User talk:Harej/Archive09

RFC policy list
Whatever happened to the rfc policy list of current discussions? Right now the link in the template for creating a policy rfc redirects right back to the template. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. &mdash;harej // change the rules 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It came to my attention here. When I clicked on the link to the RFCpolicy list, there's no list-- it just redirects back to the page with the RFCpolicy instructions. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not happen to me. &mdash;harej // change the rules 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The template didn't seem to auto generate any listing for the RFC policy list. I'll manually list it. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I attempted to add it manually via the "manual add" button, I really screwed it up. Something's haywire there. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed but I don't know how. &mdash;harej // change the rules 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You have the magic touch, I guess. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

HELP!
Hi. I noticed that my RFC wasn't edited correctly. There is some question about the inclusion of Bruce Ivins' information in the KKG article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kappa_Kappa_Gamma#Anthrax and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImmortalGoddezz#Re:_KKG_talk_page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kappa_Kappa_Gamma#RfC:_Is_Ivins_mention_relevant_or_notable_to_KKG_article

It seems that there is some confusion regarding the placement of the RFC, how the template is to be filled out. Can you please assist and/or clarify? Thanks so much. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * THANKS! 207.237.33.133 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again...wondering about | this edit. Shouldn't RFC's be neutrally worded?  The term "obsession" is not what is needed to be included, only that he had interest in the KKG's and in the KKG article here on Wikipedia.  It's misleading.  Please advise.  Thanks! 207.237.33.133 (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to change it. &mdash;harej // change the rules 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did. My change was reverted by you, and I don't want to edit war. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *SIGH* . RFC lists cannot be edited directly; otherwise, the bot will steamroll over the edits. &mdash;harej // change the rules 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. &mdash;harej // change the rules 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible RFC bot error
The bot removed my RFC from 29 November from Talk:Hoboken, New Jersey. I didn't notice when this happened. An alert editor reinstated it on 1 January, so we lost 4 weeks. Can you help bump this back up? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Works with win7
Can you include the build of win7 you tested AWB with as it was still very early beta and may not work in some later releases Gnevin (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Please unlock this article. --People&#39;s Alliance for Democracy (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I'm waiting. --People&#39;s Alliance for Democracy (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/manual
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/manual, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/manual is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Policies/manual, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

bork bork bork
You know you broke all the links on your useful subpage when you did this right? :) I don't know if you want to mess with moving them, though! On another note -- I'm wondering if we should work on having a bot place all those articles into this category for general tidyness, instead? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the only problem being that the lists are kind of messy, since they're not automagically updated. Would it be better to do by hand w/ the aid of something? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC posting script
Your bot posted the RfC notice to the article instead of the Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you make sure to prefix the page title with "Talk:"? &mdash;harej // change the rules 20:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who filed the RfC. I just noticed it RC Patrolling.  Perhaps you can modify the bot to make sure it doesn't post to mainspace?  -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC posting script 2
Hello. I also did the above mistake, but corrected it. However it's been more than an hour but the bot hasn't listed it on Requests for comment/Biographies. Should I list this manually: Talk:Rick_Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot deleting big chunks of talk archives
I don't know if this has been fixed, as I just caught it and it wasn't corrected at any point, but over the past year the RFCbot has twice removed large portions of the same archived talk pages while trying to remove an RFC. Probably doing it other places as well... is there a way to check if it removes more than just the template? NJGW (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC removed by bot twice
I've twice added an RFC for the Sinn Fein article but twice this has been removed by the bot for absolutely no reason. Can you please fix this. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, however the BOT has now removed the RFC for the third time. Not sure what the problem is here? Valenciano (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're famous
Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WN press passes
Are you the person who does press passe for wikinews? (I was directed here by some one who was not 100% sure) --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I've recently been accredited on wikinews and would like a press pass. my email is pgillett@australianrockerball.com --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain...
Please refrain from removing links from the RFC list. You have done this twice now. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self reverting your edits. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * Happy birthday! :)  Enigma msg  05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot, RFC error
Hi. I have a question about an edit that RFC bot made. It suddenly replaced an apparently valid tag that had an entry in the RFCpolicy list and had not been altered during the preceding 7 days. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried restoring it. If it is removed again, please let me know. &mdash;harej  05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. It's been fine so far, and the RfC's 30 days expire soon. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC Bot
This has to be an error, as it's doing it on other pages as well. Also, it doesn't seem to be able to count correctly. §hep Talk  01:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot error?
I think this is an error with your bot. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Death Threat
Thank you for your concern about the death threat made against me. Fortunately, it was resolved to my satisfaction, however, and the editor censured. I appreciate your concern. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I filed a civility complaint so there should be a log of it. Basically the article Too Beautiful to Live was overrun and vandalized by fans of the show - mostly first time users - upon exhortation of the show. Some of us tried to undo the vandalism which incensed them and caused one of them to make a death threat against me by posting the number of a suicide hotline on my userpage (not my talk page) along with a sinister note I should think about calling it very soon. I lodged a civility complaint which resulted in a warning against the user. The user then made a very public showing of leaving but is still posting as a sock, though I just don't have the energy to continue complaints/investigations at this point as there are only a few of us and a small army of these users (or at least many, many socks) that have come about as a result of the fan club mobilization of the topic of this article and the shouting matches they engage in to overwhelm opposition. So I'm pretty much resigned to letting them have their fan club articles at this point and will just concentrate on editing articles on taxonomy and biology. But, like I said, there should be a log of the original complaint if you'd like to research it, I just didn't save the link and it was too exhaustive and horrible of an experience for me to be emotionally strong enough to delve back into at this point. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the socks of the user who made the threat - User:MikFantastik. He also, I'm pretty sure, posts as Nathalmd, Lew19 and a bunch of others - including pretty much everyone who participated in the AfD discussion for this article, I strongly believe - but I don't have the emotional strength to deal with the attacks and threats of violence to which I would be subjected if I requested investigations. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Messedrocker, here is the link to the diff of the ANI page that covered this incident. Hope this is helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Messedrocker, I've also had a bit of a problem lately with members of this radio shows fan club following me from one contribution or article to the next and aggressively commenting or stirring up trouble/arguments wherever they can on whatever topic. I seem not to be able to get away from them, as though they're trying to send me a message or let me know I'm "being watched." Sometimes I fear even logging on to wikipedia. It's caused me to lose sleep. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCBot gone wild?
Could you take a look at Talk:Keith_Olbermann? I can't get the RFC template to work, and the RFCtool doesn't work for me either for some reason. I suspect the tempalte syntax has changed, but the usage of the template has not been updated because of the existence of the RFCtool. Or, I could have just made a silly mistake. Appreciate your time. Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Ann arbor street (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Login Error
I keep getting a login error when I try to use the RFC tool. My email is verified and I'm logged in. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same. &mdash; neuro (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. I tried adding an RFC in the religious section and that doesn't seem to have worked properly.  I tried fixing it manually but the bot seems to have munged it again. I'd be grateful for any assistance you could provide.  Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Same error using the RfC tool today, double checked everything. I noticed that there had been no new bot activity since 10 Apr and my manual RfC is unprocessed after 6 hours so suspect it just may not be running at the moment.—Ashleyvh (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot did pick up my RfC around 36 hours after setting it up.—Ashleyvh (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ESPERANZA
April fool? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Former username
I never said *you* abused it. It was usurped by a serial vandal who has a pattern of doing that. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
Sorry, what was wrong with this? It's been working fine for the last month. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot Down?
I've noticed a new RFC at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) hasn't showed up for almost 24 hours. There are at least two editors here who have noted that it's been several days. Is something wrong with RFC bot? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been several complaints at WT:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot more userfriendly?
Errors such as "not enough parameters" seem like they can be either programmed away (by having the bot read the section and time and adding something like "No comment made --") or by making the template give an error right away. --Raijinili (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot trouble
Hi, having trouble with the RfC bot. I used the template to create an RfC on Exodus from Lydda. The bot didn't add it to the page. Therefore, I added it manually, and removed an old one about the same article. The bot keeps removing the new one, and restoring the old one e.g. Can you help? SlimVirgin talk| contribs


