User talk:R'n'B/Archive 6

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.

I noticed that Russbot made a change to the temple mount page on January 7th, 2008 to prevent a double redirect. This was correctly in response to a Temple Mount page move to "Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary" on January 6th, 2008. However it was quickly reverted back to "Temple Mount" on January 7th, 2008 after a short discussion. Perhaps it would be better if the bot operated on a delay of 2 or more days? I don't know the exact statistic but I'd guess from my Wikipedia experience that roughly half of all page moves get reverted. This means that for roughly half of all page moves (i.e., the bad ones that quickly get reverted), a quick-acting bot would create two redirects (one for when the page was moved, and one for when the page was moved back) for every search term that leads to the main article. For those bad page moves, it also means there's a double redirect to the main article between the time when the bot makes the first redirect changes and the time when it creates the second redirect changes. (This is how I noticed Russbot.) On the other hand, if a buffer of a day or two is allowed for human editors to fix bad page moves, it only means that people have to deal with double redirects for a couple days, which, half the time, they have to deal with if the bot corrects them anyway. Just an idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to make a new run for Wikipedia:Most wanted articles? Cheers! bd2412 T 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

...as you pointed out at your RfA that User:Russ is a blocked inactive sock, why didn't you request to WP:USURP it as your username? I wondered the same about the username and sig mismatch and I think you could just fix it that way. Regards SoWhy 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But I don't have any particular desire to change my username. --Russ (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it confuses your sig. ;-) SoWhy 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello mate,

Why do you keep on changing the content of the Benjamin Button Film page? I have it on good authority that it is based on a true story.

Have a great day, CJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.102.4 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here at Wikipedia, we don't write articles based on "I have it on good authority." We write articles based on reliable sources that can be verified by other editors. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That category was one I'd found on the speedy deletion page. It had already been tagged for deletion as a housecleaning removal and it was empty as well. Seemed odd to me since the category sounds legit; all I did was to clear it out as a favor to someone who, I believe, wished to create a new category. I can undelete it if you wish, but it might cause a problem. We'll see what happens when I do. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The park's name had been changed and the contents moved to the new category. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at what happened here: [1]

Data were removed from the article, including the births and deaths, etc. I reverted to the prior version and added a short page monitored tag, but you should see if whatever caused that malfunction may have been repeated elsewhere, and of course to correct it. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I think I can see the problem so it should be easy to fix. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After your nearly unanimous request I have now added the admin user right for you. Spend some more time on the admin reading list and be conservative with the new tools, particularly blocking. Learning to de-escalate a situation is better than using a hammer. I'm sure you'll do well, keep up the good work, and again, congratulations. - Taxman ^Talk 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, I know you'll use the tools the right way.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well done - and well-earned through your efforts here! bd2412 T 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed — I couldn't be happier about this, especially since it seemed for so long that you were going to end up without any opposition. Too much to hope for I guess — oh well. At least the end result was right. Congrats! Mlaffs (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much to all of you, and of course I'll now have to spend some time leaving {{RfA-thanks}} messages before I do anything else. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on that RfA. Now get to work!! ;-) SoWhy 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Russ. Congratulations on your successful RfA. -- Samir 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Russ! I wish you the best as an admin. Caden S (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Dlohcierekim 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks for the nice note.—Sandahl (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, R'n'B. You have new messages at Versus22's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, R'n'B, congrats on your recent promotion! I found User:RussBot/category edit requests because of the editprotected template at the top. Now that you're an admin, do you still need help with that, or is that something you can handle yourself? (If you do need help, let me know how. I'll watchlist this page so you don't need to reply on my talk.)--Aervanath (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll handle that myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Aervanath (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One of our members started up a page about Wargame Developments today so that we (as a group) can work on it together. It contained some placeholder text. You deleted it within 2 hours of it being put there.

I accept you have to keep Wiki tidy, but don't you think that's a bit quick off the mark?

BTW WD has been one of them ost influential groups of non-professional wargamers over the past nearly 30 years, so it deserves a page of its own.

Can you put it back, please?

