotes further confusion, inappropriately contributing to trademark infringement of Skyroof.

Wikipedia respects and affirms intellectual property rights of copyright holders, and should be held to the same standard for registered trademarks. How do you suggest Wiki resolve our specific issue, as well as the broader aspects of promulgating trademark infringement? — M.L. SunroofGuy (reply) 11:00, 9 December 2008

RFD

I'm used to AFD, so I figured RFD would work the same. If that's not the case, you might want to make that clear with blig blinking red letters (or perhaps something less flashy). It's an easy mistake to make. I'll keep it in mind the next time I drop by. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ISFDB links

I don't know if you are aware that if the Wikipedia article name matches the author name on ISFDB that you can use {{isfdb name}} and you don't need the id and name parameters as they default to the Wikipedia article name. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFD action

Please see WT:RFD. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I've seen your JL-Bot in action, so I thought you and I should talk. I've announced over at the orphanage that I'm bringing back Lonelypages, which means I've written some scripts on the toolserver to identify orphans. I've asked the orphan people for some details about what links to exclude from the orphan count (for example List of links), and would appreciate your thoughts as well, since we don't want to be undoing each other. --JaGa^talk 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem with JL-bot

Hello. There is a problem with JL-Bot. Concerning orphaned articles, apparently it thinks that redirect pages are considered as articles that link to pages. As you may or may not know, disambiguation pages and redirects (including soft redirects) are not articles. See What_is_an_orphan

I bring this up because JL-bot removed an orphan tag I had placed on List of Underdog episodes, with the comment of "(removing orphan template as 6 article links exist)." That is not the case, there is in fact only one article that links to it, namely Underdog (TV series); the rest are redirects, talk pages and user pages.

I have undone the change to the aforemetioned article. Please amend JL-bot to not include redirects as articles. --MrShamrock (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It does exclude redirects. It wasn't counting those. The problem was the redirects all came from the same page, Simon Bar Sinister, which caused it to be counted multiple times. I've fixed that error. Thanks for letting me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfd-closing script?

Hi, I took care of removing all the notices from those redirects. By the way, is there any script you know of that will quickly close Rfd's?--Aervanath (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not that I know. There are some AFD scripts here. You probably could look at the source of those and try to build your own. When closing a large batch like that particular one, I usually use AWB. It takes a few minutes to set-up for the particular run, but it makes it pretty fast to go through them (both for keep or delete). If you find something, let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"We frown on disambiguation links and redirect links from other articles"

Just moving out of the RfD for clarification (either clarifying what I mean to you or what you mean to me). Disambiguation links should generally be avoided simply because the actual page about the person is almost always a better target. For example, George Bush is a bad link, since you should probably link to George Bush or George Bush using the [[XX|YY]] syntax depending on which one you are talking about (even more important when looking at less famous bearers of the name). There are exceptions to this ofcourse. For example: "Two American Presidents have been called George Bush" - though I'm not clear of the context this would be in. In terms of linking to redirects, I would argue that linking to the redirects target is almost exclusively better than a redirect link. Consider George Dubya Bush vs George Dubya Bush as an example ([[George Dubya Bush]] vs [[George W. Bush|George Dubya Bush]]). The main reason for this (other than unneccessary redirecting and confusing redirect notifications) is that the content of a redirect is more likely to change than the content of a main article. Basically, someone might come along and change George Dubya Bush from a redirect to [[George W. Bush to a redirect to Dubya#George Walker Bush - like Dubya or George Dubya already are. Just my 2c worth (and barely that). Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation links: Okay, I agree with you on that one.

Redirect links: Disagree, see WP:RDR#NOTBROKEN. There are many redirects where a topic that meets our inclusion guidelines is covered only as part of a broader target. Frequently in these cases, a redirect will exist to allow our readers to find the limited information we currently have. Such redirects will eventually (hopefully) be expanded into articles in their own right. Bypassing such redirects would actually be harmful as it would break the proper linkage. We even have a category for these cases, Category:Redirects with possibilities.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Conceeded. Would you however consider the ISO 3166-1 articles to have possibilities? The -2 articles exist because they have a next level of subdivision (two char regional codes), -1 entries don't... Anyway, I don't really mind. Redirects are cheap and all that. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice

Hey, I saw JL-Bot cleared out Adopted Orphans. That was fast! Thanks for making use of the list - it's satisfying to see my work bear fruit. --JaGa^talk 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth a bit of checking here...

