User talk:R'n'B/Archive 15

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just curious

How come you're tagging things as G6 instead of deleting them? I can understand if you did that for A7 or something but G6 seems odd Kwsn (Ni!) 20:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution. It's better to have two people look at each deletion instead of just one, even if it does seem to both of us to be a pretty trivial case. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, just seemed odd to me, that's all Kwsn (Ni!) 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DPL-10

Hey, thanks for updating the chart! If that isn't a sign of progress, I don't know what is.

I was wondering, could you change the Pages header for the DPL-10 column to be  Pages? I think that would make it easier to read. If it's a hassle no worries. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 20:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but then that column would have a right-aligned header when the others are centered. Meh, never mind, we'll get it below 10k sooner or later anyways. --JaGa^talk 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Try this out and let me know what you think -- edit Special:MyPage/vector.js (assuming you are using the default skin; if not, insert monobook.js or whatever applies to you) and insert the following two lines at the top:

importStylesheet("User:R'n'B/tdd.css"); importScript("User:R'n'B/tdd.js");

This will auto-magically reformat the Daily Disambig tables and I hope will improve readability. If you don't like the results, you can always undo the edit to your user JS page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this note somehow. I just added it to my monobook.js, and it is an improvement. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Monthly list delayed

Hey Russ, due to technical faults entirely of my own doing, the monthly list update was about two hours behind schedule. It's completed now. Woohookitty pointed out this redlink, which may be a casualty of my late script. Could you straighten it out? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 05:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my script died at some point; I've just restarted it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Mount Olympus link

Hi R'n'B. Would you comment at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Mount Olympus link? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just asking

I have been looking through the long term abuse cases and for some reason there is a case on Russbot. it seems that the page was created by User:Rigorimpossible and has only two edits in it's history- is this case valid Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/RussBot Fastpatrol, wikimaintenance and counter vandalism unit hows it goin? 09:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the first I've heard of it. The user who created the page did not notify me. The information on the page is not valid, as you can easily tell by checking the history of the page that the bot supposedly vandalized. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thought as much- just wanted to let you know Fastpatrol, wikimaintenance and counter vandalism unit hows it goin? 11:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Just found out: user:rigorimpossible has a warningv for vandalising that very page- ironic, huh? Fastpatrol, wikimaintenance and counter vandalism unit hows it goin? 11:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Niggerhead (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Niggerhead (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggerhead (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sandstein 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SNEP

Are you planning on placing something else at SNEP? If not, this type of edit is inappropriate: redirects are cheap, and there's no reason to change it. WP:REDIRECT#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken would apply.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to review the history of SNEP. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure

Hey, I've got a request to make a change to http://toolserver.org/~jason/disambig_links.php. Just to be certain, changes to that page will no longer affect your TDD scripts, yes? --JaGa^talk 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Go for it! But please let me know if you are thinking about changing your database schema at all! Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Irish Americans reverted to American people of Irish descent

Hey there. Why was this change made as you made no explanation about it whatsoever. --Bartallen2 (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your question. The change you refer to was made by User:RussBot, which is a bot, an automated process. The bot task in question takes pages out of any category that contains a {{category redirect}} template, and moves them to the target of the redirect. The bot did not place the redirect template in the original category; if you want to know who did, you can view the editing history of the category page in question. The bot does not know why the redirect is there, and does not make any value judgment about whether a category should or should not be redirected. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

aircraft category task

Hi there, R'n'B. User:Good Olfactory recommended your Russbot for a task which I hope you can help with. We have a large set of aircraft categories for which the following should happen:

The categories should switch from having a hyphen to having an en-dash, as shown here.
The original categories should become redirects to their new categories.