Thanks,

Graham Evans (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a reason it's called speedy deletion: see WP:CSD. I'll undelete the article for now, but it remains subject to deletion if no one is able to provide reliable and verifiable references showing that the organization is notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Russ,

Understood. Please excuse a Wiki newbie. WD as an organisation is frequnetly linked to by other wargaming websites, has been the subject of magazine articles in the wargaming prsee, and is one of the few organisations referenced in WRG publications, - the top selling wargames rules company in the UK. WD is principally a UK based organisation. Is that likely to effect this process?

Graham Evans (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• After I restored the article, another admin deleted it on the separate ground that the text of the article as it stood was a copyright violation. However, there's nothing to stop you from starting a new article. If you don't copy text off the group's website, and you include references to magazine articles or other sources that discuss the organization, the new article is much less likely to be deleted (although I certainly offer no guarantees). As for being UK-based, that should not affect the process. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to mention that RussBot is currently disambiguating Washington Senators to Washington Senators (1901-1960), which is a redirect to Minnesota Twins. If you can set the bot to point to that article instead, it would be appreciated. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Too late, it's done. But as long as the link takes the reader to the right article, which it does, it's not a big deal. See WP:R#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I wasn't asking that you fix what you'd done. I was just asking that you try to avoid doing it again on subsequent passes with this bot. If that's not feasible, it's no big deal, I just wanted you to be aware of it -Dewelar (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russ! Congratulations on becoming an admin, I was very pleased to see your nomination go well :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's good to hear from you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Just curious, Renata (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The last MediaWiki software update tried to introduce a change in how redirects are processed, but instead it introduced bugs. In particular, a bunch of pages that were recently moved were showing up on Special:DoubleRedirects even though they weren't really double-redirects. The only way to fix that appears to be to edit the page, so that the redirect gets recorded correctly. I strongly hope this issue will go away after the next software update. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you and Russbot have been working hard to disambiguate links to split. I was trying to do it manually but was overcome by the sheer number of repairs to be made, so thanks! I noticed that there are still a large number of repairs needed here, so I was wondering if you will be making another pass through split's what links here list or if I should now resume manual repairs? Lambtron (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Any help you can provide would be most welcome. I just got the low-hanging fruit, but there is a lot more to do. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the Saudi ambassador page. Much appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello I'm looking for an Admin to protect this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic it all started when an accurate corrections was made about how napoleons invasion of Egypt helped Europeans learn more about ancient Egyptians culture. After all it was his army that found the rosseta stone which help translate the hieroglyphics, but for some reason the proper corrections that were made by others on myself keeps on being reverted back to someone’s opinion.

Thanks Profxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfXY (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can try posting on WP:RFPP; however, I think you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution before you go asking for page protection. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken upon myself a few tasks relating to United States federal judges which I'm sure would lend themselves to some sort of automation, but that is beyond my ability. The first is adding succession boxes to all the judge articles (see for example Thomas Griffith Haight). The second is importing missing entries from the database of judicial biographies at the Federal Judicial Center website (as with the aforementioned Thomas Griffith Haight. As you can see, almost everything that is needed for the succession box is in the FJC entry - except that you can't tell from the entry who succeeded to a particular seat after the judge in question left that seat. The third project is generating lists of all judges appointed by each President, as in George W. Bush judicial appointments. This can also be done through the FJC, which has a search page from which all sorts of lists can be generated, including lists cross referencing court type (District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme) with the nominating President. Would you be able to help me get this process automated? bd2412 T 08:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't something I can dash off in an hour. :) Let me ponder it a little and I'll get back to you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, tend to your RFA first, for sure. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am solving a phat number of redlinks with redirects. bd2412 T 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noted a few thoughts on the best direction of the Federal Judges project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking into making a toolserver answer to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates but figuring out how to exclude maintenance etc. templates is giving me fits. When you're building the "/from templates" page, how do you separate the article-link containing templates from non-article templates? (For instance, {{Navbox}} links to History of Tunisia via its documentation, but the docs are <noinclude>ed, so I'd just as soon not list the navbox as a disambig-containing template, since it's transcluded thousands of times but does NOT cause each transcluding page to link to History of Tunisia.) --JaGa^talk 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I came up with a workable solution. --JaGa^talk 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the solution?--Commander Keane (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know, too. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to go with an approximation. I make my list of templates with links to dabs, then for each template-dab combination, sample a handful of pages that include that template. If any one of those pages does NOT link to the same dab, then I can infer the dab link in the template came via a <noinclude> section. I know there are ways this could go wrong, but the results have been testing out very well, and it has proven to be more accurate than the other methods I experimented with. I'll probably release the tool tomorrow. --JaGa^talk 18:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russ,

I know your bot is fantastic with things like this—so I was wondering if you could help us with some speedy category name changes at WP:CFD/W. The following categories all have subcategories in which the parent category name has been manually entered into a template. Thus, when the name of the category changes, it has to be changed on every individual subcategory, and not just through a central template. Cydebot and Kbdankbot can't do these kinds of changes.