 * Thanks, Harej, but the talk page now looks like this Is it possible for me just to do it manually?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would the bot do this? This was added entirely manually, not using any of the templates at all. The page does say we're allowed to do that. Can you please stop it from removing things? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Harej, would you mind adding it for me to RfC history and politics in a way that ensures the bot won't remove it. I've been trying to get it to stick for two days. There must be an easier to way to do this. :-( SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Inksplotch did it and the bot has finally picked it up, though only in the history section. I tried to see what you meant with your description of how to add RfCs manually -- "you can only add discussions manually through the 'add a discussion' link on the listings page" -- but I still can't see any way of doing it. Could you rephrase, please, so that I can add it to the instructions page? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Template Error: Dorje Shugden
Any idea what the problem with this was? It appeared to be working correctly- it's been on the RfC page for a while- but the bot just removed it today. Could the parenthesis or semi-colons in the description be causing it to get angry? --Clay Collier (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Clay Collier (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of XXth United States Congress - summary
Somehting apparently went wrong with the deletion of the following articles, as you seem to have accidentally re-created them :

‎*27th United States Congress - summary
 * ‎25th United States Congress - summary
 * 30‎th United States Congress - summary

Passportguy (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The same thing is now also happening with the 11th United States Congress - state delegations (and similar) pages. Passportguy (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[|You might have missed a few]
Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Chaebol marriage diagram.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chaebol marriage diagram.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Plrk (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Puebla F.C.
Hi Harej, You have edited the tag at Talk:Puebla F.C. but it seems to have removed some of the comments diff. I don't understand the tag so could you review and reinstate/tell me I'm an idiot as appropriate!? Ta, Bigger digger (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong. During my marathon tag replacement, before I got a clue, I just wanton replaced the old tags with the new ones. I did this without considering what was in the old tags. I believe I have fixed it. Also, the new tag system is really simple; rather than having to put all the details within the tag, the bot is able to infer the details based on the tag's surroundings. &mdash;harej 15:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd done nothing wrong, I was concerned you had...! :-p
 * Thanks for sorting it out, Bigger digger (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC at ALF
Could you please take a look at Talk:Animal Liberation Front? The RfC there is (I hope) for two listings: soc and pol. However, since the new system started, it's only showing at one. Are dual listings still supported? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw at the talk for RfC that dual listings are not supported now, so I added it manually. But I would like to recommend that the bot be corrected so that it will support dual listings. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC tag
Ah, ok - I fixed it up now. As long as you don't mean 'terminating-by-period' sentence, then this should be good.   M  05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was just some minor issue before with accurately presenting what the issue in question was. Should be good now, thanks for fixing it.   M   06:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What a random holiday. &mdash;harej 01:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Designing your page

