User talk:R'n'B/Archive 3

CSD of Redirects
Not sure why the redirects are being placed at CSD. Am I missing something? They seem to be functional.--JodyByak, yak, yak 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, did you read the edit summaries? There's a link that explains exactly what the problem is and what needs to be done.  --Russ (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured it out by going to the WP:D page. I deleted them (many of them) and moved the page.--JodyByak, yak, yak 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Baden Powell
You'd tagged Baden Powell for speedy, and so I corrected the one link to it and was tidying up when I noticed that Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell has the line at the top that ''“Baden Powell” redirects here. For other meanings, see Baden Powell (disambiguation).'' I've therefore redirected Baden Powell there, as it's what most people will be looking for. I've removed the tag, but it still seems to be on the WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages list. .. dave souza, talk 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not on the list anymore. :) --Russ (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikified Article :)
I'm almost 100% sure I successfully wikifyed the Eliska Amor article. I fixed the layout and removed the repeated sources. I do apologize, I've never written a complete article like that and wasn't sure how to go about things. Learned my lesson :) Perhaps you'd like to check back and just breifly make sure the layout is OK? I won't remove the notice unless you give me the OK to do so. Or you could remove it. Whichever. --Rosario 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect templates.
Just as a note, your bot seems to remove redirect categories when fixing newly created double-redirects (see for example). I assume this is a bug, and not intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, human error. See above. --Russ (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sami protection
Samantha Roberts is now unprotected. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 13:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't "fix" double redirects so promiscuously
I have reverted this edit, so it's a double redirect again, and I would appreciate it if you would leave it that way. Pattern-avoiding permutation should be regarded as a redirect with possibilities. If it ever becomes an article, its plural should redirect to it. Michael Hardy 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If a redirect is marked with R with possibilities, I won't fix double-redirects pointing to it. However, I am not a mind-reader, and neither is my bot.  If the redirect isn't marked, the bot will fix it.  --Russ (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a double-redirect from "ABC (disambiguation)" to "XYZ" when "XYZ" is not a disambiguation page.
Would it be possible to change RussBot so that it does not fix a double redirect from an article with "(disambiguation)" in the title when the target of the double redirect is NOT a disambiguation page? It seems like more than a few times I've found RussBot "fixing" double redirects while other editors are in the middle of a redirect-war. For example, in this edit RussBot redirects Iron Maiden (disambiguation) from Iron maiden to Iron Maiden. (The correct redirect currently appears to be Iron maiden (disambiguation).) Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 03:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible, but I'm not sure how much it would help. A double-redirect fixer has no practical way to avoid changing redirects that are part of a "redirect-war"; in fact, that's probably a significant chunk of its workload.  When the "war" gets settled, the bot will fix everything back again.  But I'll take a look at how to implement your suggestion.  --Russ (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've misunderstood. At 04:53, 14 June 2007 RussBot redirected Iron Maiden (disambiguation) to the band's page at Iron Maiden (a page which has always been about the band -- the redirect war was at "Iron maiden"). Please explain under what circumstances RussBot would "fix everything back again"? Also explain why, after 3 months, those circumstances hadn't yet occurred?Ewlyahoocom 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you've misunderstood. The bot did exactly what it was supposed to; it bypassed a double-redirect.  It did not change the ultimate article to which a user was referred by any link to Iron Maiden (disambiguation); it just took them to that ultimate article without the inconvenience of a double-redirect page.  At some later point, a human editor decided that it would be better to refer readers to a different article, Iron maiden (disambiguation), which I agree certainly appears to be a more appropriate target.  However, that was a choice for a human to make, not a bot.  --Russ (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Template:"The Protocols"
There's still, I think, a redundant redirect. I'll be back to be more specific in a moment. Ludvikus 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wonder why your Bot needed to redirect the Talk mage. That I've never seen, and am surprised by. Ludvikus 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, why not? It's pretty unusual for a Template talk: page to be a redirect, much less a double-redirect, so I'm not sure I've ever seen it before, either.  Redirects of talk pages generally are relatively useless (since it's hard to imagine why anyone would ever end up looking at one), but also harmless.  (P.S. it would have been easier for me to follow what you were talking about if you had included a properly formatted link to the page you were referring to.) --Russ (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have no idea what you're talking about. It all sounds to me like George Orwell's "doublespeak" from 1984 - or should I have said Nineteen Eighty-Four? But keep up your excellent work - I very much appreciate your Wiki expertese and constant presence. Wishing you the Best, I am --Ludvikus 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism vs. Jewish Bolshevism
Very, very nice work of "fixing" the text(s) stylisticly. You deserve an award of recognition. Will soon be back with one especially for you. Keep up your excellent work!!! --Ludvikus 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As promisssd, here it is (to the extreme left):