I saw your bot (very helpfully) did a ton of these types of changes for birth-century categories when the category was entered into a template on an article using {lifetime} or similar templates. Anyway, I was wondering if it could do the same for the subcategories in the following:

• Category:20th century riots to Category:20th-century riots
• Category:20th century years by country to Category:20th-century years by country
• Category:20th century introductions to Category:20th-century introductions
• Category:21st century years by country to Category:21st-century years by country

A hyphen just needs to be added between the ordinal and "century" in each category entry. This could be done manually, but it would be tedious, and if your bot could easily help that would be great. If you don't have time to organize this or can't set it up to work properly, that's OK, but I thought I would at least ask. (I believe there are also more "riots" and "#th century years by country" categories coming down the pipe in two days or so, which may need a similar treatment.) Thanks, and congrats on your adminship, by the way—well deserved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In progress. I'm only looking at those categories you specifically pointed out; if there are others that need fixing, feel free to list them here. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a gem. I'll list the others here as they come up in the next few days (if any). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another batch of these—same basic thing as the other years by country categories above.

• Category:12th century years by country to Category:12th-century years by country
• Category:13th century years by country to Category:13th-century years by country
• Category:14th century years by country to Category:14th-century years by country
• Category:15th century years by country to Category:15th-century years by country
• Category:16th century years by country to Category:16th-century years by country
• Category:17th century years by country to Category:17th-century years by country
• Category:18th century years by country to Category:18th-century years by country
• Category:19th century years by country to Category:19th-century years by country

Thanks again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

All done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that should be all for the time being as they all appear to have been completed for this renaming project. (There are a bunch of century categories outstanding at WP:CFD/W, but all of these are instances were the template has been changed, it is transcluded in the subcategories, and we're just waiting for the "cache-reset" thing to occur. It can be speeded up by null edits to the subcategories, but I'm unsure if that would be a productive use of time as I'm just not sure how long it's supposed to take.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a bug in my Chrome. I can't get it to refresh the increase/decrease page without doing that edit. I'm a computer tech so I've tried just about every solution I can think of. You are right though. That isn't the best way to go. :) I'll see if I can find an alternative. Excuse me. Continue to see if I can find an alternative. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't work. It's very strange. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The userpage of User:RussBot says the bot fixes double redirects. I just moved Starships in Stargate to List of starships in Stargate, which left over 60 double redirects. I usually fix all my created double redirects manually, but fixing 60 is just tiring (I just fixed >30 from another page move), and I am not sure when a normal double-redirect bot would come by. Can you run your bot for the starship list, or do you have any advice for me so I don't need to bother you to get the job done soon/quickly? Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Those should get fixed routinely the next time I run the double-redirect bot. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems the devs have now made it so category redirects work automatically. I've started a thread about it at WT:Categorization#Redirects now work!!. Since your bot currently handles this, perhaps you could comment there? Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you declined the speedy. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that {{Japanese era name}} needed to be tweaked. In response, I have now fixed the following:

• Bun'an + Daiei (era)
• Kanbun (era) + Jian (era) + Kanji (era)
• Daiji (era) + Nin'an + Bunji (era)
• Kangi + Kenji (era)
• Reiki (era) + Shōkei (era)

If there are other problematic links which I have somehow missed, I would be glad to attend to them as well. --Tenmei (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Russ. I'm unfortunately completely absorbed at work and just happened to check my watchlist by accident and saw your comments wrt captain disambiguation pages. I'm in no position or mindset to debate the matter, but would like to perhaps briefly share some thoughts on the matter.

In my mind, it seems like various subjects like Captain (U.S. Navy), Captain (U.S. Air Force) and Captain (Confederate States Army) have the potential to become either separate article sections, or even separate articles. That, of course, is contingent on someone putting the effort in to flesh out the respective subjects, however it seems likely to me that they will at some point.

