User talk:Bobblewik/Archive/2006Sep

category:organophosphorus compounds
Thanks for the answer. Yes, that is what I saw. The category was deleted (can't find the entry in the log, but well, happens). I am a bit curious about what happens there. I now see that the bot is deleting non-existing categories. Guess it is a good thing, at least it alerted me on the deletion. Thanks again, will have a look on organophosphorus compounds. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My response: here is the deletion log. 03:59, June 23, 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Organophosphorus compounds" (content was: 'Category:Organic compoundsCategory:Phosphorus compounds') Hope that helps: —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that part of the log, that is all I could find, I did not see any discussion, could not find that. But it does not matter, I will leave it.  Your bot cleans up the page, and if things are really wrong, they will get noticed and repaired.  Cheers!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a bad thing and you should stop it, at least until there's some sort of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gah! I should not have had that on my bots list (should have been removed...), but you should create the category. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
There isn't one See Talk:Hassaniya. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot removal from nonexistent categories
I am a bit concerned about this edit by your bot. If I understand correctly, it's removing articles from non-existent categories. The problem is that, in this case, the category was a correct one&mdash;but simply mistyped. (It was in Category:Political advocacy groups in the Canada rather than Category:Political advocacy groups in Canada.) So my concern is that, by automatically removing articles from non-existent categories, you are eliminating the chance for users to realize that a useful category has been mistyped. -- SCZenz 05:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but at least 98% of these categories are those that were inproperly deleted, or removed. Those that remain will hopefully be noticed by people who wawtch those articles. Also, editors can always add new categories, even if the old ones were removed. In this case, it was "red-linked" for over 5 months, as shown here. If nobody caught it in that time it may actually be a good idea to remove the category, if somone like you notices and changes the cateogry to the right one, then the wiki is improved. My bot is probably not going to run anymore of these. You should be able to find all active bot task listings (that my bot can do) on WP:CFD/W or WP:CFD/WU.

Category Removal? Do you have the operating parameters for your bot documented?
Hey. I'm one of those well intended guys trying to figure out wikipedia, and with 20+ years in computing science as a footnote. Just wondering what the criteria was for your gnome bot to remove RA Photo Club from Category:Photographic Societies.

Binaryrhyme 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, that category was red-linked have a look at the link to the cateogry. Category:Photographic Societies. Just re-add the category and create the category page. The bot was running off of lists provided at WP:CFD/W and WP:CFD/WU. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

closing user category discussions
Hey there. I noticed you closed a couple discussions at CFDU. Feel like closing some more so we can get started cleaning them up?--Mike Selinker 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please close all the user category debates up until September 16, if you would. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 00:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Grammar School
Hey dude, thanks for stepping into this argument on the grammar page. you're right, it isnt getting anywhere. In my opinion, i feel Paaerduag is being slightly bias as he obviously has something against the school. There are various other users who agree with me, and im sure 'headhunter' and 'Cornflake Pirate' would be more than happy to back up this claim. He is constantly personally abusing us and not mentioning his changes anywhere appart from the edit summary, and even then its only occationally. He also doesnt read sources in full and referenced cotnradicting material. I would very much value your opinion on the subject. Please feel free to publish your responce on my talk page User_talk: Kiran90. thanks! Kiran90 11:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)