 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'm honored. --Russ (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Malplaced disambiguation pages
OK, the final piece of the last dump has been fixed. I'd like to see a new list -- either generated by you as before, or if you have time, could you teach me how to generate it? Thanks. -- JHunterJ 23:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The list comes from the database dump, which the devs run on an irregular schedule. When the next one comes out, I'll put up a new list.  --Russ (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cordero
How about you write the article if you have a problem with it, which of course you do. So stop whining and leaving me messages of complaints. I don't need the attitude, I changed it just for you Russ , so go complain about somebody else's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieguru2006 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Doom
I'm curious about this: Talk:Doom. If I'd have spotted it I'd have removed it and added (as I've done dozens of times as part of a move clean-up like that) but wonder if there is some broader plan at work that needs the talk page to be deleted. (Emperor 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC))


 * No, just trying to keep things reasonably organized. Doom is no longer a redirect page, it is a disambig page; but Talk:Doom is a redirect to Talk:Doom (game).  That reflects old history; the articles were moved but the talk pages weren't.  --Russ (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That talk page wasn't moved to Doom (game) because it wasn't there - the redirect was just dropped into an empty page . I think we'd be well within our rights just to remove the redirect. (Emperor 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

*
What's the purpose of the star, "*," in the above category, expert Wikipedian User:R'n'B? --Ludvikus 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the sort key. --Russ (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games
I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Russbot stub-sorting?
I'm a bit puzzled by |this edit your bot made a while ago. Was this a fully automated edit, or human-assisted? And in either event, why the template redlink? (Reply or notification on my talk page preferred and appreciated, thanks.) Alai 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit summary reads "Robot-assisted fix links to disambiguation page Georgia." Robot-assisted means that I reviewed it manually before it was committed.  And the stub tag was a typo, which I now have fixed (although you could have done that yourself).  --Russ (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot edit issues
Hey there - I noticed your bot has been changing hard category redirects to soft redirects, however, in the process you made the redirect target go to a mainspace page, not a category space page, so all the soft redirects have been showing up as redirecting to a red linked page. I'd recommend you get your bot to go back and fix all these, or they will most likely be deleted as redirects to non-existent pages by those who didn't realize the mistake (many of the category redirects are worthless, so in some cases this wouldn't be such a bad thing). Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, my bot didn't do that. Someone recently changed Template:Category redirect in an effort to improve it, but used incorrect template syntax and messed up perfectly valid redirects.  Thanks for pointing it out -- I've reverted the change.  --Russ (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Glad you caught the real error. VegaDark (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Greyhound Lines article
To an administrator: There has been a problem going on with the article Greyhound Lines. One or more people have been writing, within the article, personal attacks on Greyhound. Things that have been written include that Greyhound is rude toward passengers, and mistreats minorities. But all of this is written based on the personal experiences of these various editors, and is not backed up by any citations or references. In a lot of the edits to these paragraphs, the editors have clearly stated this, too. This clearly violates Wikipedia's policies against WP:OR and WP:COI. Wikipedia is NOT a place to vent anger against a company.