All of the templates have been changed, so most of the contents have been moved. We just need a bot to make the new categories, if they don't already exist, and create the redirects. Can you help with that?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't look like you have listed all the affected categories, nor have all the contents been moved. For example, the very first item on your list is Category:Agricultural aircraft 1950-1959; it contains three subcategories,

All of these should be on your list, but aren't, and each of them contains pages. At a glance, it looks like there are numerous other cases like these. I'm willing to help you with this, but I'd rather only have to do it once, and I'd like to be sure that I'm not creating a bigger mess than I'm cleaning up. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Aircraft_categories now. I believe it has every category that contains an aircraft type and a date range, all now containing an en-dash rather than a hyphen. The original hyphenated categories have all been deleted. So the only bot task remaining is to create category redirects from the categories before the "to" to the categories after the "to." Doable?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think those redirects are really needed, it's pretty easily doable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unredirect Annie Wilson Page

You redirected the original Annie Wilson page, the character from 90210 in late 2009. I created another page for her, but was asked to ask you to un redirect the original page so I can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui78901 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, User:James26 (talk) did that. I just updated the target of the redirect. See the history of Annie Wilson for details. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

FM

Thanks for the notification about the move of FM! —mako ๛ 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fake LTA report

FYI I noticed a message here showing that the page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/RussBot has been created. Rather than me tagging it for someone to delete, I guess it would be ok for you to speedy it yourself? Coincidentally, I recently worked out a likely way that confused editors could end up creating such a fake report: see my last comment here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin‎

Hello, your edit summary summed it up pretty well. I would be inclined to replace the section with a brief paragraph about names with a few examples (Bendigo, Dimboola, Baddaginnie, perhaps and leave out those which are an insult to the general reader's intelligence) and toss out the following nonsense section. It is possible to find online references for Devenish!! being aboriginal and Colignan and Nangiloc can confuse, unless you know Colignan was the name for the Murray in that area, so it is aboriginal and Nangiloc (reverse spelling) is not (reliable ref to be added shortly) Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Trustee

I moved the legal sense back to the primary meaning, since the move was initially done without discussion. Most other senses incorporating the term are references to the legal sense, but I've opened a discussion at Talk:Trustee in case anyone wishes to opine otherwise. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan

Hello R'n'B,

I see that your long-standing redirect Sri Lankan→Sri Lanka has been replaced by a new page which is topping the dabs with links list[1]. I've reverted the change once but thought I'd ask your opinion before doing it again. I can't really start a discussion at Talk:Sri Lankan, because that is still a redirect and I don't want to compound the error by replacing it by a new page. Looking at WP:OTHERSTUFF, Indian is a dab, but it explains meanings of Indian beyond the broad concept of related to India. Any advice or boldness from you would be welcome.

Thanks, Certes (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the same IP has also created Moroccan, Pakistani, Singaporean etc. I see the logic but I'll leave a few polite words on the user talk page. Certes (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that same IP is undoubtedly the same user who has made it his or her personal mission to create a disambiguation page for every demonym in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that many of these terms are ambiguous, but this particular editor does not seem to care (or perhaps understand) whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for any given term. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Russ. Aragonese just appeared, so it looks as if (s)he is "tidying up" and considers consistency more important than primary topics, broad concepts, etc. There's a certain logic there, but it might be better to discuss it first. Is there a good place to do that - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography perhaps? Certes (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation would be the most logical place, although members of the Geography project might want to be notified, too, I imagine. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I got a prompt and constructive response from IP on my talk page, so I'll see if the editor can take other advice and/or fix the links. If not then it's off to those projects. Thanks for your help. Certes (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello R'n'B! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit on George Ball (Burpee)

Hi there, I am just wondering why did your bot change my edit "[[American people|American]]" into "[[United States|American]]" while describing nationality of a person. Thank you in advance. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. That was a mistake! The script was written at a time when American people was a redirect to the disambiguation page American, and those links needed to be fixed. Since then, however, the redirect has been changed and it no longer links to a disambiguation page. I have fixed the error now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek Zidlicky

Hi. Following a page move, there's a bunch of incorrect links to Marek Zidlicky - could the bot tackle them? --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What links are incorrect? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

these --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are incorrect. They link to a redirect that takes readers to the correct article. WP:DONTFIXIT applies. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. I've noticed your work on fixing Billy Mitchell disambigs in the recent changes today. Great work! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