We may have a bit of nastiness at Fred Shapiro as an individual claiming to be the subject of the article wants it deleted, at least one editor has been trying to comply with Shapiro's wishes, and a couple of people are restoring the article just as quickly (when I first saw it, it was almost completely blank - hatnote left - so after looking at the history at that point, I redirected it to an article about a different Fred Shapiro. It was quickly reverted.). The recent edit history of the article is now a complete mess, and - frankly - I'm not too sure if this will "cool down" without some admin intervention. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing Headings

Hi,

It's been a while, I hope you've been well. My question this time is, how do you change the main heading title of an Article to correct the spelling? Here's the one I'm talking about:

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

Thanks

Marc

Michael David (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. That was easy enough. I did mean the page name. And now I know what the "move" button does. I'm a slow learner sometimes :-). Thanks again for your help. Marc - Michael David (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB edit of Zend Framework

Your AWB edit on "Zend Framework" seems to be fine, except for one thing. I don't know if this is a mediawiki workaround or what, but the underscore in E_STRICT is significant (it's the name of a constant in php, used like C's convention for macro definitions). demonburrito (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your withdrawing comments

I'm sorry, but I felt compelled to defend the bot approving process after you aired your thoughts that if a "simple & straight forward task cannot get handled in the time it takes an editor to make a few thousand edits" we should think that the approvals process is "broken". Firstly, may I point out that bots are not supposed to bea replacement for human editors. If there are people prepared to put in the time to make the edits, bots should not be used, so which method is quicker is really of no consequence! Bots are always inferior to a human performing the same task. Secondly,the request was only open at BRFA stage for 3 days, from the 28th to the 2nd (today). Some editors - indeed, probably the majority of editors - will not even visit Wikipedia during every 72-hour period, so how they are supposed to have their say about a bot during that time? Fine, a minority may deem that task "simple" and "straight forward" - but honestly, do we want to alienate editors who would appreciate the time topoint out false positives or suggest improvements? Are these the values which we hope to promote? I think not. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for our readers. External links (especially ones for references) that are broken is a bad thing. Fixing those links, when the fix is trivial, in the fastest way possible is the best thing for our readers. So, in this case, a bot was better solution than making an editor click through 1000+ pages.

The change was trivial and previously discussed in a number of places. The associated templates had been updated months ago. The editor who used AWB made the exact same change without a single comment.

BAG members should be capable of distinguishing the complexity & potential controversy of task and adjusting accordingly. They shouldn't be afraid of acting on simple stuff.

Your post comes off, to me, as a justification of bureaucracy over common sense and your statement on values is insulting.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to think that in my mind the above was probably a bit less focussed than it became on the page, so I'm sorry you got the fortified version. However, I would point you in the direction of numerous complaints against the BAG for being too fast to approve bots (once bitten, twice shy); the values bit in particular came from that discussion. As for common sense over bureaucracy, well, I'm afraid that that battle may already have been lost. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lih

I noticed you closed this RfD and deleted the redirect. Can you please protect it against recreation due to previous harassment? Thanks, Mike R (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:R2D

I'm interested in how you interpret R2D, since I had figured that my change reflected the consensus. What kind of changes does the guideline want to get at that my version would not? Croctotheface (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded at the talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

REI Engineering

This page was deleted, because it was too much like an advertisement. I created, but am a construction inspector for highways, so I was out on the job site, and hadn't finished making alterations to make it "Wiki-correct". What is my next step? Do I start again from the beginning,and create the page, or is it archived somewhere? I have gone through multiple pages to try to rectify the content of our page, and believe that I should be able to uphold the Wiki standards now with very little additional help...maybe. Any help you can provide on my next step would be greatly appreciated.

Dan Ddetert (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted because it did not show that the subject was notable. If you can show the subject is notable (see WP:CORP), then you are welcome to recreate the article along with the appropriate sourcing (see WP:CITE and WP:RS). Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD backlog separator

Hey, I noticed you removed the separator I added to the RfD page. I added it as an easy way to keep track of which discussions have reached the sell-by date. For comparison, see WP:DRV, WP:MFD, and WP:RM, all of which have markers of this sort. WP:AFD, WP:FFD and WP:CFD are different in that they don't transclude the log pages, so it is even easier in those cases to see which discussions are eligible for closure. Since there is almost always a backlog on RfD, why not have a marker there to tell us exactly where the backlog is?--Aervanath (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Several reasons (the first two minor and the last one my major complaint):

1. RFD doesn't have a fixed closure time. It's traditionally been "about a week" which means the ones just above the line are equally eligible for closure. (Though, I just noticed the deletion policy no longer lists the individual lag times and instead just says 5 days. If that wasn't moved elsewhere, I suppose we could recommend WP:RFD be modified to say the same thing).
2. If a nomination needs more discussion, then the subpage should remain listed past the cut-off time. Having a separator adds an incentive to cut off debate.
3. It takes work to maintain. If you want to see if DumbBOT's owner will take on moving the separator when it adds the new page, then I'd have less objection and we could handle the above two with the wording under the separator. If RFD had regular participation by multiple admins, it wouldn't have a backlog. There isn't that much volume (outside of the occasional large scale nominations). Instead, admins come for a little while and then leave. A separator that isn't maintained is worse.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've asked if DumbBOT could take the task on. If it does, what would you recommend for the text, so that it addresses your concerns above?--Aervanath (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the bot operator doesn't have the time to add this functionality at the moment.--Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your close of the Levi Johnston deletion

I request that you reconsider your deletion of this redirect, in light of subsequent developments.

