User talk:RafikiSykes/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, RafikiSykes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kimber James. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Tabercil (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re
Yeah, well was I wrong? You've been told not to do that, and you've persisted. It's not necessary to say she still has her penis; saying that someone hasn't gone through with full SRS gives exactly the same information. It's redundant. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC) If that is the only part you have issue with i understand removing it but you reverted corrections to terms within the article eg from biological to cisgendered and the addition of her official twitter link which is displayed on her website.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa on the biological/cisgendered part. As for Twitter, we generally discourage using those for external links unless someone uses that instead of a home page.  Read WP:EL for guidelines on external links. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah it is basicly her homepage the website only gets updadted with new video content and the twitter feed is displayed as the main feed on her life. RafikiSykes (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; I'll have a look at it when I can get on my own computer sometime tomorrow. If you do use that, there's a certain way you have to put it in so it won't get removed by XLinkBot; I'll see if I can sort that out. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think i have done it in that formmt rather than the web adress i had used the twiter template box thing * RafikiSykes (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's right; glad you figured it out so quickly (it took me more than a few tries myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Transphobia
Speaking as a transsexual woman, I'm not exactly certain how you've come to the determination that the birth name of transgendered people is "acceptable" to be referenced. Unless a transgendered person did major work under their previous name, or they decide the old name is acceptable to be used, it's grossly offensive to refer to that transgendered person as their old name in any way. Your assertion that the old name is accurate implies that the transgendered person is in some way still a person of the opposite gender, and I believe that violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Unless a transgendered person publicly states that the old name is acceptable to be used, or a transgendered person did a large amount of public work in the previous gender, you can safely assume that the person the transgendered person was is "dead" to public scrutiny. Or, to simplify, a transgendered person is who they say they are, not who you assume they are.

I demand you undo your edits, or I'll be happy to bring a moderator in to question your reasoning as to why a transgendered person is forced to live under a name that does not apply to them. 69.244.221.134 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Call anyone you like. Many of the people who info you removed have publicly given their old names many times. Ms ashley gave out hers in her biographies and various websites and similar can be found with the others. I am fully and personally aware of a trans person being the person they identify as not what they were once assigned. My statement of accuracy was that is technically correct person y was once known as person x not that it is an accurate identifier of them as a being.

Wiki only includes facts that can be backed up and information that is already publicly available. Several ts pornstars recently had their names hidden as they came from mediaol leaks not public info so wikipedia is neuttral when it comes to peoples private info.
 * Then instead of some kind of blanket reversal of what I had done, why didn't you go into their talk page, post a compelling link to where they "publicly gave their old names," and base the reversal based on that? Because from where I stand, it seems like you're basing you're entire decision to reverse my edits on media leaks.  It also seems like you're convinced that hearsay and hateful gossip--a transperson's birth name--has any place on Wikipedia.  It's safer to not put a transperson's birth name on Wikipedia, and add it as the case demands, rather than the other way around.  I've contacted a moderator, and again, I demand you change your obviously prejudiced edits before they come speak to you.  69.244.221.134 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above is ridiculous. We have the real names of plenty of actors/actresses who have stage names to protect their privacy (Natalie Portman comes to mind), and there's no reason not to include this.  That it's offensive to some doesn't matter; Wikipedia is not censored. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you. it isnt every day a genderqueer person gets called transphobic haha

DYK for Reportedly haunted locations in Scotland
Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww how cool. RafikiSykes (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 19:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 00:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