GART (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GART (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the GART (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Disambiguation in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Signpost report on the disambiguation project

I got this today, thought you would be interested. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disambiguation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot

Done. I'm very glad to learn that this article is in the works! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Double redirect requests

I know double redirects are fixed eventually by bots (yours or somebody else's), but do you take requests for your bot to fix double redirects (like for this list)? Thanks! —danhash (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really something that a bot can easily do on demand, but I manually fixed the two that had incoming links to them. The rest can wait for the normal bot process to come along. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

November count

I don't know why I am coming up with a different number. I copied the column into an Excel file and added it there. bd2412 T 18:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a Python script that does the counting for me, but since you were coming up with another number I used the Excel file method myself as a double-check, and I got 14,141 both ways. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I tried it again and got 14,141, so I must have clipped one off the first time. Sorry about that. On the upside, our progress this month has been quite remarkable, although I fear it will slow down considerably once all the easy pickings are done. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kozhikode

Thank you for moving the Kozhikode back to its original title. I would have done it myself if I had the power to move! Salih (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template stuff

You're right, I did. But tell me WHY that has to slog through XFD when it can be killed on the spot. It's totally harmless to just delete it now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also totally harmless to wait a few days and let it be deleted. If I speedy it (and I'm not convinced that an unused template is eligible for G6 anyway, since there are other more specific criteria that cover templates), I'd still have to track down the TFD discussion and close that, thereby doing all the same work that the closing admin would have to do anyway plus the additional time spent on the speedy. If the page were affirmatively harmful (attack page, copyvio, flagrant hoax, etc.) then I could see jumping to a speedy, but this is harmless clutter. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for resolving Pavlos Pavlidis I was starting to think I messed up the tagging. (: France3470 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, it would have been helpful if you had fixed the incoming links before tagging the page for deletion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I may have gotten sidetracked with something else because I have a strange feeling I looked at them. I'll try to be more on the plot in future. Thanks again, France3470 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

CSD Catagories

Thanks for fixing my mistake by redirecting the category to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages. To prevent the confusion of users who use User:MuZemike/Deletion board, it would be best if you could perform the following edit, since the page can only be edited by administrators:

Current version (line 10):

**Tagged as [[:Category:Test pages for speedy deletion|G2 (test pages)]]: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Test pages for speedy deletion}}

Proposed edit:

**Tagged as [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages|G2 (test pages)]]: {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages}}

Thanks again! -- Jab7842 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The AFC drafts Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GatorStompin and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pledge 5 Foundation, are very similar, and I think one of them should be deleted. -- Jab7842 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cut and Paste Moves Including Washington Senators (I)

Hello, thanks for the clarification on the cut and paste policy. I'll definitely be more mindful of them. That was the only cut and paste move I can think of. It all resulted from the History of MLB teams template. When we listed all the contracted teams, there were multiple franchises with different names, including the Washington Senators franchise that is now the Minnesota Twins. The article I attempted to move was the Twins franchise history in DC. Since they were not the first team with the name, I tried to make a (II). The article originally had the (I) suffix because the (II) was referred to the expansion team Washington Senators franchise that is now known as the Texas Rangers. If you look at the MLB History template, I list them on the template with roman numerals for different franchises with the same name, but those were distinct articles and didn't require this situation. Regardless, thank you for helping me understand. Arnabdas (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncontroversial deletions

I appreciate that your deletion of Aradia (disambiguation) was "uncontroversial" in the sense that this page is not needed. But the problem is that you destroy edit history. At least you remove edit-history from the sight of non-admins, and you make it more difficult to figure out just what has been going on even for admins. It is very problematic to delete any page with a history of simply trivial or nonsensical edits, already for licencing reason. You need to be perfectly sure that no edits you remove from visibility end up as the sources of a live page (due to copy-paste transfers of content). If in doubt, you can always just blank the page or mark it a {{R unprintworthy}}. It will not do any harm, but the edit history will be preserved. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the issue of cut-and-paste moves (see next section) and I do check for them before deleting any page. But I could miss one, and if I have done so, please don't hesitate to point it out or correct my error. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RussBot