Something should be done to stop such information from being posted within the article. Perhaps, semi-protecting it could be a solution. A lot of these edits have come from anonymous or newly registered users.Hellno2 13:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator. --Russ (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hafar Al-Batin Airport vs Qaisumah Airport
Hafar Al-Batin Airport belongs to Hafar Al-Batin Domestic Airport while Qaisumah Airport is Qaisumah Domestic Airport..Drh104 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Russ (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I was redirecting this page and also its talk page, but alas the talk page has been redirected by me before. So instead, I redirected Talk:List of regencies and cities of Indonesia to itself. Thanks for fixing that. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

category redirect question
Someone has noticed at this CfD discussion that Categorization FAQ says in relation to Category redirect that the bot which works with category redirects "only works if an admin adds the template to the category." Is that correct, or does Russbot not mind who added the category redirect? Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * RussBot only looks for the template being present on the page, not who added it. Any user can add it to any non-protected category page.  --Russ (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought so. Thanks.  BencherliteTalk 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, please can you tell me what's wrong in this page, or if now it does satisfy the notability guideline? 

Please tell me it with simple words, I'm not very able in Wikipedia. thanks--Carlons 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-past moves (again)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I see this is not the first time you have been asked to avoid this type of move; please be more careful in the future. Russ (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both articles were started by me and I am the main contributor in each of them, I moved text that I have already wrote , you ca check that yourself , these moves were to get the name with capital letters as it is a name of an institution

As for the Coptic Orthodox Church page that was corrected by me in a few minutes after it happened and I did that before your first message. many thanks .--Ghaly (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it was clear that my message was not about moving the page to a better title (which was a good idea), but about how you moved it. Every page has a "Move" link, either at the top or in the "Views" section, depending on how you are viewing the page. You should use that when you find a page that needs a better title. --Russ (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken, thanks --Ghaly 08:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you so much
thank you very much for unlocking the page Prebilovci. It was an user from Croatia hwo deleted almost half of the text. Can you read it threw now. He simple took away every atrocitie the croats committed agains serbs in the bordna cicvil war and said there was no genocide in 1941-1944. Thank's. Now i belive in wikiepdia so peole can not missuse their power htrer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

another things as well
I also think the Prebilovci Massacre page should be removed. I donät know who acctuallt created it, but since I come from the village of Prebilovci, I know that there isn't anything callaed the Prebilovci Massacre. Not everr Serb was from that village but from other places as well. Check it out yourself. Yours Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

help with wikipedia page...
The user Rijeca isn't stoping. He's just deleting and i'm forced to make it how it was before every time. He has no right what so ever. First: there is nothing refered to as the Prebilovci Massacre. I myself come from Prebilovci so I know that. The Serbs hwo were massacred in 1941 at surmanci, where Virgin Mary then alledgely appeared to some Croation teenagers in the 1980's, were not just from Prebilovci. I have never heared anyting refered to as the prebilovci Massacre, maby just someone misunderstood somethin and created the page. Now Rijeca, an user from Crotion, ceeps deleting parts of the Prebilovci page and the part thet talks about the atrosities committed by Croats in 1992; The bodies of thoose who had been massacred were blown to bits by a bomb. Please, do something. Rijeca is just missusing wikipedia, at least threw my point of view. Try do sort this out somehow beetween me and rijeca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceinwiki (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at King of Prussia!
There are still a few entries in the main pagespace that link to the disambig page -- is it generally acceptable to leave a few like that? I'm just wondering for my future work on Project Disambiguation. Thanks! Auntof6 05:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, the only links I saw were ones that seemed like appropriate links to the disambiguation page, such as "see also" links from "Kingdom of Prussia," "Duchy of Prussia", and so forth. --Russ (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections
I have been editing slightly over a year in Wikipedia. I have a special page on my computer with your correction to remind me how to do certain edit features. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, (-- Salmon1 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Angela da Foligno
Thank you. That's what I intended. I'll be more careful in the future. -- Afil (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Devil Rays
Hey, I noticed your "bot" changed all the category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays players pages to Category:Tampa Bay Rays players. These should remain as two separate categories. Why did you change it? The standard policy with the baseball team categories is that when the team name changes the categories still reflect the team name as it was when the players played for the team. The current ones should not have been changed but future players should use the new category. Spanneraol (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays, you will see that it contains a message stating that all articles should be moved to Category:Tampa Bay Rays. My bot did not put the message there; it simply made the moves as requested.  If the category redirect message is erroneous, you need to bring it up on the appropriate talk page.  --Russ (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The general Consensus on the WP:Baseball project is that the categories should revert to the way they were. Can your bot be setup to restore the original categories? Spanneraol (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but it would be a fairly minor effort to Undo all the changes if you could point to where the moved pages start and end in Special:Contributions/RussBot. However, if the category redirect isn't fixed first, it would be a waste of time, because the bot would move everything back again when it runs next week. --Russ (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They run from 05:46, 19 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Bobby Witt‎ (Robot: moving pages out of redirected category)  (top) through 05:28, 19 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Danys Báez‎ (Robot: moving pages out of redirected category)  (top). I fixed the redirect on Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays players. Spanneraol (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Semblances of Sovereignty
This will help, Talk:Semblances_of_Sovereignty, Best Regards, (Scandinavia ... Word! (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Luigi Morleo page
Hi, I have need help me. I don't know to make a wikipedia standard page. Please can you make you the standard page of Luigi Morleo. Best regards.--Teresa albanese (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kharma 45
Hey

