User talk:Ost316/Archive 4

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. When you recently edited Dartmoor Zoological Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugo (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marlboro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Ost316, thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I've recently created, about the novel, Donkey Punch (novel), much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hadn't noticed how new it was and I hope that it helped. Happy editing. —Ost (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Krogzilla
Hi. You added tags the article Krogzilla, questioning its notability and saying that it overly relies on primary sources. Personally, I am not sure that either of these are warranted. Yes, it is a YouTube series, but it was created by a professional filmmaker (his film Hoodwinked! made over $100 million worldwide and starred such famous actors as Anne Hathaway, Glenn Close, and Jim Belushi), features professional actors, and has been mentioned in USA Today, Variety, the Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Weekly. Is it one of the more notable articles on Wikipedia? Certainly, not. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still notable enough to have its own article. The article does heavily rely on primary sources, but it also includes a source from Entertainment Weekly and two from USA Today, and I am not sure why it should be a problem to source the official website of the series' creator for production info. --Jpcase (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know anything about the series and I was just suggesting that it warranted additional scrutiny to demonstrate its notability. Simply put, primary sources are not valid for determining notability, which requires demonstration of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also important is that notability is not inherited through the notability of another topic like Hoodwinked. Of the three third party sources, Krogzilla is only mentioned in the "TV on the Web" list. Consequently, as the article stands now, it is not showing that the subject is notable. The inclusion of information from reliable third party sources that cover the series in detail would be needed. If series notability is demonstrated, I would also caution against the miscellaneous information after each episode summary; they could be considered being given undue weight if the independent sources don't cover them. —Ost (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake. You are right that Krogzilla is not mentioned in the Entertainment Weekly article or the USA Today article (though this article does cover the YouTube initiative that led to the show's creation). That said, this series has been mentioned by name in articles from Variety and the Los Angeles Times, as well as Animation Magazine  and cartoonbrew.com . I know that this isn't a large amount, but it should be enough to prove the show's notability. These articles were not needed as references, but if you feel that it would be a good idea, I can add them as external links.


 * I was not trying to argue that Hoodwinked! makes Krogzilla notable. I was explaining that the involvement of a professional filmmaker (Cory Edwards) and a professinonal cast should be enough to make the series notable, in addition to its coverage by respected, independent news sources.


 * I'm not sure why the production information for the individual episodes is a problem. Independent sources are needed for opinions or interpretations; that's what the USA Today "TV on the Web" reference is for . Everything sourced by Cory Edwards' official website is a fact, pertaining to the show's development or production. What more reliable source for production information is there, than the creator himself? Its really no different from citing a DVD commentary or an interview. It certainly wouldn't be acceptable to use Edwards' site to illustrate notability of the series, but as a source of production information, it should be fine. --Jpcase (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to investigate and reply. I'd have to look more closely at the sources—though I don't have time now— but it sounds like they'd help in establishing notability. If you have time, working them into the article would improve its quality. Basically, though, WP:NOTINHERITED still applies for Hoodwinked/Cory Edwards promoting notability. Their notability doesn't detract from Krogzilla's, but it also doesn't add to notability (in the Wikipedia sense). Conversely, the existence of the Cory Edwards article actually makes it feasible for Krogzilla to be merged to it in lieu of notability.
 * As for the other information from the Cory Edwards site, while it may be factual, that doesn't necessarily make it relevant for Wikipedia. WP:UNDUE may apply because it needs "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", while WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:USEFUL provide additional rationale for not including information just because some may appreciate it. I didn't pour over that first-party info, so it may be that there is notable information, but some that I read sounded more like WP:TRIVIA. —Ost (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These sources really don't include any information that is not already a part of the article and referenced with another source, so as I said, I will simply add them as external links. In all honesty, the articles don't really contain a lot of detail on Krogzilla. Their main focus is on the YouTube channel that airs the series, but Krogzilla is mentioned briefly in all of them. Personally though, I feel that even a brief mention by Variety and The Los Angeles Times, along with a couple of smaller, but still professional news sources, and placement on a "Best of" list by USA Today is enough to confer notability on a series.


 * I am not sure whether Krogzilla should be judged by the criteria of web content WP:WEB, but the criteria for film WP:NF states that the significant involvement of a notable person may be enough to confer notability on a topic. Certainly if a webseries was produced by Steven Spielberg or starred Tom Cruise, their involvement would be enough to prove the series' notability (as long as some reliable, independent news sources could also be located).


 * It may be that I am misunderstanding the idea behind undue weight, but the main point seems to be that minority viewpoints shouldn't be over-represented. The information contained on Cory Edwards' website is not a "viewpoint". They're facts that simply haven't been mentioned by any other sources. As I said, Krogzilla is not incredibly notable, even though I feel that it is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. Thus, it is not surprising that in depth production information has not been included in something like Variety. Even bits of information on a more notable topic may only be available from a single source. If this were an article about say, a major current event, then I would understand the necessity of broad coverage for any bit of information included in the article. But most film/televsion articles probably include information that was only ever given in one interview or one behind the scenes DVD feature, and I don't see why this would be a problem.