1. You wrote, "Johnston is not mentioned in the current target & consensus that article's talk page is that he shouldn't be." At the time you wrote that, you were correct that he wasn't mentioned in what was then the target article. Since then, he's apparently been re-added and re-removed. He has, however, been included in the suggested alternative target, Public image of Sarah Palin, without controversy. This is important because, of the six editors supporting deletion, five expressly referenced the absence of any mention of Johnston in what was then the target article.
2. You wrote, "While an alternative target was proposed, the mention there is minor." Uh, so what? This doesn't refer to any policy I know of. If the subject were mentioned in a major way in the target article, then the subject would probably deserve a standalone article, not just a redirect.
3. The majority of those responding opposed deletion. I realize that "this is not a vote" is a frequent comment, but the weight of the community's sentiment can surely be taken into account. Here, there were 10 editors who favored keeping a redirect and 6 who favored deletion. The 10 who wanted to keep a redirect included the original nominator, who wrote, on March 16, "Note, if the mention of Mr. Johnston in Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy appears likely to stick, then I support retargeting the redirect there rather than deleting." That mention has stuck. Furthermore, of the 6 editors favoring deletion, 5 of them, as noted above, expressly based their conclusion on the assertion that Johnston was not mentioned in the target article. He is now mentioned in the proposed target article, and mention seems likely to stick, so it would be appropriate for the redirect. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. We have a search function for a reason. We don't need a page title for every item. In fact, search is much better in cases of minor mentions in articles. If you had used the search, you would see that Johnston is mentioned in several articles. Redirects are not always the best navigation answer. If your intent is help users find information about this person, then search is the best method.
2. If you feel that strongly about it, you can create a redirect to the public image article yourself. That would be new content and, as such, CSD G4 would not be applicable.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Modifying others' comments (as you did here)

It is a violation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to modify others' comments without their permission, so I strongly recommend that you do not do it. -- IRP ☎ 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your broken closure. You used the wrong template, you placed it in the wrong place, and you didn't substitute it. None of that falls afoul of our policies and guidelines. I suggest you learn what our policies and guidelines really are before leaving any more bogus warnings. I also suggest you read the instructions for closing a given Xfd debate before doing so again. It will prevent you from making such mistakes in the future or leaving misguided messages to user's who clean up your mistakes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't saying that anything was wrong with your fix of my mistake, but you modified my comment (see this link). The red text on the left indicates your modification of my comment. If you don't believe me that it is a violation of the policies and guidelines to modify the comments of other editors (and you seem to over react to polite criticism of your edit; twisting it around as if I left a bogus warning, when all I did was give you advice), you can ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- IRP ☎ 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That text was generated by the template, not by me. Had you used the proper template, that is what would have appeared. Since I had to replace your improper {{archivetop}} with the correct {{rfd top}}, that is the text that was automatically created. If you think I seriously did something wrong, you're welcome to take it to WP:ANI where they will set you straight. Your "polite criticism" was written as a warning message and it is bogus so, yes, it is a bogus warning. Had you taken the time to figure out what had happened or bothered to ask, you would have found that out. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that it was advice. The only reason why you think that I intentionally left a bogus warning was because you are assuming bad faith. -- IRP ☎ 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) No, it's not obvious that it's advice. You are jumping right to an accusation of bad faith without stopping to think about how someone would perceive what you wrote. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tondre did not modify your comment or do anything inappropriate. In fact what Tondre did was helpfully repair a failed attempt at using a template. Chillum 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow Irp, I think you are making a big deal out of nothing here. Nothing in our policies or guidelines says that something so minor, with clearly helpful intent, is a violation. Chillum 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're saying that giving advice to another editor constitutes making a big deal out of nothing? Here is another instance of this. -- IRP ☎ 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to learn the difference between a talk page and WP:RFD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of violating policy when they were clearly just trying to help is making a big deal out of nothing, yes. The change fixed a misused template and in no way changed the intended meaning of your comment. I think your interpretation of policy just a bit off, and that your admonishment is out of place. Chillum 02:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing it and giving advice are two different things. In this case, it was giving advice. I am always open to being corrected if I'm wrong. -- IRP ☎ 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I've already explained that I did not write that text, but that it was auto-generated by the template. I've yet to see you acknowledge that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is a correction I hope you take well. When giving advice starting with the words "It is a violation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to..." it can seem like you are giving a warning rather than giving advice. It gives the impression that you are speaking of fact and not out of opinion. If your were indeed just advice giving your opinion and advice, I must say that it is easily misinterpreted as a warning stating facts of policy(incorrectly). Chillum 02:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: South Centre

Thanks again J. I hope i've done everything that is required of the guidelines so far. Am I allowed to include links to articles that have been published by employees and researchers at our organisation? Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. I am endeavouring to set the page up correctly,

Harman Hbhamra (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

?copyright violation "Wednesday is indigo blue"

Hello and help! I'm new and learning my way around the Wiki code and standards.