Furthermore, it seems advantageous to make the links _from_ articles as specific as possible: for example Chuck Yeager links to Captain (U.S. Air Force). Now, with that said, the term Captain is used in many senses in the United States, but outside the U.S. Uniformed Services: a few quick examples off the top of my head are civil aviation, the merchant marine, police forces, and firefighting organizations. So, the question becomes: do we group these dissimilar uses together in an article or in a dab page? Grouping together uses from the uniformed services into an article seems reasonable to me at this time. Grouping uses from the expanded set, including the armed services, civil aviation, merchant marine, and so forth into a single article seems less clean.

Furthermore, I'd surmise that most, if not all links to Captain (United States) as well as Captain (United States uniformed services) could, and should be made more specific. Going back to the Chuck Yeager example, if it linked to Captain (United States) or Captain (United States uniformed services) that would seem to be a bad link to me.

So, in summary, I look at the 1,500 links to Captain (United States) as more of a work-list than anything else. It seems that the reader is best served by making these more specific. I believe the same logic holds for links to Captain (United States uniformed services) A few months ago I went on a jag and made thousands of these more specific, but won't have the time to go over these new dabs until early summer.

Anyway, that was the thought process behind the dab page structure. Please go ahead and handle the situation as you see fit. I have no doubt, based on our previous interactions, that your effort is in good faith.

Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Russ,

Thank you for your note.

Many people research Mr. Nelson Denis under both names, which is why I created two articles.

I do not know how to re-direct from one name to another, and updating two articles is a great burden...

So I really appreciate your help with this!

If this article will be merged, could we please merge Nelson Denis into Nelson Antonio Denis?

In other words, could we please have Nelson Antonio Denis as the dominant article, and have Nelson Denis re-direct into Nelson Antonio Denis?

Nelson Antonio Denis was, is, and continues to be, the complete and proper name of this individual.

This includes the time period when Nelson Antonio Denis was in the New York State Assembly.

Again, it would be greatly helpful if Nelson Denis could be re-directed to the Nelson Antonio Denis article, so that any researcher (journalist, student, etc.) would not miss the main Wikipedia entry.

Thank you, and I really appreciate your help.

MBernal615 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, R'n'B,

Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the Rojas page I created. I noticed you changed the tag at the bottom from disambig to surname. This puzzled me a little, since not all entries are surnames - for example:

• Cristóbal Rojas Municipality, Miranda, municipios in the Venezuelan state of Miranda
• Ernesto Rojas Commandos, a small guerrilla group in Colombia
• Estadio General Pablo Rojas, a football stadium in Barrio Obrero in Asunción, Paraguay
• Rojas, Buenos Aires, a town located in the north-east of the Buenos Aires Province, Argentina
• Rojas Municipality, one of the 12 municipios that make up the Venezuelan state of Barinas
• Rojas Partido, a partido located in the north of Buenos Aires Province in Argentina
• Teniente Cesar Lopez Rojas District, one of six districts of the province Alto Amazonas in Peru

Do you really think that a disambiguation page with so many non-surname entries should be tagged with the surname tag?