I'm glad you are trying to make links to disambiguation pages (e.g. rather than Fabulous you say Fabulous (disambiguation)) but I really don't think it's the best idea to make a link to a redirect page when really the page name is different. I saw User:RussBot#But I don't like it! but I still don't think it makes much sense. Like on Fugees where it makes more sense to make a link to the actual page than the redirect page. In the past members it would rather be Pras Michel than Pras Michel. So why should you make articles EVEN worse by making redirects on RussBot? Ian Streeter (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, RussBot has not edited Fugees for at least the past year, and the link you use as an example is not even a disambiguation page, so I really have no idea what point you are trying to make with this example. Second, though, let's look at an actual edit that the bot did make, to Fabolous. The bot only edited the hatnote, so let's compare the hatnote before and after the bot's edit:

BEFORE
AFTER

Not only do both versions look the same, but if a reader clicks on either of the two links, they both open the same disambiguation page. How exactly do you believe this is making an article "EVEN worse"? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at PhnomPencil's talk page.

FWIW, I don't see a problem with the edit described above. Ian, it's just a bit of housekeeping which helps the efforts of the Disambiguation team. To many it may appear pointless, but by linking to the (disambiguation) redirect it shows us (and Toolserver programs) that users expect to arrive at that page, and not an actual article. It's like a waiter second-checking with the customer to ensure they're aware they're only ordering an appetizer, not an entree. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 16:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield

I saw at 14:49, 3 December 2011 you moved Category:Gettysburg National Cemetery to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War, and Russbot also moved numerous articles which are not battlefields to the later category, e.g., Gettysburg National Museum -- which never was a battlefield and no longer exists. For example, the proper category for that article is Defunct places of the Gettysburg Battlefield -- which Russbot also moved. That subcategory is not a battlefield and none of its articles are battlefields, so please fix the erroneous categorizations. Thanks! Target for Today (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, what actually happened was that at 20:40, 20 November 2011, someone named User:Target for Today -- oh, wait, that's you -- edited Category:Gettysburg National Cemetery to make it a subcategory of Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. However, the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is a {{category redirect}} to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War -- a fact of which you should be aware, since you edited the redirect page on 25 November. This apparently was the result of a WP:CFD discussion, cited in the history of Category:Gettysburg Battlefield, in which I did not participate.

Because Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is a redirect, it cannot contain any articles or subcategories. Therefore, RussBot moved any articles out of that category into the target of the redirect, and I manually changed the categorization of Category:Gettysburg National Cemetery because the comment embedded inside the link prevented the bot from fixing it.

The important fact to note is that the users who participated in the CFD discussion decided that the "Battlefield" category should be merged into the "Battlefields of ..." category; RussBot did not make that decision, it merely carried out the instructions provided by the {{category redirect}} template.

If you think the existing category structure is incorrect or inadequate, you are welcome to take it up on WP:CFD, or you can simply place any articles of concern into more appropriate categories. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rockefeller Institute and Conservative Christianity

Yes, I am aware of it, but thanks. These days, I wait until it comes up on toolserver before I start disambiguating. The Rockefeller one is easy, Conservative Christianity is a lot harder, and that may sway the direction of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity. St Anselm (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

2010–11 Minnesota Timberwolves season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to University of Nevada

Glossary of textile terminology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Embossing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say if you create a dablink every now and then you've earned the right. :) --JaGa^talk 17:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at first I thought you were kidding me. But I fixed the first one, and the second one was just changing an incorrect Embossing (disambiguation) to Embossing{{dn}}. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

/* A barnstar for you! */

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. I see your work on fixing the Prince Gong links in the recent changes. Great work!! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Style

Thanks for that, R'n'B. The reason I put so little into the lede of most of those poets such as Eoghan Carrach Ó Siadhail is because there is so little known about them in the first place. Will amend mindfully in future. Fergananim (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over USB article naming