userfied Craig Vye

 * Good stuff! I can't even remember the last time someone created a page for a Hollyoaks actor with sourced content. :) Rain the One  BAM 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you it was mostly started due to going to look him up and being annoyed his page had vanished.If there are any other Hollyoaks guys needing sourced etc give me a shout :)RafikiSykes (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't do bad links
Please don't use a piped link that goes to a redirect page. This just makes more work for the servers and we aren't supposed to do that without a good reason. You've done this on a couple of articles I have watchlisted (horse-related topics) and it isn't suitable. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I shall check the settings on the dead link scanning tools to prevent that.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you spot that anywhere else just revert and put the dead link tags back. Thanks. :)RafikiSykes (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your checklinks is also tagging a few links that aren't dead links. Maybe you could run checklinks separately from your "fixes" of piped links, so we can fix one without you having to redo the other.  Some are, but some are not, can you manually check your work for a bit and tell the checklink coders that they are being overeager?  You're making a lot of work for people if you mis-tag stuff. I have close to 2000 articles watchlisted, and mass tagging by machine is a real pain to fix manually. I'm sure you want to improve wikipedia, and linkrot is an ongoing concern, but please double-check for a bit, OK?   Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The piped link work is added by default but I am going to turn the option off. Links will not show as dead unless at that moment in time they are indeed dead so servers that go down or get overloaded will show as such. Even if a link is up when later checked when possible it is advisable to add one with less chance of going down or not connecting.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice CMK is one of the sites you found not to be dead. It is wordpress based and lately a lot of wordpress based sites have been up and down like yo-yos. My local news site is based on the same and with the recent update issues have been aplently.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the piped link thing needs improvement, so thanks. As far as links that don't go dead, we sort of have no idea when someone moves around a site, so the link checker does have a purpose.  It just gets overeager.  Always an adventure.   Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Charlene Semkin
Hello RafikiSykes. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charlene Semkin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats fine I'll just have to go down the longer winded route.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Angie
Hi RafikiSykes. By all means leave the spelling as is to keep the picture from Paris Is Burning. Feel free to contact me anytime you want. I am Angie's biographer. Thanks!
 * Cool :) I also moved the page so the page name is her proper name and added a link to the new york times piece on her in the references.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 02:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyles articles
I changed Demona and David Xanatos I will with withdraw merge requests for those two as they now have credible sources to support those articles. Although I satisfied with the sources I am unhappy with the citation style please follow WP:CITET as the correct way to source articles. I have also removed the Internet Movie Database sources per WP:RS/IMDB

In future I would suggest go to the actual archive of the websites to get the information regarding Gargoyles.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995/aug/08

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1997/jun/22

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi I am not using IMDB as a reference just including it as an external link as is done with many fictional characters and entertainment figures.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there RafikiSykes, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:RafikiSykes/Iago.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 01:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Help for photos
I can see you don't have a lot of experience loading to Commons, so I have included some help below. If you can get an email with a release statement, there is nothing to stop you uploading on behalf of Harries and then emailing permissions(at)commons.org to have the image independently verified.

Hi RafikiSykes, you can find many images available to use on Wikipedia already uploaded by other contributors on Wikimedia Commons. The best way of uploading your own image or video is to go to Upload and follow the instructions. Uploaded files must be public domain or creative commons with attribution, see the upload page for links to detailed explanations of what these terms mean. Once uploaded to Commons, images can be shown in Wikipedia and any of the sister projects in the normal way (see Picture tutorial).


 * 1) Logging in - you have to have an account on Commons, this may have already been created under the same name and password as your Wikipedia account, see Special:MergeAccount.
 * 2) Copyright - if the copyright of the photo is owned by someone else and there is no existing free license to reference (for example on their website), then you need to follow the OTRS process and confidentially supply an email from the copyright holder. If you think your photo is public domain but want to check the rules that apply then see WP:RFCA and List of countries' copyright length.
 * 3) Email a photo - see Contact us/Photo submission. You should note that there may be a long backlog and your email may take days or weeks before getting processed. If you seem technically able, you may get a polite request to do it yourself as this is a low priority for the OTRS volunteers.
 * 4) EXIF data - image data may be automatically added by the camera or by your photo processing applications. This will be visible after upload so make sure you are happy that the make of camera, when/where it was taken etc. will be consistent with your upload information.
 * 5) Image verification - the photo can be checked using TinEye after upload, so if it appears on websites which claim 'All rights reserved' or similar then it may get marked for deletion.