I read the various linked articles that Delicious carbuncle included in the notice, but I don't understand how using my own material can be a copyright violation (you cite Barnes and Noble's url, which has nothing to do with me or my publisher, MIT Press). I've got 5 books with MIT Press, which holds the copyright, but allows me to use any and all my material.

What specifically is problematic? Using the jacket copy? The infobox:book template has a placeholder for book covers and the drop-down copyright list on the image upload page covers such an option, so I assumed it was ok. Am I in error?

What if I delete the jacket copy and put a description in my own words? Would that work?

I appreciate your suggestions. Richard E. Cytowic (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that you copy-n-pasted from a copyrighted work. Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously and will remove them promptly. If you wish to re-create the article in your own words, that would solve the copyright issue. However, I suggest you read WP:NB, WP:RS, and WP:V. You need to ensure that the article demonstrates (via citations of reliable sources) that the book has sufficient notability to ensure the article remains. Let me know if you have other questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

What is the problem with A:ECHO? Others have cross-namespace redirects. Do you have to be someone important or in some sort of clique to be able to have one and it not get deleted? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from the article namespace to user namespace are deleted per speedy deletion criteria R2. Any others from the article namespace will get deleted as well. There are some from the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia: or WP:), but those are not in the article namespace. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So A: is article namespace? Can you point me to any articles there? In my 4+ years on Wikipedia, I've never seen an article in A: namespace. So if it is article namespace, I certainly have learned something new. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Namespaces are not simply created by having a colon in the name, but are instead an artifact of the Mediawiki software. There are a limited number of namespaces (see Wikipedia:Namespace for a listing). Anything else is treated as the article (or main) namespace by the Mediawiki software. So, yes, anything starting with A: will be in the article namespace. As such, it will show up in searches, etc. on the article namespace. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Following up on this, it seems that Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Shortcut#List of prefixes implies that A: space would be pseudo-namespace which seems to contradict it having anything to do with articlespace. Just like MOS:. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If the prefix does not actually map to a separate namespace, it uses the default namespace, which is the article namespace. There are some that begin with A:  Frank  |  talk  20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bush redirect

Since when is WP:NOHARM a legitimate reason for ignoring the overwhelming opinion against the redirect? Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First, it was not overwhelming opinion nor is it vote. Second, see this section. None of the reasons given for deletion where sufficient to overcome number 5 on the keep list. PaulGS pointed out that it was regularly being used. If it was causing harm, then it there would be a reason to override, but it's not so there isn't. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Fast, aren't you? :) --Aervanath (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I got confused. :-) I saw you had removed subpages from RFD & somehow thought I was looking at one of the subpages you removed vs. the subpage you were working on. If I had realized that, I'd have left it for you. - JLaTondre (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to complain! :) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

JL-Bot, orphan templates and lists of names

Hello - JL-Bot just removed an orphan template I'd placed on Johann Georg Abicht, and I wonder if you're the person I should discuss it with.

As far as I can tell, this article is linked from:

• 1740 in literature
• Johann Georg
• Abicht
• Academic Gymnasium Danzig

Of these, 2 are list-of-names type articles, and 1 is a "yearly summary" (he's in the list of deaths). Do you know if these are counted by whatever code is used for generating the autoremovals? If they are, should they?

Happy to move the discussion elsewhere if you can tell me where. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that should still be an orphan. The toolserver report that the bot uses should be in the process of being updated in exclude this case. The orphan criteria was only recently updated to exclude surname page and we just got agreement from the report maintainer to make an update (if you're curious, you can find the details here and here). Meanwhile, I'll put in an exclusion for this article. Thanks for letting me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Reply is a little stale, so could you see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#bugzilla filed and comment? Thanks. –xeno^talk 23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Horowitz Article

Could not find any detailed history on the deleted article "Gary Horowitz" except your user name as shown below.