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WTOP-FM/WBQH

OK, let me make this as clear as I possibly can. I could truly care less about WP:INTDABLINK when it comes to disambig pages. If you have a problem with the disambig page, suggest something on talk (which you haven't), and if consensus is found (which there hasn't been), it will be moved. Don't change a working disambig link to a redirect of that same link for what purpose I am not currently sure of. It's disruptive, confusing to the newer editors and down right damned silly. I have reverted you and your bot on numerous occasions hoping (more like praying) you would get this, and you should seeing as how you're an admin.

So, again, suggest something on talk, if consensus if found, it will be moved. Until then, no suggestion and no consensus means no changing of links (there's no consensus for that either). The disambig page is at WTOP...not "WTOP (disambiguation)". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have it backwards, and based on a number of statements you have made above, you apparently don't understand the issue you are complaining about.

First, you said "I could truly care less about WP:INTDABLINK when it comes to disambig pages." Well, that translates into saying that you don't care whether your edits are consistent with policies established by consensus. If that's what you mean, we have a problem that is a lot bigger than hatnotes on one or two articles.

Second, you said, "If you have a problem with the disambig page, suggest something on talk (which you haven't), and if consensus is found (which there hasn't been), it will be moved." No, I don't have a problem with the disambig page. I haven't suggested moving the disambig page because that has nothing to do with my edits.

Third, you said, "Don't change a working disambig link to a redirect of that same link for what purpose I am not currently sure of." Now we get to the heart of the matter. The policy you "could truly care less about" says in so many words -- 'To link to a disambiguation page ..., link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect—for example, link to the redirect "America (disambiguation)" rather than the target page at "America".' [Emphasis in original.] You are saying "don't link to a redirect" when the policy very explicitly says do link to a redirect.

(Incidentally, the "purpose I am not currently sure of" is to help editors distinguish between unintended links to disambiguation pages, which are errors that need to be fixed, and intentional ones. We have an entire WikiProject dedicated to correcting these erroneous links, and various automated tools that help us track our progress. Through the dedicated efforts of a small group of editors, we have reduced the number of erroneous links from over a million to about 600,000, but we still have a long way to go. Following WP:INTDABLINK helps these users avoid wasting their time checking and re-checking links that intentionally lead to disambiguation pages and don't need fixing.)

Fourth, you said, "It's disruptive, confusing to the newer editors and down right damned silly." If you have any evidence of how it is disruptive or who has actually been confused by it, you might want to share that. The last point obviously is purely your opinion, with which I disagree.