Cheers - Hebrides (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• You're right, I didn't review the entire list carefully enough. On the other hand, you must admit it was an easy mistake to make, given the way the page was structured.
• Also, you should note that, according to MOS:DABNAME, lists of people surnamed X generally don't belong on the "X" disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, friend! I'd appreciate your support for this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted images that are on wikipedia also on to Wikicommons. But I cannt figure out how to either delete the original postings or direct the links to wikicommons. What do I do??? Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be {{db-f8}} or {{db-nowcommons}}, which does the same thing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, you may have noticed that in my recent major overhaul of WP:Categorization I tried to update the guidance on category redirects. Please can you take a look and comment on how we need to change/expand this further. Are you going to have the bot create hard redirects now rather than soft ones, as we discussed before?--Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. However, the hard category redirects currently are NOT working (see Category:X2), so it would be premature to make any changes in the bot until the Mediawiki software is in a more stable state. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the software doing now then? It still seems to be adding the X2 pages to X1, although it hasn't started adding them to X2 as well, is that right? I.e. we're still at the stage we were at, waiting for the fix of the bug we were discussing?--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No. There is only one page in X2, and that page is not in Category:X1, as you can easily verify. Whatever software change was made earlier this month that moved my sandbox page into X1 was reverted a few days later, and so we're back to the status quo ante for the time being. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you added that page to X2 at a time when the hard redirect wasn't in place or they weren't working? I've just added a page to X2 and am seeing it straight away in X1 (but not in X2).--Kotniski (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just edited User:R'n'B/Sandbox and it is still in X2, not in X1. But your page, I see does contain [[Category:X2]] in the page text yet appears in X1. This is quite peculiar. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When I actually removed the category link from the page entirely, saved it, then re-inserted the category link and saved it again, it worked. So maybe it does work now, as long as we are sure there are no pages "grandfathered" into hard-redirected categories (which should be the case, since my bot checks all those daily). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a reply at this thread to your question. Didn't want to re-enable the editprotected without pinging you first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just an FYI- I noticed that the Russbot changed the link to Titan in the Science Police article to Titan (moon). I have corrected this to Titan (DC comics), which is the fictional setting referred to in the article. I'm not sure how bots work, exactly; is it possible to teach it how to differentiate between reference to the real moon and fictional ones (like Titan (DC comics) or Titan (Marvel Comics)) as the need arises? Thanks! Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear, it seems to have done it again at Superboy's Legion. I fixed it again. It would mostly be an issue in articles related to the DC Comics Legion of Super-Heroes setting; perhaps the bot can be trained to use the Titan (DC comics) link in such articles? Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As explained at User:RussBot, the only way to train the bot is to train me. I'll try to watch out for comic-book links, but if it is important to you, you could help by fixing them too. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend! I probably should have read the bot page- I just saw the big red off switch and thought to myself "I better stay away from THIS page before I break something."  :-) I'll keep an eye out for such links in my own travels. Nutiketaiel (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. I appreciate being informed of how I can improve the encyclopedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is now open for business - let's get it organized and outline our tasks! bd2412 T 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you had removed the redirect on my user-talk page? Caulde 21:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this bothered you. Your user talk page showed up on Special:DoubleRedirects because there was another user talk page redirected to it. According to WP:UP, "User talk pages should not redirect unless the user is indefinitely blocked." Because of that, I thought undoing the redirect was a better solution than "fixing" the double-redirect in the usual fashion. However, if this is unwelcome, I apologize. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have reminded me about the double redirect (I've had a few renames, which I assume is the reason why you removed it). I apologise for the seemingly 'confrontational' thread I opened here, I appreciate you removing those continually annoying double redirects. Thanks again. Caulde 21:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the question. Gregbard just went in for no reason and made a huge change. Unbelieveable. I put hours of time in setting up that category. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I created Category:Australasian GAA and at it contained a typo it is now empty,Category:GAA in Scotland became Category:Scotland GAA Gnevin (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the first one under CSD G7, but I won't delete the Scotland one because it still has sub-categories. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your just to fast for me, have sorted that Gnevin (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering why the page for Jane P. Perry was deleted and redirected to the Harold E. Jones Child Study Center article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_p._perry&redirect=no

Could someone please help me to restore Dr. Perry's article?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.224.138 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know "why," you'd have to ask the person who did it. If you want to restore the article, you can go to its history and restore an older version. To fix the lower-case redirect, you'd need to edit that page as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