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience: 14:26, 4 September 2006 JLaTondre (talk | contribs) deleted "Gary Horowitz" ‎ (prod - nn professor)

Would like to find out why it was deleted to save time in re-creating, perhaps the deletion was the subject-initiated ??. Thank you for your help. Henry Delforn (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was prodded in 2006 for being non-notable. Nobody objected so after the requisite waiting period, it was deleted. I doubt it was subject-initiated (it is unlikely the nominator is the subject). The article was a two line stub with no specifics other than that he was a professor. Feel free to create a new article if you feel it's appropriate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the helpful and professional response. Henry Delforn (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Theodore Abucara

Hello, I'm Albocicade, from the french wikipedia (fr:Utilisateur:Albocicade)

I recently modified (redirect) the page Theodore Abucara and it seems you deleted the change.

In fact, Theodore Abu Qurrah was previoulsy known as "Abucara", from the greek writting of his name.

Arabics texts of Abucara were discovered in the begining of the XXe century, and after a while, he was commonly named "Abu Qurrah". In the same time, the biography of this author was completely revisited : it is now admited he never knew John Damascus, (nor St Photius)) and was melkite ( = chalcedonian) bishop of Harran.

This is why i redirected the "theodore_Abucara" page to "Abu Qurrah"s Theodore Abu-Qurrah

It is precisely the same author, though the biography given by the Catholic Encyclopedia is false, as all those published since 1697...

Albocicade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.86.120.104 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that you can point to? There is nothing in the two articles that show they are the same person. The dates are different (died 770 vs. 750-c820), the locations are different, the descriptions of what they did are different, etc. I also don't understand the claim that all biography since 1697 are false. What do you mean by that? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, JLaTondre, Albocicade again.

If you read the biography of "Theodore Abucara", you will see that he was supposed to live at the times of John of Damascus or at that of Photios : more than 1 century of difference !

Indeed, very few was known of "Θεοδωρος Αβουκαρα" whose writtings where published in the XVIe century.

If you read french, you cand find some infos in the introduction of Un traité des œuvres arabes de Théodore Abou-Kurra, introduction, texte arabe et traduction française par C. Bacha.

There are also interesting infos in the english Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 56 : The biography of Theodore Abu Qurrah revisited

and, i suppose you can find the book of Lamoreau (translation of the works of Abucara / Abu Qurrah and introduction) Theodore Abu Qurrah translated by John C. Lamoreaux : the first English translation of nearly the complete corpus of Theodore Abu Qurrah's works, 2006 Table of contents

Abucara was supposed to know John of Damascus because of the title on the XVIIIe treatise (but see Lamoreau's "revisited biography"), or to have been friend with Photios as Photios' friend was named "Theodoros" and was bishop of Caria (see Bacha's introduction) but it is now agreed it was absolutely a confusion.

The biography given by "l'abbé Fleury" was copied for more than 2 centuries, though nearly nothing was certain in this biography... as you can see in the article of the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913...

More infos from my article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odore_Abu_Qurrah

Albocicade (fr:Utilisateur:Albocicade) 79.86.120.104 (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian painters

I am in the middle of something extremely complicated. Please leave it, unless your edit is really aa significant and necessary improvement. Amandajm (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have included the template in <noinclude></include> statements so it wasn't transcluded to the main space. That template shows infrequent editing. There really wasn't even a need for the inuse, but if you want to use it, you need to use it correctly. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on the Wall of Recognized content bot?

See here for the refresher. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had less time than I expected. Your probably better off re-posting your request & see if someone else will do it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal bot

I am wondering if you could create a bot that would remove the template {{newpage}} from any mainspace page after it has remained there for 2 hours and the page has not been edited.

I created this template yesterday as a means for creators of new articles to let others, particularly new page patrollers, know that the page it is on is still under construction and not to rush to delete the page.

I intended for this template to be used only if the creator is continually editing the page, and not if the creator has terminated his/her Wikipedia session with plans to resume creation at a later time or date. Sebwite (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I've added it to the list of under-construction templates that already get processed by my bot. It will only remove it after 7 days; not your requested 2 hours. If this template gains popularity, let me know and I'll implement the 2 hours. It doesn't look like that it's being actively used yet so the special case doesn't seem necessary yet. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Basic Tastes

I recently discovered the term "umami" in WP and in the world book, while looking up info on "taste" to explain the phenomenon to my kids. I lived in Japan in the mid 1980s and did not hear the term used in ordinary conversation. Further, a Japanese friend suggests that it only became popular 20 or 25 years ago, concomitant with MSG manufacturer Ajinomoto changing their Nihongo definition of their product (see my two entries on the Umami Talk page).

On Dec 2, 2007, user PhiJ noted on the Talk page that there was a broader discussion about "basic tastes" but the link he gave now yields "page no longer exists" with you as the contact person.