Just wondering why you deleted some information on the Kharma 45 wiki page

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdermott1916 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read my edit comment. And then perhaps you could read some of Wikipedia's standards for article content.  --Russ (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should stop being so arrogant and advise me what I was doing wrong instead of jumping in and deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdermott1916 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to be insulting. I am not the first person who has pointed out that this article is full of language praising and promoting the band, instead of objectively describing them.  It also lacks references for factual statements.  Frankly, the article could be nominated for deletion, but I was trying to improve it by removing the objectionable portions.  --Russ (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * again, I feel the need to be pointed in the direction of making the article better. I am not insulting you, I felt your comment was abrupt and demeaning. I was looking for help and assistance and you provided neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdermott1916 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.245.14 (talk)

i updated it again and i think i fixed the tone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdermott1916 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Russ, thanks man! I think i fixed it anyway although im not sure if i got all the POV stuff out. sorry for being cheeky in my previous posts! cheers for the help Mcdermott1916 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

about For the Nights I Can't Remember
I had an article made and everythin, but i never did that screwed up redirect page for it. I don't know what happened to the article, so can u help me with anything about this situation? thanks --Crocodileman (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can remember the exact title of the article, you might be able to get an administrator to help you (I'm not one). If you can't, you may be out of luck.  --Russ (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects?
Hi, could you please take a look at this? (Copy from my watch list.)

(diff) (hist). . mb Talk:2007 riots in Villiers-le-Bel (France)‎; 19:50. . (-1) . . RussBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"Talk:2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)" +"Talk:2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France") (diff) (hist). . mb Talk:2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France)‎; 19:50. . (-1) . . RussBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"Talk:2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)" +"Talk:2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France")

(diff) (hist). . mb 2007 riots in Villiers-le-Bel (France)‎; 16:12. . (-1) . . RussBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)" +"2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France")

(diff) (hist). . mb 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France)‎; 16:12. . (-1) . . RussBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel (France)" +"2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France")

(diff) (hist). . mb 2007 civil unrest in the France‎; 16:10. . (+17) . . RussBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"2007 civil unrest in France" +"2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel, France")

I don't know what RussBot is doing, but it looks like it's in some kind of loop.