re: American (notification of interested parties, re prospective dispute for resolution) RHETORICAL INTERACTION ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS TO:  User:R'n'B FYI:  You may be interested in the preliminary dispute overview: User:Proofreader77/American warning#001 (sonnetized) Looking forward to a convivial examination and resolution within the context of policy re disambiguation cleaning (dab-cleaner responsibilities—especially administrators). Cheers. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PS I know we tend to disagree ... Disagreement is good. :) Beers! Proofreader77 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Russ. Thanks for your edits to Category:NA-importance Cape Verde articles and Category:Non-article Cape Verde pages. Since you seem interested in the wikiproject categorization issue, I'd invite you to comment at User talk:MSGJ#Intersection cats. Yes, it's long, but take your time, I can wait :) I'd like to hear your opinion on the feasability of the proposals in the end of the discussion. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you restor this category please, itis part of the article raiting system and may be populated at any time, the project dosen't currently have any B class articels but a raiting can be changed at any time in the Prject banner and this will drop in here. --Nate1481 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. There actually are 25 B-class articles in the Mixed martial arts WikiProject, and they can be found in Category:B-Class mixed martial arts articles (different capitalization). What I deleted was an unused redirect, which (in my opinion) is also useless because articles are put into this category by the Project banner template, not by editors doing it manually. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear R'n'B! There is no explanation! His Name ist Christian Geistdörfer not Christian Geistdorfer. He is the Rally co-driver of the german Rally-Driver Walter Röhrl. The redirect ist wrong. Check this in the en:WP and here: [2] and here [3] --88.152.193.207 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the solution should be to redirect the incorrect spelling to the correct one, not to delete it. But first you'd have to create an article at the correct spelling. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hy Russ! Sorry, about that! But as an IP I can't do it! -- 88.152.193.207 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much! --88.152.193.207 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tagged for speedy because it is unduly spammy. Notability is also an issue - I was not equating one with the other. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I don't find it sufficiently advertising-like to delete as spam; I just meant to suggest that you could consider an AfD based on notability if you were so inclined. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you explain to me how this page was removed. I spent over two hours constructing the page from my graduate dissertation and was returning this evening to add further references and also the full bibliography when I discovered that the page was removed as "implausable"? I was going to begin creation of further links. This page was constructed to support the additional information I had begun to add on some of the programs including Winfield Park and Audubon Park, NJ. How soon can it be reposted???

Matt Weismantel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weismantel (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I think I found it. THANKS! I will continue cleaning it up and adding more information, references and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weismantel (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Iran LNG page was deleted per A7. Although I am not the creator of this page and I don't knew, what was in this article, the Iran LNG project and company is quite notable and well covered by the international media. Maybe you could restore this article on my page, so I can establish the notability. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Page is at User:Beagel/Iran LNG. When deleting under A7, I don't make any judgment about whether a subject is notable, merely about whether the text of the article said anything that could make it notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Russ. No complains, the current text says nothing to make it notable. I just find the article title in the Energy search results and as I knew little about its background, I thought it would be worth of trying to save.Beagel (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I was just looking at the history of the page, and was going to replace the speedy tag with {{oldafdfull|date= 17 July 2008|result= Merge and redirect to Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970}}, only you deleted it first. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nobs) Do you think the page is worth recreating with this? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I see no problem recreating a talk page with that information. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is per your change here [4].

How do I get the count links from only the article namespace? --Anshuk (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Indian (for example) you will see a dropdown box near the top labeled "Namespace:" -- select "(Article)" and press "GO", and you will see a list of links limited to namespace 0. To help with the counting, I highly recommend User:Barticus88/WhatLinksHere.js, which you have to import onto your personal monobook.js page. I also have some CSS tricks on my User:R'n'B/monobook.css page, which you can use if you like. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers. I tried your css code on my page. I expected it to introduce numbering on the what link's here list.. but it didn't work. I am surely doing something wrong.--Anshuk (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, dear Bot!

You should have changed the word diurnal in the article Circadian rhythm

to diurnal,

not diurnal.

I've fixed it. - Hordaland (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[5]. Seems that your bot incorrectly substituted (or added) Lifetime. If you want to subst it please use {{subst:Lifetime|..|..|..|subst=subst:}} (I support that you added it substed). -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Sorry. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, R'n'B. I didn't really know who to talk to about this, but since I know you've patrolled a few of my CSDs in the past, I figured I'd talk to you about it. I just tagged the page Thejre.com for speedy deletion under vandalism a little while ago (the original version claimed one of the website owners was from outer space), but the CSD template was removed by the editor. I tagged it again after warning the author, but they removed the obvious vandalism and the speedy tag yet again. I retagged as unimportant web content (A7), but then that was removed by an IP editor without explanation. I re-added the speedy tag since the IP editor didn't provide any reason for removing the template, but that's not what is bothering me. I have the strong feeling that this IP was the same user, trying to mask his edits because he received multiple warnings about removing csd templates on his own article, but I can't be sure so I am uncertain what to do about it. Do I report the user to administer intervention against vandalism, suggesting that the IP is being used similarly to a sock-puppet? Or do I just let it go? Thanks for your advice. KhalfaniKhaldun 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right that it was the same editor. However, if it only happened on this one article, I would let it go. If he makes a habit of doing that, then I'd post something at WP:AN. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