How can I get a copy of the archived discussion in order to be better informed about the ongoing process of consensus? I find it odd that "savory" or "umami" has now been installed definitively on the basic tastes page as "one of five basic" (in contrast to "other" tastes such as spicy, which is more widely used in common parlance). Clearly, there are variations on the number of "basic tastes" -- e.g., five flavors were used ages ago in TCM (see method 3 on that WP page). Martindo (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Ann Louise Bardach

Do you remember why the article Ann Louise Bardach was deleted back in 2007? Or can you provide a link to its history? Henry Delforn (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an article. It was a redirect to Luis Posada Carriles. However, her only connection with that article is that she wrote some of the references. Redirecting someone to an article their work is cited in is confusing and doesn't provide readers with information on the person. Having a red link indicating an article is needed is a much better solution in such cases. Let me know if you still have questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

...agree, thank you - Henry Delforn (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of ⁕

The deletion log for ⁕ states: "(RFD closed as delete)". It doesn't appear to link to a date, and because it's not text, I can't search the logs to find it. When or why was it deleted? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here. Let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea why I didn't think of checking the deletion date, but at least I'm glad that I'm not recreating deleted content but instead pointing to something I find more sensible. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"non-applicable"

Why when removing an orphan tag does the bot summarise the edit saying it is "non-applicable"? What is wrong with "inapplicable"? (Or "no longer applicable", but I presume you want it to avoid passing judgment over wheter it was ever applicable.) A small change, but during some other revision, would you consider it please?

Anyway, nice to know our work at Drégely Castle (or more accurately at György Szondy, which links to it) means this is no longer an orphan. We (User:Monkap and I) tidied it up quite a lot. Yay, some recognition, if only from a bot!

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Changed it to "removing orphan template as no longer an orphan." -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I always wonder why on forms they write "delete as applicable" or "delete those that do not apply" where "delete the inapplicable" would seem to cover the meaning perfectly clearly and precisely.

I don't know what criteria the bot uses to judge if it is an orphan (presumably it only considers links from article space, or at least the same namespace as the page is in) since 0 links would seem to be a very low bar. I've created a split at Gradiva into three or four articles which are on a little desert island together but not orphans. I dunno how it copes with stuff like that. Would be interesting to know. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The orphan criteria is listed at Wikipedia:Orphan. The bot works according to that.

It doesn't add the tag; it would only remove it if somebody had tagged it, but it didn't meet the criteria.

Let me know if that doesn't answer your question. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

report mis-info on Felix Browder's page

JLaTondre,

I am the original initiator that started Felix Browder's page on wikipedia. Felix's son informed me that the picture on Felix Browder's page (contributed by user Laubbaum on 19 June 2009) is NOT his father but his uncle William (Bill). How do I request to have it removed and how do I know user Laubbaum's other contributions aren't intentionally/unintentioanlly erroneous?

Regards

Allthingsgo (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Laubbaum about it. Looking at the picture information, it seems to have come from the Oberwolfach Photo Collection in Germany. However, the provided link is not working at this moment. It's possible the original source has an error. If so, the file can be changed at Commons to the brother as his article does not have a picture.

In general, it's best to assume good faith instead of immediately assuming malicious behavior. Unintentional errors in source material are not unknown. For that matter, Felix's son could be mistaken as well. The two brothers looks very similar: Felix Browder & William Browder.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

not assuming malicious but I find this rather interesting aspect of John Vandenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg since I am attempting to ask Laubbaum a few questions in regards of his sources as you suggested. btw, Felix's two sons are notable individuals as well if anyone cared to do research themselves. Allthingsgo (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on the Wall of Recognized content bot?

A bit old yes, but might as well kick some life in this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have some time off coming up. I may have a chance to work on this. I'll try dusting off the code. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The documentation of the template should tell you where the bot will upload its result. Also the |template=Template:Physics should probably be rewritten to be |template=Physics (aka assume the Template: part). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the description of where the results are written. I made the inclusion of the "Template:" optional. Thanks for the suggestions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think people should be able to control the header levels used, otherwise it can yield very ugly TOCs. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that in one case. I'll implement that tomorrow. Thanks for the suggestion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And while we are suggesting stuff, might I suggest an option to just list pictures without displaying them (for WikiProjects that have a large number of featured pictures). --Robin (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Both changes (headings and pictures as lists) have been implemented. Take a look at the template documentation and see if you think the instructions are clear. Thanks for the suggestions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Also, the DYK heading generated by the bot is "Did you know? articles?". The last question mark is probably a typo. Lastly, how does the bot generate these lists? Does it just look at the category of featured articles and intersect it with those articles which have the appropriate template on their talk page? --Robin (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the last "?" on the DYKs. It will update next time the bot is run. Thanks for catching that.