 * To begin discussing your page, click here

WP:RM
I think that WP:RM would benefit from a similar approach to your new templates at RFC, because it would simplify the process. I have suggested it in the past but ran into mild resistance and some apathy (Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 11) what do you think? --PBS (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been away off the net for a few days, I'll think it over and get back to you. --PBS (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I put a comment onto the WP:RM talk page as I see thinks have been afoot since I last read the page. --PBS (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

bot malfunction?
Could you please check if this is expected behaviour for the RfC bot?  JN 466  21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do it right next time.  JN 466  21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Translating help
Hi! Can you help me please? I translating to English, can you read and write if it's grammar correct? :

"IN ENDLESS STRUGGLE WITH MATTER AND TIME. IN RIVALRY AND ENMITY WITH OWN SELF" (about human life...)

Thanks --Beyond silence 09:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't much further context... (note because of an other advide OWN SELF repleaced with oneself), any comment? thx --Beyond silence 10:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot malfunction?
Twice RFC bot has readded an RfC entry that I've removed, even though the discussion is no longer marked with an RfC tag (second diff).--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just done it a third time. I'm giving up edit-warring with it, but can you please get it sorted out?--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the bot also seems to be enjoying a bizarre edit war with itself, over at Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is fixed by turning the script off, then turning it back on. I don't know why; does it clear the cache? I will have to talk to Chris G about it. He made the stuff that allows my bot to interface with Wikipedia. &mdash;harej 23:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving template for requested moves
Why are the templates for requested moves being shifted down to the section where the move discussion is taking place? I thought the point of having that template was to alert anyone who went to the talk page that such a discussion is going on. Indeed, Requested moves says to place it "at the top of the talk page". Once it's moved down to the bottom (or wherever the move discussion is), it has reduced visibility to people who aren't specifically looking for it (e.g. people who monitor Requested moves / Category:Requested moves). What's the point of having a big ugly template if it's not being used to increase visibility? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest we work on giving the template a face-lift. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Moveoptions
I noticed that you replaced with  on Template talk:Rest of the World Reconnaissance Satellites. I was wondering why. My understanding is that it is the correct template to use in situations where the title had not yet been decided. --<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 08:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Requested Moves process is being migrated over to User:RFC bot, and support for moveoptions is not supported as of this time. What I did in its place is a cheap kludge which is only temporary. Moveoptions will find its way back into the mix of things. &mdash;harej 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour articles
Yes, the discussion is old. It was stopped because of faulty input data. The fault was recently identified and the discussion resumed.

I also wondered why the move down the page. I think it should be at the top. That the bot requires it elsewhere is the tail wagging the dog. Not all talk pages already have bunches of templates at the top and I think it important to draw attention to the discussion. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves
Please follow the procedure. You are listing articles in the wrong places and not using the correct templates. If I get tired of trying to cleanup after you, I'll simply delete those that are not correctly nominated. This especially applies to those you added to the section for discussions that have been listed for the required maximum time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively odd comment to find on the talk page of the editor who is maintaining the bot that is creating the content on WP:RM. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Eli Whitney Students Page
Harej,

The Eli Whitney Students Page did have at least two third party sources, though one of them came from Yale University. As the Program is its own entity (it is not under the direct administrative purview of Yale College's Freshman Admissions but is instead part of a Special Programs division) it is incorrect to treat the said citations as having derived from non-third party sources. The article should be reinstated. By removing the article you effectively committed an act of censorship, no matter how indirect or unconscious it appears to have been. Such acts do not reflect well on Wikipedia and are a disservice, since useful and important information is expunged from the site without good reason; the claim that all Wikipedia articles must have third party sources is simply not true, as evidenced by the many articles that seem to persist regardless of source verification or proper citation. If an article is incorrect, lies and/or does not provide informational value for inquiring visitors that visit a particular page, then only those reasons specifically should justify the removal of an article. The article should be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.31.158 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot
I can only go by the mirror, which clearly identifies itself as 1.1 now, after the format was changed to look more like the original format. 1.0 produced the simplified order, not 1.1. There is no 1.2 yet. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting from RfCbot at Requests for comment/Biographies
That bot is currently formatting that RfC page (but not all of them) as "RfC requested:* link to entry" . It looks like it needs a newline between the colon and the asterisk so the first entry displays as the rest of them. Thanks for a very helpful bot. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is very bizarre. I do not know how that happened. In any case I have fixed it. &mdash;harej (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Here we gooooooo! &mdash;harej (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd and recreation question
User:Stilltim had created several article forks of the ordinal United States Congress articles, which were deleted per Articles for deletion/46th United States Congress - summary. The user has recreated a set of those forks, recreating the same format as 42nd United States Congress - state delegations that were deleted per the Afd. The recreations are at 42nd United States Congress - state detail, of which several have been created. I blanked and redirected one, but I don't think that was the proper approach. How do we go about getting these new recreated forks, which are substantially identical the the deleted articles? Would a Speedy Delete criteria apply, or do we need to go through an entirely new Afd?DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't sure. I tagged them as speedy as appropriate.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot is deleting without moving
Your bot is deleting moves without actually moving articles. Please look into this ASAP.Rapparee71 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot deleted RfC prematurely
Your bot deleted an RfC within a few hours, not at 30 days, here Not sure why. I manually added the RfC back. Yaf (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same thing happened to me twice this evening, without the article apparently being added to the RFC discussion, so I've also added one manually. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