A simple standard guide is at Help:Files. If you need more help on getting a suitable photo in the first place, you may find Finding images tutorial helpful. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats great thank you I will see if she will email permission. I had never realised how complicated this could be.RafikiSykes (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a bit daunting but once you have done this for one image it seems a lot simpler... --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Posting of raw urls in contradiction of WP:CITE
Dear editor, can you please note the guidelines at WP:CITE, with regards to how to correctly post and include references. In particular I note your posting of raw url in various articles, including Burmese (horse). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I aware of that and run leflinks once i have put in a reference. It was buggy last night but a bare link ref is still better than none at all like so many articles on here. Thankfully reflinks is fine this afternoon so all the bare links in the article are now fixed.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of WP:ES - please urgently read this important guide
Dear editor, can you please read with urgency the WP:MOS guidelines with regards WP:ES. Your edit record shows a complete disregard for this import guide, and as such any of your edits can be immediately revert by any editor, registered or anonymous. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The bod dating the problems had shown perfectly clearly what was in the edits you reverted. I did notice your past sourcing issues with certain art dealers so these problems don't seem isolated.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Different topic

 * I think it would be a good idea as well if you actually read the documentation for onesource before plastering those daft tags around. What it says is "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." Do you have any of that? Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "a single source may be inaccurate or biased" like the the single person who wrote nearly pretty much all that was being used for sourcing. And with using only one source the material lacks another independant source verifying it. Anything at all the author desires could be put in and no other source in shown there backing it up.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you persist with this daft tagging then you will likely not be happy with the outcome. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

One Sourcing
Your crusade of placing "one source" markers for no other reason than making the comment is not very constructive. In the case of "Manchester Carriage Company", an entry which only consists of 3 lines, how many sources are required. In the case of "History of public transport authorities in Manchester" which actually is a summary of other entries - suitably sourced - how many additional sources are required