{{talkback}} P.S: The categories will not be used Ipatrol (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

why is this template not redundant? temmplate aggregators and podcasting shaaring now one (podcasting/doc); so the aggregators/doc is not used any more! mabdul 0=* 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were suggesting that the two templates had been merged; I didn't realize you were trying to have one doc-page serve for both. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, R'n'B

I would love it if you could put my article up,or at least help me fix it up. I don't understand why people think a company that is suffring in the economic meltdown is not important. Well, please respond back looking forward chatting :), Thanks much, Winner11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.204.22 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you have looked at WP:CORP already; I suggest you also take a look at the general notability guideline. The key point is that Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable; it doesn't matter how "important" the topic is or whether you swear on a stack of Bibles that the article is truthful. The article needs to show that the subject has been covered in independent reliable sources. The company's own website does not qualify as "independent". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with E3! Sorely in need of aid. You zapped the disambig. page. But, to me, it looks like a ton of the "what links here" has been lost. Might be my confusion, but it seems to me that yesterday, before the move, there were countless more pages pointing to E3. --Smilo Don (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem. There are 550 articles linking to E3 today, which is about the same as yesterday. I moved E3 (disambiguation) to E3, but left a redirect at the old title, so that any link that was working yesterday should still be working today. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- The RussBot has been tagging numerous disambiguation pages on my watchlist, creating Talk pages and tagging with the Disambiguation wikiproject. For the pages that include NRHP listings, could you also please tag, at the same time, with {{WikiProject NRHP|class=dab}}? All such articles have "NRHP" or "listed on the NRHP in ____" phrases in them. I have created many hundreds of NRHP-related disambiguation pages, and put many on my watchlist, but i did not know to tag for the wikiproject until relatively recently. Tagging for the wikiproject should allow me and others to learn of AfD nominations which were, at least in the past, very frequent. It would be helpful to know of the disambiguation pages, for other reasons, too. I have been tagging the RussBot-touched ones that are on my watchlist, but it could be done easier by the bot and not all are on my watchlist. Sincerely, 10:49, 2 April 2009 Doncram

Sorry, but that task isn't going to run again until after the next database dump. And, are you sure you want to put that template on the disambig page's talk page, rather than on the talk page of the article about the NRHP site? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the deletion threat. It is not a good article, see my comments in Talk:Railway Mogadiscio-Villabruzzi, even the title needs anglicising (M-V Ry) but it's a seed. If sources such as the quoted Italian books ever surface it would be better.--SilasW (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I re-deleted what you re-added to Napoleon I of France, not to edit war with you, but to make clear what i would like to see removed (its slightly different than before). I wont re-delete that material, but i would like to discuss this further. Ive added my reasoning to the discussion page, look forward to seeing you there. Bonewah (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your second edit, and explanation, make much more sense to me than the first. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi R'n'B: Thanks for your explanation. I thought the references were weak: one was a brief mention as part of a larger topic in a tv news article, and the other looked like a press release. I might end up going the AFD route. Thanks again. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your decline of CSD for Thomas J. McCabe Sr.. I have found a example of a copyvio dated 2007 and have such relisted it for CSD. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi thank you very much your maintenance and I apology my misunderstanding--Jack332 (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that the definition of any word should be deleted. This is a word an onomatopoeia that deserves to be posted and you had no right to delete it. JKRanchysurf (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. R'n'B. I'm a little confused by your cut-n-paste comment at my take page. I know about the move pages ability of Wikipedia and use it frequently. However, my cut-n-paste was of content from one page to another that already existed. If I tried to do a move in that case wouldn't it mess up the page I'm moving the content to? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the page Austin Film Critics Association did exist, but all it contained was a redirect to the "Awards" page. Moving the article to the new title would not have messed anything up. However, in more complicated cases, it is still better to ask for help at WP:RM than just to take information out of one title and paste it into another; for copyright reasons, it is important to maintain the entire history of the material contained in each article. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My "copy-n-paste" edit would have left both edit histories intact. Exact histories (and differences) would have still been accessible for both pages. I did a such a edit because I was fearful that a move would wipe out the history of one of the pages. This is what appears to have happened when you moved the Austin Film Critics Association Awards article because it no longer has a past edit history. After skimming the help for moving a pages, it appears that "cut-n-paste" edits mostly refers to moves when the target name doesn't already exist. In fact, when the target pages does exist, Help:Moving_a_page#Moving_over_an_existing_page suggests that the user will have to "manually merge the two pages". I might have it totally backwards but it appears that your move did exactly the thing that you are trying to prevent. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It didn't. I can view the deleted revisions of Austin Film Critics Association, and I can assure you that there is no "lost" history. The only history that page had before I merged it was the redirect to Austin Film Critics Association Awards. The guideline you referred to above applies "If the new title already exists and isn't just a redirect to the old title" (emphasis added) -- but here, it was just a redirect to the old title. [In this case, there are also deleted revisions of an older version of the page that was deleted on 1 June 2007, but that's really beside the point, since there are no deleted revisions after 1 June 2007 other than the redirect.]