''from Yaf's talk page: It appears you solved the problem yourself. Simply, if the bot does not detect a timestamp within the first paragraph (this limitation has eluded me for some time), then there is no set time and so the bot has no time to compare to when checking to see if the RFC is expired. It will therefore think the RFC dates back to January 1, 1970, making the RFC about 39 and a half years old. &mdash;harej (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)''
 * I surmised what must be happening, having written similar compiler algorithms previously. Why not simply add a check for the presence of a time stamp in the first paragraph; if none is found, simply parse the subsequent paragraphs, one at a time, until a time stamp is found.  A simple recursive algorithm, very similar to what many compilers do, would solve the problem.  As soon as the first time stamp is found, you would have the start date needed to decide whether the RfC is past its date code 30 day limit. Most of the code should be the same as at present. Yaf (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A similar error happened here. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported the issue at the WP:Administrator's notice board. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move request eliminated without reason
Hi, your bot deleted my request without any explanation. Since it is your bot and it did it twice, and I don't know why I'm unable to move myself the page, could you please try to do it? the reason for th move is already there. Thank in you in advance. Kauderwelsch (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I truly appreciate all your help in this matter, thanks.

Kauderwelsch (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot down?
It doesn't seem to have updated WP:RM for the last 15 hours or so. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15 hours and 12 minutes. Or should I say 22? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking into the matter. &mdash;harej (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have attributed the problems to true lunacy. Normalcy should be back. &mdash;harej (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Down again. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining WP:MFD
Hey, I don't know how familiar you are with WP:MFD, but I was wondering if your bot might also be used to maintain that page, as well. We might need to add some sort of invisible tag to mfd top for your bot to lock onto so that it can know to remove the discussions from the page, I don't know. If you can help, leave a message over at WT:MFD. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Harej. On seeing your comment at WT:MFD, it seems that you know what your doing with bots, and you might be able to help. I have a wish. I wish that I could easily locate all open AfDs that have been relisted. Can you do this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hi there. I am posting this from my phone so it may be funny looking. In any case I believe such a list can be generated by finding a cross section between pages that transclude the relisted template and pages that transclude the afd category template. I could have this list autogenerated on a daily or semidaily basis. Sounds worthwhile? —harej (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)"

Definitely sounds worthwhile. I'd like to contribute to interesting/difficult AfDs, and this would help. Currently, loading a day's AfD page grinds my computer nearly to a halt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

!!
Holy crap, is it really you? I remember you from waaay back. Back when my username was "Messedrocker". &mdash;harej (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last thing I remember,
 * I couldn't take any more.
 * I had to find the passage back
 * to the life I had before
 * Relax, said the Rambot,
 * We are programmed to receive.
 * You can log out any time you like
 * But you can never leave.


 * I remember you. You awarded me my first proper barnstar, back when I was unhealthily interested in getting one. Its good to see that you're still around. How've you kept? My longevity isn't anything spectacular, though. You just edit and time passes around you. I did make an underwhelming admin once I started needing the tools, and... that's about it. The Anome - now there's an impressive long-timer. --Kiz o r  19:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Retired
Just to let you know that, per request on the talk page, I've reverted your edit to Template:Retired. Please follow-up there if you wish. Regards, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

