User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2009, Aug-Sept

Wow
Hello ThaddeusB, glad to meet you! I'm Airplaneman. Congrats on passing your RFA :). I was looking at your userpage and saw the "Useful Stuff" section. Can I put that on my userpage, too? It's definitely useful :D. Sincerely, Airplaneman  talk 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. If you are copying it completely, make sure to note the source in the your edit summary in order to comply with our licensing terms.  (Something like "adding table copied from User:ThaddeusB")  Our licensing terms apply to all areas of Wikipedia, not just articles, so whenever you copy something be sure to note the source with a link.
 * Enjoy and feel free to contact me for assistance with anything you like, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Airplaneman  talk 01:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you fix this?
Articles for deletion/David Epstein. Broken nomination and broken NAC. Page needs to be moved to the correct title (see my note on the AfD) and the AfD tag on the page fixed and then removed, and talk page message added. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I got everything straightened out. That was a lot of breakage to clean up all over a bad faith AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I didn't do an NAC on this. Absurd things like this waste the time of everyone involved. cheers - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 02:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the guidance on Merging
Much appreciate your mentoring. Petershank (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cookie dough bites
I am the PRODder on Cookie dough bites. I would like to talk about this article, and I'll warn you ahead of time that I can be rather blunt, but don't mean to be rude. I'm also a immediatist.

This stub, in my opinion, doesn't qualify to be on wikipedia. It has no references. It's simply a dictionary definition. It only has four sentences that just barely provide context. I think it's just as bitey to let it stay as much as it is to delete it--the article creator might think it qualifies to be in the article space. Userfying it might be a compromise.

I added, along with several tags, and also added the article to the food and drink wikiproject. Hopefully, that will help attract editors that know what they're doing. I dream of horses @  02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the PROD primarily because the creator had contested the deletion on the talk page. Any objection invalidates a Proposed deletion.  Of he had not objected, I probably would have just deleted it.  That said, I do believe the article can be expanded into a full encyclopedia article and have left the article's creator some instructions on how to do so.  Another alternative to deleting would be be find a place to merge the material.  Merging is usually the best way to compromise on topics that are barely notable like this one appears to be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I guess I misinterpreted you deprodding to be a statement that the the article should stay. My bad.


 * Do you think merging it into cookie dough would be a good idea? I mean, it's not like we would put every single cookie dough recipe on the cookie dough article, know what I mean. On the other hand...well, why not? I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would probably be fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maple Palm
I doubt if this is a film I will ever see, but consider the article as rescued. It will still need cats and portals. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I added the categories & wikiproject tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Always nice working with you. You have a good eye for what is salvagable and an integrity to deprod based upon valid reason. Is there anything you might add to Patricia Lake so I might get it out of AfD? I took what was perceived as a one-trick pony and showed she has an adequate history of notability outside those relationships. Interesting story too... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead & SNOW kept it. Didn't seem to be any point prolonging the discussion.  Very nice work on the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you much for the close, as I was only hoping for some input on how it might be made better. Keep me posted if/when something else crosses your path as did Maple Palm that is need of a little wiki-love. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you look into this?
Hey I saw a situation that potentially needs an admins attention. While watching the watchlist I noticed a page I've authored had been changed a few times with a couple of back and forth reverts. I went ahead and looked over the contrib log of User talk:LaurenceColletti and see a long string of reverts between him and another user on a plethora of articles. Perhaps you can help him understand what he was doing incorrect it would help him out a bit. It looks as though he's a new user so it may just be a mistake of ignorance. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added my 2¢ - the user seems to have good intentions, so I doubt there will be any further problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Locker 239
I just wanted to thank you for your clear edit summary and including a very specific redirect template on Locker 239. I appreciate it, I didn't know that specific template existed. Also, congrats on your recent successful RFA. I look forward to working with you in the future.  [mad pierrot] [t   c]  23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem at WP:NPOV
A few editors keep removing a part of the policy primarily under the leadership of Slrubenstein. It has been explained to him over and over that he's expected to keep it in the policy until there's clear consensus to remove it. It seems some editors are now talking about different subjects instead of the real issue. We can't keep reverting back and forth. Any suggestions? Biofase flame | stalk 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully protected for 48 hours too stop the edit war. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, didn't expect that. You think a RfC may help resolve the issue in the meantime? Biofase flame | stalk 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't read through the conversation, but if there is no clear consensus about what wording is best and no reason to believe one will form then yes, a RFC is the proper way to resolve the dispute. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Isthmian-Atlantic moist forest
Hello ThaddeusB,