Finally, you said, "no suggestion and no consensus means no changing of links (there's no consensus for that either)." But there is a consensus, as stated on WP:INTDABLINK. See WP:CONSENSUS#Level of consensus: discussions among editors involved in a single article cannot override a more general community consensus. If you think the existing policy is wrong, it is your burden to suggest a change, on the policy page, not my burden to seek consensus for every individual edit that implements that consensus. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was 3,090 characters full of "I'm right and you're wrong". Now, in less characters and hopefully less words, no, the burden doesn't fall on me for the sole reason as I am not making any changes to the hatlink and since you are an admin, you can easily delete the redirect on WTOP (disambiguation), move WTOP to WTOP (disambiguation) and redirect WTOP to the brand-new, correctly named (according to you and some really stupid rule) page at WTOP (disambiguation). So, no, the burden doesn't fall on me because personally, I can't do shit about it. Can't move the page, all I can do is go over to WP:RM and post it there. You're the admin, you can move the page. Burden is yours. Not that you are doing that, you are just creating useless redirects to a redirect and not actually helping. So, please don't whine to me about how there are erroneous links and all that when I don't see you doing a helluva lot to fix the problem. To be honest, you seem to be creating a new one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Root problem + comments = 1,279. Yes, you can say alot in under 1,500 characters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Short and sweet -- I don't want to move the disambiguation page. I never said the disambiguation page should be moved. Stop putting words in my mouth. Editing guideline says to link to the redirect. If you don't like the guideline, propose a change. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I "know" you both, I hope you don't mind if I jump into the middle of this. NH, Russ is about as much of an authority on disambiguation around here as there is. He and his bot do some really good work, and the policy that he's quoting above is accurate. Interestingly, as I look at the article history for WTOP-FM, I see that even I've edited that hatnote to remove the redirect link not long after I returned from my hiatus and started editing regularly again. Russ, to provide some context to this, I think it'd be fair to say that policy has shifted a bit on this over the last couple of years, right? It seems to me that almost every XXX dab page now has a XXX (disambiguation) redirect, to help distinguish between the accidental and intentional links, and I don't think that used to be the case. Certainly, when I was doing the massive dab clean-up of all of the broadcast call sign pages back in 2007/2008, redirect pages like those rarely existed. Mlaffs (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mlaffs is right, with the XXX (disambiguation) redirects to the XXX disambig pages, we also have the Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages category on the bottom of all disambig pages that remotely have anything to do with radio or television. Plus all of the disambig pages that also have a radio or TV listing on them have (or should have) a {{callsigndis}} template at the bottom, along with the aforementioned category. The template states, in part, "This disambiguation page lists articles about radio and/or television stations with the same/similar call signs, frequencies, channels, or branding." So, there are ways we let editors know that the page they have landed on is a disambig page. There is even one of each on the WTOP page, visable without scrolling (at least on my 17" monitor). So, the redirect to the redirect in the hatlink isn't necessary as we have means to notify editors that they have "wandered into" a disambig page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Like Russ said, the bot only enforces the guideline. If you have a problem with that guideline, go to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and complain. Otherwise you're just wikihounding the messenger. --JaGa^talk 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page Economy of Saint Martin

I didn't simply move the page because it wasn't clear how that could be done considering the new page title had already been created and previously redirected to the article with collectivity in the name (I knew how to delete the redirect but not how to move a page to one that was already created). I didn't think there'd be a problem with how I moved it because I was the only user who wrote content for the article (and don't mind having a couple of my edits not show up on the main page). You did find a way to move everything to the new title, thanks but it involved reverting another edit which wasn't obvious at the time. --Grmike (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it can be confusing at times to figure out how to move a page. That's one of the purposes of WP:RM; you can use it to request help from an administrator for a move that you aren't able to complete yourself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll remember that next time, thanks for the link (I didn't know about that service). I wrote a lead for the article and so removed the template. Let me know what you think.Grmike (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)grmike

Thanks for the note, I do think the introduction is somewhat better now. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosie Malek-Yonan

Rosie Malek-Yonan's nationality and language are Assyrian and not Syriac. She is listed in the category of Assyrian writers. You have twice changed it to Syriac writers. Please do not change Assyrian to Syriac and please make the correction. Here are your links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosie_Malek-Yonan&oldid=466660266 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosie_Malek-Yonan&oldid=466494320. Much appreciate it. (Zayya 11:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Hello, Zayya. These edits were made by RussBot, which is an automated process. If you read the bot's edit summary, you may have notice that they say "Change redirected category Category:Assyrian writers to Category:Syriac writers". "Redirected" means that Category:Assyrian writers is marked as a {{category redirect}}. If you click on the link to that category page, you will see that it says very plainly that it is a redirect to Category:Syriac writers, and that "This category should be empty." The bot finds any articles that have been assigned to any redirected category and moves them into the target category. It does not decide which categories should be redirects, it just follows the instructions provided by the editor who placed the {{category redirect}} template. If you have a problem with the fact that Category:Assyrian writers is a redirect, you need to take it up on that page.