The strange thing is that I don't have this page on my watch list any more, but the messages keep coming. Thanks. --RenniePet 19:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the history of those redirect pages. I think someone else (or multiple someone elses) is changing the title of the article repeatedly; RussBot is just following around after them cleaning up the mess they leave behind.  ;)  --Russ (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. --RenniePet 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Russbot misbehving
Hey, please see this diff from WP:AN/I. I guess it just had the wrong replacement string. I've fixed most of the problems. The Rambling Man 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've tracked down the problem and fixed it (there was a relatively recent change in the template syntax for Category redirect and the bot hadn't been updated to recognize it).  Did a manual run this morning to make sure it works right.  --Russ (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates with red links
Hi, I'm looking for a techie who can generate a new set of lists from the latest database dump showing templates which contain redlinks for Templates with red links. Dekimasu referred me to you, based on your work at WP:DPL. Would you be able to do this? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if I could. Finding all the links that appear on template pages is easy, but I'd have to think about how to determine which links in the database dump are "red".  --Russ (talk)
 * You might want to ask Beland - he generated the list previously (although he appears to be away). It must be something similar to the generation of a the list of most wanted articles. bd2412  T 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I can do it. Do you want the output to be formatted the same way as the previous lists?  (I'm not going to split it up into sublists, you can do that easily yourself.)  If so, when this link turns blue, it should be done.  --Russ (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be perfect. I'll b e glad to take care of the subdivision. Thanks! bd2412  T 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like something must have gone wrong. I won't be able to find out what happened until Monday.  --Russ (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - I really appreciate you making the list. One of these days I'm going to have to learn the technical aspects of this stuff! bd2412  T 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you might have guessed, I've been having some problems. There were huge numbers of false positives in my initial run, because (a) the articles dump doesn't contain all namespaces, so links in templates to any of the missing namespaces showed up; and (b) Image links can be blue even if there is no corresponding page in the Image: namespace, if the image is on Commons.  I have to re-do the dump after fixing these issues.  --Russ (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is redlinks pointing to article space. We had some discussion on the project talk page about things to exclude in order to avoid false positives (this was years ago, at Templates with red links and Wikipedia talk:Templates with red links). Thanks again for doing this! bd2412  T 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow - quite a list! bd2412 T 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, to say the least. ;) Wikipedia was throwing up whenever I tried to save a page with over about 400K characters, so I had to find a way to break it up into subpages.  The subpage titles are generated dynamically (after some abortive attempts to do it differently), so you'll want to look here for the final list.  --Russ (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as you probably already realize, this is from a database dump that is now six weeks old, so there are some links that have been turned blue in the intervening period. --Russ (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some templates that have been deleted. I'll sort that out over the next few weeks. Thanks again! bd2412  T 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it okay for me to move these to the project space? bd2412  T 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be my guest! --Russ (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo redirect The Taft's of Mendon and Uxbridge
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Taft's of Mendon and Uxbridge, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Taft's of Mendon and Uxbridge is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Taft's of Mendon and Uxbridge, 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) 02:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Dr House to Nephrology
Might it be an idea to consider adding the fictional character as a fictional character, rather than simply reverting 72.167.43.153's edits? Something along the line of

"In addition, the fictional character Dr. Gregory House is a noted nephrologist and infectious disease specialist"

after the list of real nephrologists?

That way it's made clear that he's fictinal and the anon has the information on the page.

Just a thought... Tonywalton Talk 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But it's not even accurate. The television show may have referred to House as a nephrologist at some point, but he doesn't practice that specialty on the show.  --Russ (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - the Gregory House article does refer to that as a specialism in its infobox, though. Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War
Can you explain why the bot turned an article on the Uruguayan civil war into the biography of an Argentine football player ? Very odd. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but I will figure it out and fix it before I run that bot again. --Russ (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
I saw that you made half a dozen or so edits, like this, with the edit summary: "fixing invalid redirect, Replaced:

Would you mind explaining to me why you think the earlier redirect was "invalid"?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I just searched for both "AMF" and "A.M.F." on Military of Afghanistan. Neither can be found there.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if the edit summaries were unclear; that was due to a "feature" of AWB that I wasn't aware of it, and after I saw what was going on I fixed it. Anyway, it seemed pretty clear to me that having Afghan Military Force redirect to a Wiktionary entry was undesirable; it is an "invalid redirect" because it is impossible to redirect a Wikipedia title to a Wiktionary title.  You can create the redirect but it doesn't work to redirect the user like a real redirect would.  Further, the title of the redirect appeared to me to be obviously referring to the military forces of Afghanistan, so I redirected the title to the article that a user would most likely be searching for.  --Russ (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:STLmedia
Template:STLmedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Spencer1151 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace
This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note on my page about Star Wars EU and SW EU. Those were supposed to be redirects to Star Wars Expanded Universe, which few fans actually spell out. Thanks for letting me know about the speedy deletion tags. I just saw your comment now, so it was already deleted. I've been asleep and in meetings, or I would have fixed it immediately. Just out of curiosity, if you remember, what was my original redirect to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banazir (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