Anyway, even if there are multiple versions of a page floating around, copying and pasting is almost never the best way to solve the problem. I don't mean to sound critical, as I realize these situations can get confusing and it is not always easy to figure out how to move a page over an existing title. But that is one of the purposes of WP:RM -- to let you ask for an admin to help you do it the right way. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand how the moving works at Wikipedia and it appears that I did it correctly in this case, so there is no need to get WP:RM involved. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted Kunwar Inderjit Singh as edited by User:Bluffmasterreal and yourself, as it was a cut & paste copyright infringement of a New York Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/06/obituaries/kunwar-inderjit-singh-former-nepal-premier.html. I've now added a non-infringing stub. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Russ — I noticed recently that a lot of the project lists that you used to maintain so ably have been moved over to toolserver reports. I think this is an interesting development. Particularly promising is the idea of being able to see the most current information about whatever it is I'm trying to clean up at a given moment. However, as I start to look at these more closely, I had a couple of thoughts and I wondered what you might think about them:

• For something like Articles with the most disambiguation links, I can't see a way to indicate that those links might be appropriate. List of named tropical cyclones is currently the top rank on that report, but I think the very nature of that list means that it should be full of dab pages — those names get reused regularly. On your old Templates with links to disambiguation pages reports, you could just move the entry to the 'checked and ok' section, but that doesn't work here. There may not be a lot of situations like this, but there will definitely be some. Is there any kind of invisible comment that can be added to the article in these situations so that the report skips past it?
• I do a lot of disambiguating, particularly with regard to broadcasting, and I often run into some of your template report pages when I'm cleaning up incoming links. You may have seen me dab links on them, and I've always defaulted to just cleaning the most recent version of the page and leaving the older ones alone. But I've struggled with that, and I'm now wondering if I should have been cleaning up everything. On the flipside, I'm wondering if you're considering having some of those older pages deleted completely now that these toolserver reports are in place.

Just random musings, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. Mlaffs (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The toolserver reports are maintained by User:JaGa, so you might want to chat with him, too. The first one you mention, Articles with most links to disambig pages, doesn't strike me as especially useful for just the reason you mention; a lot of those links look to be intentional. However, his other reports are very useful and I rely on them a lot myself.

As for your second question, I guess it depends on the report. If the report is old, it probably isn't being used by anyone for anything, and so there's no benefit in editing it. If it is current, then it is probably useful to edit it. If it's something like Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates, if the link in the template has been repaired, then that link should be removed from the report, and if the template has no further dab links, the whole template item should be removed. I'd prefer you don't edit the reports in the User: namespace at all; those are basically backup copies that aren't intended to be changed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooh — I owe you an apology then, because I've made a whack of edits to User:RussBot/Templates_with_red_links/Broadcasting/02 over the last few weeks. Sorry — somehow I'd gotten the idea that the RussBot subpages were okay. I bet I've edited others from that same series too. I'm happy to go and restore the pages to their original state, if you'd like, and I'll make sure to keep my hands to myself going forward. That's really annoying too, because I know that I've landed on some of your other pages in the past and seen in the history that you've reverted changes people made, so I left them alone. I don't know what made me think these ones were different. Mlaffs (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That series is something I generated at the request of User:BD2412, so you'd have to ask him/her whether it should or should not be edited. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough — I'll check in and see what they have to say, and with JaGA as well about the other question. And I'll make sure to be more mindful of your user space! Mlaffs (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just haven't gotten around to moving those to 'pedia space yet - I started with the general pages, and am still early in the process of formatting those. So, from my perspective, whack away - it will just be less for me to parse when I do move them to the project space (or go ahead and move them to the project space if you wish). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)