However, while I am on the subject, I will give you some free advice. Looking at the history of Rosie Malek-Yonan, I see that you tried to add this category numerous times, and that several other editors have previously reverted your edits and stated that this was incorrect. You apparently just ignored their concerns and kept on trying to make the same edit over and over again. If this is how you approach Wikipedia, you are going to become very frustrated very soon. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and part of that collaboration is listening to other editors and responding to their concerns. When other editors revert your edits, you ought to discuss their issues and not ignore them. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Russ. Thank you for your response and the clarification. Much appreciate it. As far as the Syriac vs. Assyrian, this is an ethnic inner conflict. Assyrians don't use the term Syriac and visa versa. So, when Syriac editors change Assyrian to Syriac, it is not acceptable to Assyrians. Two wrongs don't make it right. These are just nuances that non Assyrians and non Syriacs would not comprehend. In any case, much appreciate your input. Respectfully, (Zayya 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Well, I have no opinion about whether anyone is right, or wrong, about this. I would like to see editors come to a consensus on the issue. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RussBot task request

Hello! Tablet was just moved to Tablet (pharmacy), so the incoming links now lead to a disambiguation page. Can you please have RussBot update then to point to Tablet (pharmacy)? —David Levy 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, I can't do that unless you can show me a consensus that all of those incoming links are definitely intended to refer to pharmaceuticals. Unless you have personally corrected all links that were intended for other meanings, that seems highly improbable.

I've manually changed the incoming link on Template:Dosage forms, which accounted for roughly 100 of the 300 incoming links. The rest, however, need to be reviewed manually. Perhaps you have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which states that --

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

--R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I realize that all of the links must be checked manually. However, I presently lack the time to do so and felt that it was preferable to repair the vast majority immediately and take care of the rest later (keeping in mind that none of the links currently lead to the intended article and any not intended for Tablet (pharmacy) mistakenly led to it in the first place).

I just checked all of the articles whose titles don't obviously relate to this connotation of "tablet" and repaired the links intended to lead to elsewhere. That's the best that I can do for now.

For the record, it wasn't my decision to move the pages before updating the incoming links. Breawycker moved Tablet to Tablet (pharmacy) and Fastily deleted the resultant redirect (leaving Tablet a red link for more than an hour) to make way for the disambiguation page's move. I merely completed the process to repair the aforementioned red link. (Please see User talk:Fastily/Archive 5#Tablet.) —David Levy 23:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure!

Sure. Redirect Interpol and ruin my attempts at adding 1,000 to my edit count... :) I had gotten it down to 800. All kidding aside, it should redirect to where you redirected it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've got to keep your total down any way I can. :-) I've had the same thing happen to me plenty of times. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'm 5th in the world in total edits. I must...get...higher. LOL --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interpol

I see you (properly) reverted the undiscussed move of Interpol (disambiguation) → Interpol so that the dab page is now back at Interpol (disambiguation).

However, while the article about the police organization used to be Interpol, it's now at Interpol (organization) (where it was moved by the same person who moved the dab page), and Interpol is a redirect to it. Can you fix that too, please, so that the article is at Interpol? The corresponding talk page too, of course.

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll wait a week or so on this and see if there is any discussion of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue. If there is, there's no need for repeated page moves until the discussion is concluded. If not, then I'll move it back. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

article : monocled cobra

Hi R'n'B: really appreciated your recent maintenance efforts and rescuing the revision history of this article in particular !! But the page Talk:Monocled cobra is still redirected to the article itself. Am sure this isn't supposed to be that way. What do you think ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Right! Thanks for catching that. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you keep watch on certain pages

Requesting watch on pages being edited by Woe90i. This user removes content just like that. No mention of it anywhere. And numbers and statical data are changed at his whims during edits and most of them gets unnoticed and is lost. Requesting a watch on pages like List of active Italian Navy ships and List of active Indian Navy ships. I will add more pages to this list if i detect any such removal or changes. Correctiondetail (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the contributions of Woe90i (talk · contribs) and don't see any pattern of vandalism. Further, I don't see any messages from you on the user's talk page raising any concerns about particular edits. It seems to me you should pursue efforts at dispute resolution, starting with simple direct discussion, before soliciting random administrators to wiki-stalk another user. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy II (pilot bomber) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joseph P. Kennedy II (pilot bomber). Since you had some involvement with the Joseph P. Kennedy II (pilot bomber) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ApprenticeFan ^work 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy II (politician) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joseph P. Kennedy II (politician). Since you had some involvement with the Joseph P. Kennedy II (politician) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ApprenticeFan ^work 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your input, assistance in moving draft (if deemed an improvement)