db-movedab
When placing deletion tags on redirects, please place them above the #redirect line so that it can be seen. —Random832 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. --Russ (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did
Please see the page you directed me too for the comments I already left. Thanks, Hiding T 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
For the TRL update, that is. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates
Can you demonstrate consensus for having a bot link dates in cases like this en masse? Haukur (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the premise of your question, there is no bot linking dates en masse. I am performing assisted editing in which I manually review each of these edits before committing them.  (This is necessary, for example, to avoid linking dates contained within direct quotations.)  Further, the consensus that dates should be linked (with a few specific exceptions) so that registered users can benefit from MediaWiki auto-formatting is found at Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Russ (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there mandating this style. Right at the top, however, I see a warning against changing an article from one style to another. Not linking dates is certainly a valid style and you shouldn't be using a pseudo-bot to make lots of changes like this. I realize that for the small (<0.1%?) proportion of our readers who are a) logged in and b) have changed their date preferences, you are enabling date preference settings to work as well as adding links. But for the overwhelming majority of readers you're just adding links. Those links are usually of no value to the context. "Wow, this article was last accessed on November 14, I wonder what else happened on November 14!" If you read WT:DATE you will see that there is no agreement that dates, even full dates, should be linked. Haukur (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've been somewhat unnecessarily confrontational about this. Sorry about that. I have a bit of an insect in my headgear about overlinking. Haukur (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding comment on my comment was added by SineBot at 17:19, 14 January 2008. Haukur (talk)
 * No problems. ;) I was unaware of the controversy (which seems to be due to a very small number of particularly vocal users) until I looked at the talk page to which you pointed me.  I also found out for the first time that Rob Church has developed a parser extension that will auto-format dates without linking them.  I think I'll wait to see how that plays out.  (FWIW, I also dislike over-linking but have considered dates an exception to the rule.)  --Russ (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

THX
Thank you for your recent edit to the Gary Forrester page. Much appreciated. --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Category redirects
re:

re: ''I see that you re-inserted the "#REDIRECT" directive that my bot removed from Category:1632 series templates sub-templates. The bot has now removed it again. The reason for this is that category redirects don't work as you might expect. Suppose Category:Foo bar is a redirect to Category:Fubar. If someone mistakenly puts "" at the bottom of an article, the wiki software will not list that article on the correct category (Fubar). Instead, the article will appear on the redirect page, but since it is a redirect, users won't ever see it unless they specially request it. Therefore, we use "soft redirects" by means of the category redirect template, instead of the built-in "hard" redirect feature, on category pages. --Russ (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)''

Hi R'n'B! Actually, your BOT isn't working the way I supposed, and disposed of nearly a year back... but that's one wiki-weakness, I guess!
 * re: Old Discussion here... but start by reading the short section above...   IMHO, This should have been SOP long ago now as a result of most all CFD discussions and so forth involving merges and renaming,... and if you're running the BOT now, you need be aware the system software will be supporting (If it doesn't already) such redirects... they are badly needed on the commons for example. The wrench in the works is RobertG's departure. He'd sent me a url to the BOT, but I was in no situation to take over last spring/summer... I was about to have the place remodeled, which took until last week... meaning I've been working off only my laptop in the iterim.


 * More to the point, regardless of where the "listed" article occurs, if one navigates using the category link, one gets the to page I wanted them at... note the category name in question is a spelling variant... call it a "memory patch" for me too-fast approaching senility.