Yes, it does exactly what you describe. It pulls the transclusions for the specified templates, pulls the contents of the specified content type categories, and then computes the overlaps. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sortkeys! The bot seems to have forgotten about those (aka Albert Einstein should be listed as Einstein, Albert). Might be a bit tricky to do (and update). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It uses the DEFAULTSORT to determine the sort order. It displays the titles as they actually are. This is the way the Physics page used to do it[4]. If you look at that version and the bot one, they are in the same order. It would be easy to have it display the DEFAULTSORT as well, but is that really what you want? Currently, it's basically doing it the same way you would see the articles listed in a category. Sometime, the DEFAULTSORT's are not complete (ex: using "Einstein, A."). -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template names

Hi there. I've created a recognized content page with the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Recognized content for WikiProject Dogs. However, something I wanted to check was that in order to provide accurate results, will the bot require all project templates to have exactly the same name? I know there is at least WPDOGS (which is included in the template as the template name as I think it is the original name), but there is also WikiProject Dogs, DOG, and DOGS at least. Would the bot need all those additional ones to be corrected to WPDOGS in order for the articles that have the other templates on to be listed? It wouldn't be a massive task to do so as luckily I have AWB and that should hopefully just churn through it all. Let me know if you need it done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as they are redirects & not actually templates, it should work fine. Template:WikiProject Dogs redirects to Template:WPDOGS so any article marked with {{WikiProject Dogs}} will show up in the transclusion list for {{WPDOGS}} and the bot will see them when it pulls from that template. I'll run the bot latter today. Let me know if you think something is missing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, as far as I can tell they're all redirects. Miyagawa (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recognized content

Hey, I've created a recognized content page for WikiProject Mathematics too, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Recognized_content. Is there anything else I'm supposed to do besides filling out the template correctly? Thanks. --Robin (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's it. I ran the bot and the page has been updated. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for making the bot! --Robin (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We had a suggestion to add content from Category:Wikipedia featured pictures. Would that be hard to add?--RDBury (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It already does. :-) Check the template for the parameter to add to the configuration. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look at a brief selection of featured pictures & they do not have project banner templates attached. I was thinking about how to include File:Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006.jpg & File:Pulteney Bridge, Bath 2.jpg in the Somerset project page - would I have to tag their talk pages first for them to show up?— Rod ^talk 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the picture would need to be tagged as belonging to the project. However, for that second one, that's not categorized as being a Wikipedia featured picture. It's a Commons featured picture. The bot only deals with stuff on Wikipedia. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged them, but this would mean any in Category:Featured pictures get included but those at Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons don't? This would exclude a lot of Featured pics.— Rod ^talk 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I'll look at how hard it would be to put in an option for that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot. I've added it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset which I see you've edited. Would it be possible to add articles at FAC, FLC & GAC or do we still need to do those by hand?— Rod ^talk 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want reports on FACs, FLCs, GANs, etc... try WP:AALERTS. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough I already have that running - but how about Featured Topics and Wikipedia:Good topics to be included in the list?— Rod ^talk 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Those don't look like they are category based? If so, that would mean different logic. Not saying it's not doable, I would just need a better understanding of how they are structured. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's easy to add anything that has a category. It basically works by computing the overlap between transclusions of the project's template and a category. The code is structured such that adding a new category is trivial. I would just need to define a content parameter name for it and update the bot's configuration. I believe these are the categories?

1. FAC: Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates
2. FLC: Category:Wikipedia featured list candidates
3. GAN: Category:Good article nominees

If so, I can add them if there is a desire. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• FT: Category:Wikipedia featured topics might also be worth including?— Rod ^talk 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would need the specific category. That is a top-level category without the actual articles. There seem to be several possible ones in there and I don't know how they relate (Category:Featured topics vs Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics). Let me know which one (or ones) and I'll add them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked User:rst20xx, who knows lots more about FTs than I do, to help.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the slowness to reply. Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics contains all featured topics in which every article is featured, and Category:Featured topics contains all other featured topics, so you want those two together. There's also Category:Wikipedia Good topics, which contains all the good topics, if you want to consider including them too - rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you say that it's easy to add anything that has a category, can A-class articles be added? A-class is a rating used on very few WikiProjects, but WikiProject Mathematics uses the rating. See the math A-class articles here: Category:A-Class_mathematics_articles. --Robin (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that one is there does not appear to be a single category with all A-Class articles. It's only implemented per project and tracking all the sub-categories (Category:A-Class articles) would get complicated. I should be able to allow you to specify the category, but I need to think about the best way to do that within the code. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. Allowing customized sections would indeed be quite awesome. For example, you could allow parameters like this:

• custom1-cat=A-Class_mathematics_articles //Name of the category to take articles from
• custom1-heading=A-class articles //Heading used in updating the page
• custom1-checktemplate=no //Should this category be intersected with the template of the Wikiproject, or does the category only include those articles which are in the WikiProject?
• custom1-icon:File:Symbol_a_class.svg //icon to be used in the page; none used if blank