Hello R'n'B,

After noticing that you are active in topics related to the state of Virginia, I thought I'd ask you for some guidance--

The New Media Strategies article has several citation issues, is significantly out of date, and does not sufficiently describe what reliable sources have said about the subject. I am familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as the subject of this article is my present employer. Looking to bring the article in line with Wikipedia's content standards, I have written a draft here containing a more sufficiently sourced, neutral and verifiable version. I've paid special attention to WP:NPOV, and have made an effort to be especially objective in writing this draft. I've even removed the "Recognition" section in the draft and worked that content into the body in chronological order, as I feel that this article should do a better job of giving an accurate, historical description, while placing less emphasis on material such as recognition/awards won.

In order to respect WP:COI, I don't intent to edit this article myself. Instead, would you be willing review my draft at User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox7 and move it to mainspace if you feel that it is ready to replace the existing version?

Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

'Afternoon, R'n'B, I meant to mention that by all means if you are not interested in this subject, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to inquire elsewhere. What do you think -- is this something you'd be willing to take a look at? Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, I do think this version is an improvement, so I've updated the article with the new text (with a little minor copyediting of my own). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do so, and I appreciate the copy-edits you made as well. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello there R'n'B - wondering if you would be able to take a look at this edit request I made: Talk:Pete_Snyder#Revision_for_community_consideration.3F? It pertains to the article about the former CEO of my employer--he stepped down from that position, and the article about him is now outdated, so I've proposed an adjustment to bring in up to date. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you watchlist Oasis and take a look? We have a user (Tgrebinski), who keeps moving it to Oasis (Geography) and then making Oasis a disam page when Oasis is clearly the primary topic. Asking you to get involved because I've already reverted him twice. He redirected his talk page to a different page so I can't contact him that way. I'll add something to the Oasis talk page in the meantime. Hopefully he won't revert me again. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I even pulled rank, which I rarely do. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, will watch. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now he made a mistake in moving a page, so he actually requested speedy deletion on Oasis. I'm going to circumvent the redirect on his talk page and talk to him. This is ridiculous, honestly. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about this. I've now re-added the hatnote that points to Oasis (band) and Oasis (disambiguation) twice. The edit summary that has been removing it says 'promotional'. The inbound link numbers suggest that the hatnote is correct (Oasis (band) has 3k inbound links - roughly half from the mainspace (I didn't count exactly), and Oasis has 750 inbound links, while the rest of the links on the disambiguation page have <75). Note that I am in no way saying that the band is the primary topic - I think the articles are correct as they now stand, I'm only bringing this up for informational purposes. :) -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So. Dumb question. :) I should know this but I don't. How do you find inbound link numbers? Which tool is it? I've been wanting to know that for awhile but I keep forgetting to ask. I'm sure it's right in front of my face and I just haven't seen it.

Thanks for protecting the page, R'n'B. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(Answering here as well as my page) Actually, I just went to 'What links here' and set the page view to 500. It's possible that the 750 to Oasis is anywhere from 650-900, but it just looked about half the size of the first page of 500. If there's a tool that give the full stats on a page about inbound links (with details on which space they come from), I don't know about it, but I'd love to see it. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. :) Yeah it'd be very useful. The 2 I've often wondered about are country and dance. I realize that they should probably be at those spots but quite a few must point to them when people want country music or dance music. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR

It was fair to give me a warning, but saying "I am giving you the benefit of this warning rather than an immediate block" seemed a bit disingenuous. I count 1, 2, 3 reverts. Where did you get the idea that I broke the 3RR rule? St Anselm (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are correct; you made three reverts, but not "more than three" reverts. I miscounted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)