 * In any event, if you stop defeating such, there's the arguments and benefits laid out as to why you ought to leave such! Cheers! // Fra nkB 14:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly I was mistaken in assuming that you weren't aware of the difference between the two kinds of redirects. Thanks for the information and links; I think I understand now what you are trying to do. --Russ (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Italia
Thank you for your note. Seems I was somewhat confused while placing the link... Kind regards, — Tirkfltalk 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorting Templates with red links - looking for the "quick a dirty" way.
Is there a "quick a dirty" way to pluck out all the MLB, election and TV/radio related templates from those 2008 dump pages and drop them in Templates with red links/2008-Jan-MLB, Templates with red links/2008-Jan-Elections, and Templates with red links/2008-Jan-TV&radio, respectively? Also, is there a "quick a dirty" way to scrub all the deleted and completed templates from those pages? bd2412 T 04:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends. If the template names fit a pattern, like Template:DDDD MLB season by team, then it's relatively easy.  But then you get into things like Template:New York Yankees DDDD season and the number of patterns multiplies.  If you can give me a list of patterns to match (regexes, preferably) and where to relocate the items that match each pattern, I'll see what I can do.  --Russ (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My initial thinking is, if the template contains "MLB", move it to that sorted page; ditto if the template contains "election", and if it contains "radio" or "TV" or "television". It will be much easier for me to go back and fix any false positives that get dropped in the sorted pages than to sort through the wider universe of hits in the regular pages. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect - thanks! I need to learn to do what you do! bd2412  T 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, second part of my earlier question - is there a quick way to knock out all the deleted templates and completed templates from the initial results? bd2412  T 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think the answer to this one really is "no." I can't think of any way to do this without having to load thousands of pages from the wiki to see which ones actually exist.  It'd be easier to remove them manually.  --Russ (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Manually it is, then. bd2412  T 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Too fast
It's nice that this bot is working so fast, but if possible, I'd urge the bot writer to build in some grace period. In the case of, the bot proliferated a non-helpful rename by confused editor before it was undone (see WT:SLR.) Please make sure that these changes at least get undone as fast as they were done. &mdash; Sebastian 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant RussBot, of course; I hadn't noticed that User talk:RussBot redirects here. &mdash; Sebastian 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably could, if you would tell me which changes need to be undone. --Russ (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that the bot had the name of the changed links in the edit summary. Is it not possible to simply go by that? &mdash; Sebastian 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another way to get the list of affected pages is by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/List_of_terrorist_and_military_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE. &mdash; Sebastian 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This should be fixed now. After following the link you left, I inferred that the type of edits you were concerned about were double-redirect fixes.  It would have been quicker for me to figure out if you had said this in the first place.  Now, to address your initial question, how long a grace period are you asking for?  In this case, the original page move took place on 13 January, and it wasn't reverted until 26 January.  ISTM that any reasonable grace period for double-redirects is going to be a lot less than 13 days—especially since the (oft-ignored) page move guidelines call for fixing such redirects immediately after moving a page.  --Russ (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right on both counts! I wasn't aware that the bot did more than just double-redirect fixes, but it would have made it easier for you if I had provided a diff - something I always do for human editors. Sorry about that! Regarding the grace period, I just overlooked that the move was already that old. Waiting more than two weeks would make no sense. Therefore, I think the bot is fine as it is. And I just checked, the redirects are fixed. Thanks a lot! &mdash; Sebastian 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings
It wod b great if u wod remov da warning u put on my page, da edit i made to cheerleading was not vandalism. Sharedipuser (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Roberto Paci Dalò Article
hi, thanks for your help. we added citations and did check wiki standards for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Paci_Dalò. just wonder if you cam remove wiki boxes. cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witzland (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. However, you could have removed those boxes yourself.  You don't need anyone's permission to do it, as long as the issues have actually been addressed.  --Russ (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Peisey-Vallandry
There was a link to Peisey-Vallandry from Paradiski page. I think, that Peisey-Vallandry was independent ski-resort before it becomes a part of Les Arcs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.15.62 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Busted redirect
Thanks for fixing that! I must have pasted the wrong string in it by mistake. Not sure how you figured out where it should have been pointing, but thanks for taking the effort to find out :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Cat deletions
Just cuz I'm curious, did you manually tag all the categories for speedy? And how do yoou tell if they've been empty? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I use a Python script to look for empty categories and save their names, then re-check four days later and see if they are still empty (using api.php); and I use AWB to tag them. --Russ (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - makes sense!
 * I'm wondering about the "23 births" and "264 BC deaths" type categories, though. Since they're basically housekeeping cats, shouldn't they be kept?  Just a thought... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I didn't invent the speedy deletion criteria, and there doesn't seem to be any exception in there for "housekeeping" categories or categories that are part of a series.  I can't say I have any opinion on the subject.  --Russ (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy tags from the "A" class categories. They are needed for housekeeping and are part of the assessment infrastructure. Would it be possible to remove them from any runs? Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I only tagged about 6 of these that didn't identify any associated WikiProject, and I manually skipped the rest.  After a while it became obvious that I was wasting my time, and gave up on this batch entirely.  --Russ (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