This would make it very flexible for people who wish to include other stuff. Indeed, FAC, FLC and GAN should be very easy to add with such custom stuff. I don't know how hard it would be to do this, but hopefully it isn't too hard. --Robin (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just add a link for w:Category:A-Class mathematics articles so I'm not sure the result would be worth the additional effort. Math only has 9 A-Class articles anyway.--RDBury (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi JLaTondre, had a question on your bot for recognized content. The documentation mentions the template parameter, but is there a way to specify a specific category to work on instead? For instance, Template:ArticleAlertbotSubscription has a banner parameter and a wgcat parameter - the banner parameter can specify a template, and the wgcat parameter can specify a specific work group category. This is useful for things like WikiProject Football, where lots of work groups or task forces share the same template, but each adding their own distinct work group category via the template. ← George ^talk 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't currently, but that would not be hard to do. I'll try to put that in tomorrow. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. See the template docs for how to use. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I've added it to the showcase section of the Seattle Sounders FC task force, so now it's just a matter of waiting until the bot runs. Thanks much! ← George ^talk 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Not sure if you or any others have come across any kinks with the bot, but in this instance, the bot only displayed two DYK facts, when the project has successfully submitted five (as shown here. Any reason? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The other three articles are not tagged as being DYK articles and, as such, are not in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles. I don't know where in the process they are supposed to be tagged or who has the responsibility for that. You may want to ask at WP:DYK. Meanwhile, if you add the DYK template like the other two have, the bot should pick them up the next time it runs. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will look into this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the response I got after making a request that the ArticleHistory template incorporate the DYK parameter with the "Wikipedia Did you know articles" category. It seems the change needs to be made with the bot, rather than the article history itself. Not sure if that is something that can be changed, but the ArticleHistory template seems to be established and commonly used. Hopefully this issue can be corrected, otherwise a lot of DYK articles will be left off of the walls of recognized content. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer you got was wrong. The bot cannot guess what articles belong in the category. Articles are either tagged with the category or they are not. It is not hard to modify the ArticleHistory template to add the category if that parameter is present. The template already supports it for other categories. I'll add a note at the talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your statement was well-stated. While I am not familiar enough with the template to add the category myself (perhaps you are?), hopefully someone will be able to add the category to the DYK parameter. Otherwise, there will be many articles missing from the category as well as the walls of recognized content. Thanks for your involvement! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So the issue has been corrected? This instance still does not display the parent WDYK category. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the bot so it can handle the subcategories. The bigger problem was articles that did not display any of the categories and the template change fixed that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class and WoRC

This might have interesting suggestions for implementing the A-Class. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I added support for A-Class by allowing a category to be specified. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding A-class support! --Robin (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued pictures?

I see the walls are set up to display featured pictures, but can they also be set to display valued pictures? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Added. Not sure how useful it is for the moment as there are few picture & I didn't see any tagged with a project's banner, but it's there. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Walls of Recognized Content

Any interest in adding a category for these walls so that users can access all walls of recognized content within one category? A similar category exists for assessment pages. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But that will also add pages in the User and User_talk namespace that call this template. Unless you mean the recognized content pages should have the category added manually and not through the template. --Robin (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Having such a category is not a bad idea, but I don't think it should be tied to the bot. Not all projects use the bot, but instead some manually maintain such pages. And of the projects that use the bot, some have separate pages and some just have it as part of their main page. I think it would be fine if you created the category and manually added it to appropriate pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry for the confusion--I didn't mean for the category to be tied to the bot, just available for WikiProjects to add manually. That way, users can click on the category and have quick and easy access to other walls of recognized content. Would someone more familiar with categories be able to create one? I suppose this one could be used as an example. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I can easily implement a category that would only be found on pages in the Wikipedia namespace (aka excludes user pages). Or whatever selection of namespace we want. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That still wouldn't fix the transclusion of transclusions. However, let's say that a parameter such as |WoRC-cat=yes is implemented, then the bot could place <noinclude>[[:Category:Walls of Recognized Content]]</noinclude> when writing the WoRC section. This way, only the original one gets included in the category. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Would "Walls of recognized content" be the appropriate title for the category? I am indifferent as to whether or not pages are put into the category automatically by the template--I just think it would be nice if the category existed so all the "walls" can be grouped together. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb created Category:Walls of Recognized Content, though the category is currently being considered for deletion. I offered my strong support to keep the category, which I think would be very useful. However, it is hard for me to track down which WikiProjects currently have these "walls" in order to add them to the category. I did prefer the idea of the category name being changed to "WikiProject lists of recognized content" or "WikiProject walls of recognized content". Feel free to offer your suggestions as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pages using the template can be seen by looking at the bot's contributions for 16 Jan. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: The category was renamed to "Wikipedia lists of recognized content". --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

kitten

a kitten for you!

andyzweb (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

for all the great contributions andyzweb (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)