rfc for CT NRHP HDs, incorrect content to the RFC bot
I started the CT NRHP-related RFC, but it was the first RFC i opened and i messed up and didn't close my RFC question with a signature, and/or otherwise messed up. I have manually edited the RFC list twice, but it keeps including the first response to the RFC (starting with "Of course not...." in response to the question, and the signature of that commentator (Polaraon). Can the content of the RFC field somewhere be revised, to limit down to the question i originally posed, and my signature?  Thanks. doncram (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did the RfC bot remove my tag?
I placed a tag on an article and the RfCbot removed it almost immediately as being expired. Why? Padillah (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of invitation for community comments on Category_talk:Discrete_distributions
Please explain also the removal of this posting: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology inviting community comments on Category_talk:Discrete_distributions. Thanks. 128.97.129.135 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Timestamp for WP:RM
I added this and also requested that unsigned2 add (UTC). However, when I tried to add it manually, the bot did not find the timestamp. Is it looking for the year as well? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking for a whole date in the standard format (as in, the results of ). I've changed the directions for Template:Unsigned and Template:Unsigned2 to encourage the use of five tildes to make a timestamp instead of doing it manually. &mdash;harej (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized why that was a bad idea. &mdash;harej (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, I updated the documentation to show the "encouraged" style. (Besides, why shouldn't it be in a standard way?) &mdash;harej (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that your rawsig uses an &amp;mdash;, which will mess up the bot, and that unsigned2 introduces an &amp;mdash; as well, which will also mess up the bot. Rather than changing all the sigs to remove the mdash, can the bot look only for the first mdash? 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue lies in the procedure where the bot filters out the requested move (Oldtitle --> Newtitle) on the page so that it isn't redundantly listed. The issue was that I used a greedy expression, making it continue going until the last emdash instead of the first. I don't see why I did this, but now I have changed it. &mdash;harej (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the code to make it not greedy. As far as I know, the problem is solved. If it is not actually solved, please be sure to tell me again. I am sorry for being such an incompetent programmer. &mdash;harej (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well compared to what I could do you are doing fantastically. I thought I saw a new listing pop up in the middle of the listings, but it was just formatting, though that does happen occasionally when someone has been discussing a move, and then later on adds the movereq template. Sometimes even years later. Those I move to a new section with a current date. The ones a few days earlier it probably doesn't matter. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war
Where exactly do you see consensus for such as move? Note that such moves should be decided not by you, but by consensus, and that unfortunately simply does not exist. I'll have to ask you to please withdraw your "decision", as it is clearly against WP:CONSENSUS. Offliner (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Second that, particularly as "War in South Ossetia" was not even taken into account, which together with "South Ossetia War", has as many results as "Russia-Georgia war". Unfortunately, we can't use War in South Ossetia, as this is a disambiguation due to the 1991-1992 war. Hence, why it should be at 2008 South Ossetia war, and even moreso as Offliner is correct in saying that there was nothing near consensus in the move request. --Russavia Dialogue 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided to respond right on this talk page to keep the discussion centralized. I went with what arguments were made. The most prevalent argument I have seen is that we should go with the most common name. Almost all of the objections had nothing to do with naming the page, but a procedural objection; "we had this discussion a few months ago" is not a reason to not move a page, but a reason to not have a discussion. The oppose votes which were relevant to the name of the page did not catch on. As a result, the most popular argument, the one that gained the most consensus and echoes what is written on the naming conventions guideline, is that we should go with the most common name.
 * That is my interpretation of the discussion. It's definitely possible that I went about this the wrong way, and I am willing to do a "revote". This time, however, I only want to see arguments that have to do with the page title. Furthermore, I would like to organize it differently so that each reason for having whichever title is a subsection, and also, please try to be more collegiate about this. As entertaining as it was to read your nastiness, it's not necessarily convincing. (Thankfully, it did not factor into my decision making, as I lost track of who was being nasty to whom). After I post this, I will change the result of the discussion and set up the structure for a new one. No excuses this time. &mdash;harej (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Meran
And where, in Talk:Meran, do you see consensus for the nineteenth-century archaism Meran? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be dealing with it badly; but I've been watching these same editors misstate our policy and come up with fraudulent evidence far too long. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty
Hi there. I nominated three albums by this group for deletion, Dog.House (album), Fingernails (album), and Peace Day (film). Someone then nominated the band itself for deletion. Somehow (a result of different people voting for each nom) the band was deleted, but Dog.House (album) and Fingernails (album) were not - it was decided to merge them into the band's page. But then the band's page was deleted. What should be done now? Obviously albums by a non-notable band are also non-notable (well, at least in this case). Should I renominate them, or can they be speedily deleted? Thanks. Conical Johnson (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your bot
Your bot just blanked the Honduras coup talk page. i reverted it. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The same happened at Talk:Neuengamme just now. Jafeluv (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bagram Air Base → Airfield
This move simply needs to happen. As it is now it is providing misinformation on the name of the installation. I don't think this can be argued under the common name ideas as every person on this installation (which makes up a very large number that I can't relay) call it Bagram Airfield -- more than any Google search will show. Not only that, people who have been here before call it such. The human count of people who call it by its proper name or the shorter version, BAF, outnumber any other count I imagine one could gather. I'm a bit annoyed as I really would like to see accurate information here.. and I'm really disappointed that this is considered OK as it makes me curious if other articles are named incorrectly because of a misconception too. With that I'm also taking a look at WP:Ignore_all_rules which makes me believe I might need to if I want this article named properly. Whats your view? -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 08:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Replied on my talk page -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 08:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, replied on my talk page. Also, I've contact Public Affairs in an attempt to see why they're calling the page "Bagram Air Base" yet every reference made to articles and images is "Bagram Airfield". -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I spoke with the PA folks a few days ago and they made the adjust to the 455 AEW website to state the proper name . -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yoghurt →Yogurt
First, thank you for helping with the backlog at WP:RM. However, I'm thinking this one might have done too quickly... did you read the entire discussion? Whether google tests override the regional variant ceasefire was not the only issue presented, by far. The following issues were also raised:


 * 1) This move has been proposed multiple times since it was moved from its original place at Yogurt.  While there has never been a clear consensus to move it back to Yogurt, there has never been a clear consensus to keep it at Yoghurt.  There were several good arguments presented for why this pattern will probably stop, and can only be stopped, by moving the article back to Yogurt.
 * 2) The MOS states that, ""Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English."  The h-variant is not used in many varieties of English, the no-h-variant is used in all varieties of English, therefore the no-h-variant meets the MOS guideline while the h-variant does not.
 * 3) A reliable source was cited that discusses the point that usage of the h-variant is disappearing even in the U.K.