Please use some common sense on your rather unconstructive trek!! --Keith 06:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Manchester, Suriname is another example; I've removed the tag as it is quite unhelpful in such a short article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However long or short it is adding another source helps to verify the information.Plus adding another source would likely also give an opertunity for expansion. What is wrong with those aims?RafikiSykes (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are good aims, I agree. However, if you look at most good or featured articles, you'll find that most facts in those articles are supported by citations from only one source.  That's the usual practice unless there is something possibly controversial about the information in question.  So there's little value in commenting that the one fact in articles such as this is supported by only one citation; that's unlikely to change.
 * The one source template can be useful when it points out to other editors that the tagged article has possible problems that may be caused by the use of only one source. For example, an article about a controversial politician should have multiple sources for parts of the article covering topics such as an assessment of the politician's record (though straightforward biographical facts are still likely to have only one source).  If you find an article such as that and suspect that the single source, though reliable, does not give a complete picture of the situation, you would be justified in adding the one source template.  (Personally I'd post a note on the talk page instead, as that tends to get better responses from any active editors of the article.)  Posting it to articles such as Manchester, Suriname doesn't usefully alert editors to a possible problem, because the article is a stub, so editors know it needs expansion.  Saying it has one source really adds no useful information.  The tag is best used in the circumstances where it is the specific tag that addresses the article's shortcomings, not in every case where the article has a single source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Knole House
Please show evidence of the user Knole Jonathan may have connection. The similarity in the name of the property does not have any bearing on ownership - as is indicated within the article itself. Edits by said user do not show any form of personal promotion whatsoever, and cover a number of unrelated topics. --Keith 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/activityandadventure/walkingholidays/7848860/Knole-Park-Kent-Walk-of-the-week.html I can show further evidence if needed but that is the alias used by the person who works there.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither references (i.e. including the facebook entry) given are definite evidence for the marker. Is Knole Jonathan a pseudonym or real name? You are making the unsubstantiated assumption Jonathan Sargant is Knole Jonathan. If indeed they are one and same, I would still contend his entries do not warrant the marker.  --Keith 18:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The marker says "may be personally or professionally connected" its not finding them guilty of anything or proving beyond all doubt just noting that there is indication of a connection so anyone checking the users edits can take note of that.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reflinks tests
Re this diff: could you change the bot to tag these in some way rather than changing them? Perhaps a note on the talk page? The autogenerated names are not something an editor is likely to want to work with, though I appreciate that the bot is finding a real problem. However, it's difficult to work out from the diff how to fix it. I (and I think most editors) would prefer a name that is mnemonic in some way, so the edit is really not very helpful, but pointing out a problem would be. I'm going to revert and see if I can understand exactly what the bot is saying, and then fix it manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will make a suggestion along those lines about the tagging.Basically it will put the auto name when there is no existing name or if an identical name is used for distinct references. So really the autogenerated is just like a blank for someone to put a new name in after checking the new name isn't used already.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary "converting bare references" is not a good indicator if the same name is used for distinct references. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the pimary function the batch conversion of bare refs so that is what the bot enters automatically as it submits, its only a sideline function to alter errors in other references.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if the edit summary reflected what the bot was actually doing, rather than its primary function. On the topic of usefulness, it's generally not the case (in the article I saw) that the refs should be separated, as your bot does; it's equally likely that if they are named the same, they should be replaced with references to each other.  That means that it would be more useful if your bot posted a note to the talk page saying "Please note that as of rev X, the following ref tags are repeated for non-identical citations: Kirby_115, Kirby_52, Yorke_103".  That would alert the editors to the problem and leave the solution to them.  The current operation resolves the problem in a way that may not be the right answer in every case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, if refs are separated, there may still be a problem. If an article has different definitions for the same name and the script arbitrarily assigns one definition a new name, that implicitly assigns the other definition to every other ref using the original name without a definition. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rafiki, while your cleanup is generally helpful, can you run deadlinks FIRST instead of last when you run your bot cleanups? The bots sometimes completely screw up the links, at least your last batch took out a number of named refs and replaced them with the useless "autogenerated1". So if we have to revert, it is easier to revert just the bot edit and it's a huge pain in the but to go add back in the dead links thing. Also, can you put human eyes on these so that if there IS the "autogenerated" link replacing a previously named link, can you fix it manually and change the name to match the others in the article if it really IS a new link? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The named refs that were altered to autogenerated were ones where mutliple refs were named the same.The ones where new ref names were made and refs combined i had left for the person using the book to chose a proper name but if you don't mind i will just pick a name i think is concise?RafikiSykes (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've made a good faith attempt to fix this, and thank you. I will review your changes on a case by case basis.  Montanabw (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Follow up:  My thoughts after reviewing and fixing the articles that still needed fixes are pretty simple.  Your decision to rename sources using an underscore line ( _ ) is subtle, but a bit too subtle for my middle aged eyes to easily pick up and I suggest being slightly (if politely) more blatent: If URLs or ISBN numbers are identical, (i.e., it really IS the exact same source) but other content a bit different, I would suggest an overall policy renaming BOTH (or all) not-quite-duplicated sources "nameofsource1" and "nameofsource2" so that they are still recognized as a single basic source, but more easily flagged by later editors who care enough to do cleanup. If they are truly the same but for subtle differences (as in the examples where one version had a quotation and one did not), rename as suggested, but ALSO take it to talk to further flag that there is a minor referencing problem for the lead editors to fix, if they care. (For example, I often ignore edits from known-reliable wiki-fairy and wiki-gnome sorts as well as bot edits) If no one bites in a week or so, and you are motivated enough, you can review the source material yourself and see if the two slightly different citations can be reconciled into one -- or if the difference is one that appears to be a big deal to those who initially did the source and is best left to the most knowledgeable current editors on the topic. In the case of the ones I worked on, I either knew the editors who had done the cites in the style created and thus felt safe to boldly fix what was basically a minor problem, or I directly checked the cited material and tried to remedy a deeper problem -- and if not easily remedied, then flagged the problem at talk for others to take a peek at.   Montanabw (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example where you tried to fix the issue, but did not. Perhaps leaving a note on the talk page would be better. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary ...
Can you please change your auto-whatevertool-edit summary to something that has some relation to the actual edit? This diff has an edit summary of "converting bare references" but it's nothing of the sort - it's combining identical references. It's not a good idea to use misleading edit summaries - as that means folks no longer trust what you're doing, and have to check every single one of your edits. That's what edit summaries are for, to allow folks with lots of articles on their watch lists to be able to determine what needs investigating and what is probably a fine change. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I explain more where I input summaries directly but with the likes of that one above it is automatically inserted by the script in a couple of seconds and I don't think I can alter it from the default.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could bring it up with the script creator? It's a misleading edit summary and those are frowned upon. Using too many misleading edit summaries can lead to being brought up at ANI or other venues for being disruptive - I'm not threatening you with that, I don't bother with those sorts of things, but other editors might do so if they get annoyed enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I shall try asking them. I see your point. :)RafikiSykes (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 00:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done :)RafikiSykes (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent editing
Hi there,

I appreciate what you are trying to do for those dog breed articles you've recently edited, however, could you please place some rationale in your edit summaries? Twice I've reverted "Cleanup" which was in fact changing the citations from two columns to one. Additionally, you inserted a bunch of accessdates into citebook templates when book citations don't need them - afterall books don't change over time so the accessdate is not required. I'd previously inserted them myself, but was told to remove them during a Featured Article nomination a while back.