 * The episode development and casting information contained in these sections is certainly more encyclopedic than what is warned against in WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:USEFUL, though I probably would not be opposed to removing some of it. I wrote the article, and as I was writing it, I wasn't sure what exactly to do with all of the behind-the-scenes information on the individual episodes. I felt that much of it was relevant to the article, but I am not entirely pleased with how well I incorporated it. I would be glad with another editor re-writing or re-organizing the article and if they chose to remove some of the information on the individual episodes, I would not be opposed to that. However, I would be strongly opposed to the removal of all of this information. --Jpcase (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position, but I'm not convinced that notability is established. Brief mentions in reliable sources are typical cases of not receiving significant coverage. I'm not familiar enough with the WP:NF exception for notability through significant involvement, but I'm not convinced that it applies, especially since this isn't a film. Moreover, WP:WEB specifically has a section about how notability isn't inherited.


 * I've already spent more time on this page than I planned. Originally, I was merely pointing out problems with it, but now that I've learned more about the supporting sources it, I would feel bad if I ignored the weak basis for notability. This discussion should involve more than us anyway, so I proposed deletion, partially to get visibility Articles for deletion/Krogzilla. I hope that you understand that this isn't personal, but notability feels less likely the more that I learn about the Wikipedia-accepted support for the series. I welcome you or anyone else to put forth your notability beliefs and provide more sources if possible. —Ost (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I don't take it personally at all, and agree that opening this up to a wider discussion is the right thing to do. Of course, I did express my viewpoint at the Articles for Deletion page and hope that other editors will agree with it, but I will comply with whatever the majority consensus is. Thanks for the time you've been willing to devote to this discussion. --Jpcase (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lego Racers (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center of balance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Bond edits
Thanks for the recent updates to the Bond pages. However, could you please note the "Use dmy dates" tags and not use the shortened date format? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was using tools and hadn't noticed the tag. I'll try to be more cautious. —Ost (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, you may want to note somewhere that you're using the template to refer to references as well as the article body. Template:Use dmy dates mentions that it has "almost always been used to indicate date styles in the body of the articles". —Ost (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cosmonkey
Just thought I'd let you know that I've added a reference from Entertainment Weekly to the Roger Cosmonkey article. Since this is a reliable, independent source and I believe that it is adequate for establishing the webcomic's notability, I have removed the referencing and notability tags. If you feel that either of these tags are still necessary though, please let me know. --Jpcase (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on the page. Typically, I'd still use Template:refimprove as but one reference rarely is enough to confer notability. That being said, I also noticed others that would also show notability. This is especially true since the sources have more than mentions. But I didn't go through them to make sure that they're reliable; the Examiner one, for instance, is considered a spam link. So, I think that the topic could use more sourcing so that a casual reader could see the notability without a web search, but I'm not going to split hairs. —Ost (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Cheers for typo fix at RfD. I'm surprised I didn't spot that myself! Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated refs
In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Console_wars&diff=532426378&oldid=532424630 this edit], you used some tool (it's not clear whether it was Checklinks or Advisor.js) to notice that two refs named "MDB" were not identical, and changed one copy to be named "autogenerated1" instead. But it turns out that these actually were the same ref, just one had an extra link added to a Google translation. The same happened with two refs named "vghistory", where the difference was in the formatting of the accessdate. It might be a good idea to watch out for that sort of thing in the future when your tool introduces "autogenerated" ref names. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. It would be Checklinks that did it, but is there really a problem with what it did? I didn't think that refs should be defined twice and two refs shouldn't use the same name if they're different. I agree that the ideal situation would be to add the other information to the ref that was lacking it and I will try to pay attention to catch this case if I see it again, but I would think that separating is better than leaving it alone. Otherwise, an editor could think that they are changing the ref, only to have it overwritten later on the page. Of course, User:Dispenser may not have considered that two refs with the same name may only differ by appended data, and merging functionality may be something he'd like improve the tool's robustness. —Ost (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only problem it causes is that the article winds up with two refs to the same source that are formatted slightly differently; most likely what causes this slightly-different-formatting situation is that someone copy-pastes some text including the entire ref from one section of the article to another, and then later on someone adjusts one copy without realizing there is another. I never suggested to leave them alone, just that if you see it renaming a ref to "autogenerated" it would be a good idea to take a look to see if this is happening. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my confusion and getting wordy in me reply. I will try to be pay attention to it and I do appreciate you pointing it out to me. —Ost (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Scrip assisted edit
On this script assisted edit a file link was broken with the removal of an apostrophe. Is it a fault in the script? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No; that's 100% my fault. I guess that I thought that I was editing the description and not the name. I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for catching it and letting me know. —Ost (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)