In short, attempts to achieve a ceasefire by leaving the article at Yoghurt have failed miserably. It's time to give Yogurt a chance.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "I don't see it as wise to rename the article until there is a lot of support from people from countries that traditionally add the 'h'." "   That's an incredibly unreasonable and impossible standard to satisfy, and ignores all of the arguments made in favor of moving Yoghurt to Yogurt.  It also violates WP:NPOV.  People from countries that traditionally add the 'h' are likely to be biased and emotional about protecting their tradition.  This is not a case of where one variant is used in one area, and another variant in another area.  I repeat, the no-h variant is commonly used and easily recognized throughout the English speaking world.  The h-variant is only selectively used here and there, and it's usage is diminishing even there.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA nomination
Regretfully I must inform you I have declined the nomination - detailed reasoning is on the RFA subpage. Exxolon (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ojibwa→Ojibwe
Not all possible participants have taken note of the article move vote. However, when the bot removed the "request for move" notice, it removed the entire page. Undoing bot removal. Will take the notice to next wider group. CJLippert (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MFD
I take that RFCBot has not yet undertaken removing closed discussions from MFD?--Aervanath (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has not. I am still trying to think of the best way of carrying out archival. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. No rush. :)--Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yoghurt
Discussion is starting up again in the talk page trying to form justification to move the article. Essentially it seems to me like a third RM. Is there a way we can take the discussion to another level while it's at a point which I think is fairly undramatic? I really think this situation merits the attention of an admin experienced with the spirit of the national variant section of the MOS. - BalthCat (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Full-date unlinking bot
Thanks so much for your thorough and prompt initiation of the next step! I think the RfC should have a watchlist notice. Do you think you can apply for one? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Relisted AfD debates
I have nominated relisted afd debates for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM is broken...
[] JPG-GR (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now everything's listed in the backlog. Jafeluv (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Multimove
Hi, the multimoves seem to be acting up. See Talk:Copa Sudamericana 2009 and WP:RM. Jafeluv (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!
-GTBacchus(talk) 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: coding while tired
I once had to debug code that was written while the guy's wife was in the hospital just before she had the baby. Now that was an adventure...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Beats heck out of me -- my boss didn't have any complaints later, so I must have gotten it reasonably close....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The English Patient
Hello, I edited The English Patient (film) today and noticed it was on indefinite semi-protection. The rash of vandalism took place last May, and the article seems to have been protected long enough. Any change of removing the protection to open it up to everyone to edit, basically? I can watchlist the article and keep an eye on it to see if there's another spurt of vandalism. — Erik (talk • contrib) 06:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Happy editing! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RMlink
Hi! Since WP:RM is now updated by the bot, there doesn't seem to be any use for Template:RMlink anymore. I'm thinking of listing it at TfD. Is it still needed for something? Or does the bot use the template? Jafeluv (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not being used is a reason to delete a template, so I think I'm going to go ahead and list it. If someone comes up with a reason to keep it, the better. Thanks for your help – WP:RM would be a very different place without you and your bot. Jafeluv (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking for manual close on a process
This matter has your name at the top, though I can see the discussion had been going on for a time. If you are an uninvolved administrator, I ask you consider manually closing this process which has certainly run out the 30-day clock. If not, please help me find an appropriate uninvolved admin. Thanks in any case. BusterD (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC Bot flagging of broken requests
Regarding putting RFC that shouldn't be RFC (wrong namespace) in the "malformed" section (instead of by date), looks pretty easy to implement. Here's the (untested obviously) approach:

+	if (!preg_match("/^Talk:/", $title)) { +		$maladdition .= $theaddition; +		$oldmaladdition .= $oldaddition; +		$summmaladdition .= $summaddition; +	elseif (date("F d, Y", $time) == $d1) { -	if (date("F d, Y", $time) == $d1) { But I think it's a moot point now that got a huge red warning that anyone following a date-section link would see. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)
Hi! Would you mind taking another look at the move discussion here that you closed as "this will never get consensus"? It seems to me that there was actually a clear consensus on that page to move to Simon Sheppard (activist). Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you meant only the proposed title. However, isn't it entirely possible to close a move discussion as a move to another title if there's consensus to do so? Opening another discussion when 5 out of 7 participants explicitly supported move to "(activist)" (and the remaining two didn't oppose it either) seems unnecessary to me. Jafeluv (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I took care of this.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:For future reference
Woops, thanks. I was unaware that it worked that way. It's actually a pretty ingenious design. Did you come up with it? I see you created the backlog page. Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That still is an interesting concept. Well, thanks for the note. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral of Constance
There was a consensus that "Foo Cathedral" was better than "Cathedral of Foo", though one opposer on what to call Foo in this case. The article should be moved to "Constance Cathedral", which would make everyone slightly happier. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the conversation, Harej was certainly correct in his close of the original move request. However, I can see no objections to Constance Cathedral in the conversation, and several comments in support of it, so I would say that Johnbod's request is perfectly reasonable.--Aervanath (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP reform
I really hope you will help out at this discussion, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sleaszy Rider Records
Hello. Your bot is removing my requested move from the Requested moves list. The move that I'm proposing has to do with the above record label. For more information, see the request. I do not know why RFC Bot is doing this. Am I doing something incorrect while I am sending the complaint? I might be, since that was my first time sending such a request. Thanks. Backtable Speak to Me about what I have done  05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will do that. Thanks for the information. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of WikiProjects
Yes, I did. I also have the number of listed participants and measures of the activity on their project talk pages for each one. I'll be putting the entire list online soon, but if you want I can put together a wikitable for now. – ClockworkSoul 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know... I'm a little slow sometimes. And by sometimes, I mean always. Would an Excel file be more convenient? – ClockworkSoul 04:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange behaviour of RFCbot
RFC bot has wiped seven Templates/Redirects/Categories for Discussion pages and replaced them with the content of Articles_for_deletion/2004_MLL_Collegiate_Draft. Its edit history calls this "Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates".