UVA College of Arts and Sciences
Thanky much! :P Boydannie (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot Algorithms?
Hi, How does the RussBot bot work? It seems to do some items right, but makes errors in some cases. E.g. it may link French to France instead of French people on a page about a person. Are the algorithms for Wiki-bots public? What language are they written in? I may have a few suggestions on how to improve them if you give me a link or two. In general, who writes these bots and who is the computer expert behind their algorithms? Do they use a lexicon? Do they use affinity tables? I think there is room fo rsome interesting extensions here. Please respond here, or on a specific page that may be about bot algorithms so we can start a discussion on that topic. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This works by a human being (me) looking at the link and its context and deciding which alternative looks most appropriate. In articles about people, I would almost always link to France rather than French people unless the context around the link indicates that it is referring to ethnicity.  "Charles DeGaulle was a French general and politician" but "Celine Dion is a Canadian singer of French descent."  --Russ (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So why is it called a bot if you have to spend precious "human hours" doing what a program may have done? In general, is there someone writing automated bots for Wikipedia? History2007 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can write a program that can solve disambiguations without human intervention (beyond a few special cases), more power to you! The script helps because it finds the links and presents the alternatives much more quickly than I could do it manually.  To answer your questions, there is a (very low-traffic) list for discussion of bots at  ; there is a very active project for the Python bot framework with its own mailing list; and there are other projects that I am not as familiar with listed at Creating a bot.  --Russ (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. Python is probably not the language I woud have chosen, but I will take a look. One may always call other systems if it is done client side, etc. It will be an interesting project for me to play with and if/when it flies I will let you know. My current idea is to use Wordnet. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your RussBot does a fine work! However, one question (or suggestion), does RussBot find only one link per article? I noticed this edit of RussBot in The Great Artiste, but there was still another occurrence of the same disambig, see my following edit in The Great Artiste. --Cyfal (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the Pywikipediabot solve_disambiguation.py script; normally it should have picked up the second link, and I don't know why it didn't in this case. --Russ (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, then it's fine. Such a Bot seems to be a good thing, maybe I have to learn that... I'm just trying to change some of the Nagasaki-links manually, but it's a lot of work. --Cyfal (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lonely articles
I have deleted all the sub cats. The original template used was deleted at tfd so the cat and subcat deletion was a logical step. Thanks for letting me know. Woody (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism Star
blimey. I forgot to log in... --Mad Tinman T C 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do people really still say "blimey"? :-) Russ (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

orphaned article
Hello,

I have added quite a few links to articles you have marked "This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it." such as Nicolaus Kittel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milliot (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Can you possibly take down those tags? Thank you in advance Milliot (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I did not add that template to the article. Second, regardless, you don't need me or anyone else to remove the template.  You can do it yourself, as long as the reason for it is no longer valid.  --Russ (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RussBot and Nagasaki
RussBot made "Robot-assisted disambiguation: Nagasaki" to a number of artilces, replacing Nagasaki with Nagasaki. Question, how did RussBot distinguish whether the original intent was for Nagaski to point to the city (Nagasaki, Nagasaki) or the Prefecture (Nagasaki Prefecture)? In the case of 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, the context of the article does not provide enough information to make that distinction. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As is the case with all "robot-assisted" disambiguation, RussBot did not make that distinction; I did, after reading the context. I thought it was pretty clear from the context that the Marines landed in the port city of Nagasaki, not somewhere else in the prefecture.  If the original source on which the article is based indicates otherwise, then of course the article should be corrected.  --Russ (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)