Are you checking for deadlinks manually or do you use a program? It's just that I know that the New Zealand Kennel Club, FCI, and in some cases the UKC standard links have all changed in the last year, so most of the dog breed clubs will have at least one dead link on them and it would be worth while highlighting which ones (in particular, the New Zealand links changed only in the last two months or so). I don't know if you can run the program by categories or what, but it would certainly pick up a lot.

I also wanted to apologise for a couple of rude editing summaries I've included where I've reverted your edits, I was having a bad day yesterday. Regards, Miyagawa   (talk)  12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I mainly use the Checklinks tool to flag up dead links. A few times I run it when no dead links are found to use the secondary functions of cleaning up the references in an article which places them after commas, adjusts columns relative to total amount of references,renames references to autogenerated when a reference name is duplicated and so on. There is something on the checklinks page about setting it up to do articles in batches at regular intervals but I haven't as yet tried that out. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Checklinks

If you try any random article with plenty of references at the link you should get a good idea of how it works. RafikiSykes (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Knole
Hello, I'm afraid I don't know how to send you a message so I'm writing this on here (please delete as soon as you like). You have written to me and I've replied on the discussion page for Knole. Knole Jonathan (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me I will reply there.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey
You know how you once said you would be willing to create some HO actor profiles? Would you be willing to look into Anna Shaffer and Lucy Dixon? Rain the One  BAM 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I will have a try at both of those. I will draft them in my userspace first and see what you think of them.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for that. :) Rain the One  BAM 18:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot use on Akita (dog)
Hi Rafiki, I have just finished undo-ing your bot edits to Akita (dog). The bots you have been using are generating false positives. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uk KC ones are still dead. The NZ ones are up again at the moment though. The NZ website seems somewhat problematic i often get 404 errors trying the nz pages manually. RafikiSykes (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and any references renamed to autogenerated are altered because someone has given multiple references the same name.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tags
I notice that many of your last few edits shave been placing tags on small articles in Argyll and environs. You are perfectly at liberty to do so, and I am very much in favour of improving articles but I wonder who you think is going to actually do the work required? If you look at the edit history of Strachur for example, you will see that few of the editors who have contributed to it are still active and that nothing has been added this year. As Wikipedia has become larger and larger I fear that large swathes of it are simply unattended. It's up to you of course. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be working on them myself where I can but tagging them helps highlight them for other editors. Suggestbot for example will suggest articles tagged for improvement to those editing similar articles.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the cleanup with extra care on the pony articles. One comment is that if you switch stuff from US to UK English, maybe get a Brit to proofread to be sure you got it all. ThatPeskyCommoner is a good one to ask, she's fond of proofreading and knows horses. Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Miszabot archiver on Talk:Juliet_Landau
Hi, I've reverted your addition of the Miszabot archiver to the Juliet Landau talk page. For one, it's not really useful to archive a short discussion page-- even if the topics are old; but also, it contains pertinent discussion on the verifiability of her birth date, that are periodically questioned. Additionally, it appears the bot may be incorrectly set, or somehow broken, as it archived everything except one section from 2009, and failed to create a topic index-- so there was no way for a reader to reach the archived materials. In short, it isn't a necessity to archive this page (yet) --HidariMigi (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Juliet Landau's DOB
A consensus about publishing Juliet Landau's date of birth was reached on the article's talk page. Please discuss the information there before adding it again to the article. While secondary sources can be cited, complaint via OTRS and the subject's own claims make publishing any date sensitive. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 12:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoid redirects

 * like this Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As the redirect Princess Diana had been linked to already there no issue with linking to redirects had been indicated.RafikiSykes (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)