here, here, here, here, here, here, here

What brought that on? —Paul A (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An attempt to have non-AFDs not listed as AFDs. I have reverted my change to the code back to a version I know works. Carry on, my wayward son . &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Gilan
Dear Harej, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to extend the time for discussion about the name change, becuse I have lately seen this discussion. user:Parthava only wanted to inform us in the gilaki wikipedia, because there are many people in that wiki whose knowledge in this issue was imprtant to notice, and it was not at all something like Canvassing. The name Republic of Gilan is the most used name for this Republic nowadays, even in Iran's history books taught in the schools it is refered to Republic of Gilan. It is the most common name. if you use google books search, You 'll find 494 results for " Republic of gilan", while there is only 42 results for " Persian Socialist Soviet Republic" or 133 results for "Soviet Socialist Republic of iran". The current name is misleading, it says persian republic as if it included all of Iran, but we all know that this republic was limited to the borders of Gilan. Also see this: this sicaspi 09:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)
 * If we can prove it, will you move the page? sicaspi 09:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs)

Editnotice
Hi there! I just opened Requested moves/current for editing (don't ask why) and noticed a big comment at the top saying that the page is updated by the bot. I was just thinking, wouldn't the warning work better as an editnotice? I was just going to be bold and create one but it seems they can only be created and edited by admins. The upside of an editnotice is that you can have links and other wikimarkup there instead of just plain text and, if I understand correctly, an editnotice will show up when you edit a single section as well. What do you think? Jafeluv (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to write one in my sandbox, and then post it to you. Get back to you later! Jafeluv (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one on my userpage now – you can try it by going to my and clicking "edit". Here is a direct link. The code is located at User:Jafeluv/Editnotice. To create the editnotice, go to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves/current, create the page and copy the code there. Let me know if you want changes to the warning. Hope this helps! Jafeluv (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayutthaya
Hi Harej. Looks like you've accidentally bungled the Ayutthaya move. Talk:Ayutthaya (city) now redirects to Talk:Ayutthaya, which I don't think you intended. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it now. Thank you for bringing it up. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like that's done it. Thanks. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Walensee
User:Docu reverted your move at Walensee - could you take a second look over the decision again, decide on the correct action and explain to the users involved? Knepflerle (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

wowowow
Harej, you know, you're the first person who's given this category any positive feedback whatsoever!!! (your post was here) Has the world gone mad?! The first response was a disaster. Please permit me to engage in a dramatic reenactment (taking certain artistic liberties):
 * Editor 1: simply copying, pasting, and citing is called WP:PLAGIARISM.
 * Me: It isn't plagiarism if it's cited. PLAGIARISM says, "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. ... the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies."
 * Editor 2: My problem with this is that we don't want our editors to take the lazy way out and simply cut and paste material from other sources.  We want them to read the sources and paraphrase what they say.
 * Me: I definitely agree that they should read the source, but why should they then take the time to paraphrase it?  That sounds like a waste of time.  If the statement in the original is better, they should use the statement in the original. Especially when the original source was written by a professional, full-time, paid, scholarly author -- e.g., CRS Reports.  (That being said,  it certainly is a tasteless proposal.)
 * Editor 2: I don't mean to be uncivil, but if you can not see the problem with what you are proposing, you really should not be editing an encyclopedia.


 * Editor 1: As you've already started it here, you might as well leave it here. And I agree with Editor 2 - your proposal is a bad idea, and that you've already done this on some 1000+ articles and actually claim those stolen stubs are "high quality" is an insult to editors who actually have bothered to do real work in crafting high quality articles.
 * Me: well, it certainly is a tasteless proposal ...

You know, I do respect editors like Blueboar and Collectonian, who paid attention in college freshman writing. But if they want to treat Wikipedia like a term paper, the real work on Wikipedia is going to be done by 14-year-olds using this category.

Sorry, I just had to vent ... even to a stranger ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh.
 * Guess i'll take a cold shower and go to bed, then. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

redheaded slut
haha, sorry, I'm a punchy mood. That's just too funny. YES, for heaven's sake, let's disambiguate all drink names! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is my request being erased?
Any problems? G&D's Ice Cream Cafe back to → G&D's, its already been discussed @ Talk:G&D's Ice Cream Cafe Cheers ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield City Centre
Without wanting to be rude, would you kindly explain how one solitary opposing comment which runs contrary to English grammar amounts to "no consenssus"? Thanks, 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested_moves/current
Something weird's going on the Requested moves/current page which seems to originate from your RFC bot... Robsinden (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert straw poll on including/removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section
Hi, this may seem rather trivial but I'm trying to gauge community consensus on including or removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section on the Adam Lambert article which you have been in some way recently involved. The poll is here. Your time is appreciated. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process
There is a move discussion in progress on User talk:Harej/Scratchpad which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my child. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the advice. In all the years I've been here, that was the first MfD I'd ever closed. Many thanks for the tip. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany_for_deletion
Could you explain that close a bit? I'm seeing a fairly clear delete consensus there. The keep arguments were weak, and there were far more folk thinking delete than keep, especially if you factor the author out. I'd rather not go to DRV till I hear from you. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can very well see how this is disputatious. There were many people commenting in favor of deletion, yet the delete remarks were predominantly due to the page being a page that attacked specific editors. The page was then edited to remove references to specific users; I know I did not recognize any attacks against users when I read the essay later into the debate. I suppose it was not "no consensus" so much as "the main delete reason is not exactly applicable anymore", which was where I was getting at with my closing remark. Also keep in mind there was significant support for the notion of users have essays in their user space as long as users were not being attacked. Of course, you are welcome to take the dispute to deletion review. I personally don't like the page, which of course made it hard for me to acknowledge that the main pro-delete argument was weakened. &mdash;harej (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why did your bot remove the section on Mikvah I had created just a little earlier. See. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished. There is no reason for the bot to be removing it from the list. &mdash;harej (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I added it again, by using the Move template anew on Mikvah's talkpage. The only thing is that the entrance is now listed on Requested moves/current with today's date, instead of a few weeks ago. Perhaps the editor who made the first request made some mistake. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was yours truly. And it does look like I did it the wrong way then. See . Debresser (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the issue was that it was being listed in the backlog instead of where you wanted it to be. &mdash;harej (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Billy Corgan - Tribune Ad reduced.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Billy Corgan - Tribune Ad reduced.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative school move request
Can you re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop? Esthertaffet (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MFD
Actually, I've just had an edit conflict with you when trying to put the bottom template in. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to lecture you on proper template use, but I saw you did it right for one and screwed up the other. &mdash;harej (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two, not one. I just closed three discussions.  See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MFD - User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses
I don't understand why you closed this MFD without allowing it to run the full seven days or reaching a decison. I was one of the editors who set this discussion off, and I'd intended to add some additional comments regarding WMF policy as it applies to the dispute, in light of some of the objections to deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the dates and saw that they were seven days apart. I apologize for accidentally disregarding the timestamps and closing the debate some 15 hours early. Still, considering how active the debate was, I think a lot of what people needed to say was said, notwithstanding your planned commentary. &mdash;harej (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your close
You basically closed the Merridew MfD as "delete because I agree with the delete arguments." That's unfortunate, and should never happen. A closer's job is to divine consensus, not pick a side in the discussion. If you wished to pick a side, you should have contributed to the discussion, not enforced your view through use of the tools. Unit Anode  05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I closed the discussion as delete because the delete-votes were based on Wikipedia policy and keep votes were arguing minute points and things not Wikipedia policy. Honestly, I liked the page, but Wikipedia has opted to have very strict copyright standards as policy. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your view of the situation, which you aren't allowed to simply substitute for no consensus being reached at the discussion. I don't frequent many XfD's, but this is one of the worst closes I've seen, both as to your not paying attention enough to notice you were closing it a full 15 hours early, and as to your basically simply disregarding that no consensus to delete was reached, and deleting it anyway. Unit  Anode  06:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it to deletion review where I will bear extreme apathy. My deletion was based on the solid policy arguments made. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's BS and you know it. DRV rarely overturns a deletion close, as the burden of proof is shifted. That's convenient for you, and a huge flaw in the deletion process. This is quite ironic, as I'm actually something of a deletionist, but this close was just terrible. But you have your tools to enforce your view, and that's that. Have a good wikilife. Unit  Anode  06:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm open to having my actions undone (undelete it unilaterally! see what I care!), but honestly, policy is clear on this. Non-free content and user space don't mix. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's certainly your view of the matter, which should have been expressed as an argument in the discussion, not substituted for what was clearly no consensus in an early and errant close. I also note you "w/e (whatever)" edit summary. Unit  Anode  06:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading my edit summaries. I'm practically begging you to undelete the page, since you are convinced my deletion was against policy instead of not doing a blind vote-count. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not an administrator (should have known, stupid snide me), but because I feel like it I re-opened that discussion. In fact, I am listing it for another week. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. Does that in some disqualify me from thinking that an early close of a mixed discussion was a poor decision? Unit  Anode  06:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. No, I did not mean it like that at all. What I meant was, I was speaking as though you could readily undelete the page, even though you don't have the tools to. It has nothing to do with your cognitive abilities. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite being in opposition to this outcome, I think your decision is a good one. Any chance you're interesting in "helping" Wikiquote? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're being snide or not, so I'll assume you're being sincere. (I, on the other hand, am in an asshole mood at the moment). Apparently, I am not allowed to enforce established policy, so I will leave it up to someone else. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am being conflicted. The close was a good one, based on the local policy, and it didn't open the door for some nasty precedents to be set.  My reference to Wikiquote will make more sense if you read the meta discussion mentioned in my oppose. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I am too slow... John Vandenberg (chat) 06:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reopening the discussion. Perhaps the next day will see consensus coalesce, perhaps not. Either way, your undeletion and reopening of the discussion is appreciated. Unit Anode  06:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't bother me about it again.  &mdash;harej (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi: User:Davenbelle/sidebar — Jack Merridew 06:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm sorry to see it go, personally. &mdash;harej (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points... first, if you're the closing admin of a contentious discussion, it behooves you to make a good, thorough evaluation of the arguments, and in your closing summary, show that you've read and analysed them carefully, and closed based on the strength of the arguments. If you let your own feelings show through, you're likely to run into considerable trouble. Your analysis should be dispassionate. The actual close was pretty good, but some of the comments given after it weren't. Second, if people come to your talk page to engage you in discussion, it's best not to be snide, flippant, or "in an asshole mood" with them. Their concerns should be treated with dignity and respect, rather than blown off. Third, if you chose to extend for a week, instead of just restoring the original closing time, perhaps you should use the standard "relisted to gain a better consensus" boilerplate phrasing so there's no question about what you were doing. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to be flippant, I just ended up that way. I don't know what was with me last night, but I was not in the mood to be bothered. &mdash;harej (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nod. Perhaps sometimes it's best not to say anything (or, if need be, have left the close to others)? ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)