Here's what SDPatrolBot sent me. Hello Airplaneman, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Isthmian-Atlantic moist forest has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (remove prod - history has been merged - will cleanup shortly) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) I'm just here to let you know I'm completely fine with it. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 01:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Maple Palm
Thank you for finding that LA Times review. My concerns about the film's notability have been alleviated, and I will not be pursuing deletion any further. Good luck with the article! Firestorm Talk 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
ThaddeusB, Thank you for the advice. I have been reading the guidelines and I think I see where everyone is coming from. It is good to know that the quality of this resource is being maintained by the users themselves. I had no idea it was such an active community. My intention is to be a good contributor and enhance articles. I think it is best for me to get permission prior to posting links. My passion is the outdoors and I hope I can help others enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks again for the advice. LaurenceColletti (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WOW!
Inre this diff, I never even knew that thing existed. Its both horribly ugly and fascinatingly beautiful at the same time. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MacBook Pro dispute
Hello ThaddeusB. It's Airplaneman again :). May you please look into this dispute when you have the time? You see, It all began when I was trying to increase the navigability in this subsection. Butterfly0fdoom disagreed with my additions, and therefore the dispute began. It began on the article's talk page but soon moved here. In an attempt to reach a compromise, I decided to revamp the whole section in my sandbox. Butterfly0fdoom approved of it, but now Nja247 did not like it. He said it contained incorrectly used boldface. I formatted it accordingly. Now Butterfly0fdoom disagreed. Seeing that this was going in circles, I tried posting for help in WP:3O, but it was removed after a couple days without any opinion given. Well, since I know I can value your opinion on Wiki-related matters, I came here. More details can be found on the corresponding debate pages (the article's and my talk pages). Please note that you don't have to look into this (please tell me if you don't want to), but if you do, your opinion will be greatly appreciated. I'm also notifying the two others involved in this. Thank you. Airplaneman talk 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: Notifications I posted on the users' talks, in case you are interested, are here and here.


 * It was removed from 3O because 3O is a "lightweight" process specifically for when only 2 editors are involved.
 * I think the changes you made in your sandbox are a definite improvement & you should bring them to mainspace now. I will comment as such on the article's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Smee meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG
Expanded in my talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have performed some reconstructive surgery on Anthony Smee. Left a note on the author's talk page explaining N, RS, and COI. As long as no one gets a bee in their bonnet because it is not made perfect within a few hours, it will be emminently improvable if we each give it 5 minutes a day expanding a little and adding a source or two. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How to guide?
Sexual Interaction After Childbirth. I think it needs to go, but a second opinion? - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 05:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a tough call. The closest comparison I can think of when be Pregnancy which obviously doesn't have its own article.  On the other hand, the concept is notable, even if not independently notable, and I can't think of an obvious place to cover it.
 * So it's up to you - let it stand or let the community decide via AfD. I have no idea what the result of an AfD might be. (At minimum the title is wrong as it clearly isn't a proper noun :) ) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did see the books coverage, but it's the actual article that's a bit perplexing. It's a pure how-to guide the way it is, it discusses the hows in a personal way rather than a representation of facts. I initially thought of a selective merge to Postnatal, but then the timing of the two don't necessarily coincide. I'll think a little further. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 05:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Cool Barnstar
See... I can find rare barnstars too. :) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's totally "cool". :) Thank you very much. It is always nice to know one is appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD for The Universe of Myron Evans
I put The Universe of Myron Evans on AfD since the Prod-tag was removed. Thought you might be interested in the discussion since you commented on the article's talkpage. :) Seb az86556 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Nadars
Can you take a look? A few editors have tried to clean up this list to include only blue links and/or possible red links. IPs come back and add uncles and aunts and everyone else they think belong there. I hate these caste based lists for exactly this reason, but I think the list is a legitimate list. Would this be a candidate for semi-protection for a bit? - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like most the problems are coming from one person. I warned them under their current IP about edit warring and reverted to the notable people only list.  If they continue to cause problems, or the article continues to have issues, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thx, the IPs are all dial-ups in India, so it could very well be the same person. This list was related to that "nonsense message" you removed from you talk page a couple days back, I'd just found this list a couple days prior to that and was cleaning up. cheers - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Thaddeus, if you have any doubts, check with Slim Virgin. Most feel th RfC is over and the contentious section in NPOV should be removed. Can you please tend to it as you protected the page?

Some editors want to replace the passage with something new; i am sure all agree that we need to see if a consensus develops for something new. In the meantime I think there is an overwhelming agreement to remove the current section. Thanks for pushing us through a productive process. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was set to expire in an hour or so anyway, but I went ahead and removed the protection. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also went ahead and closed the RfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was just about to do that. The page protection and RfC seems to have done the trick with far less emotions being wasted and also made a bunch of other issues come to light. Thanks again for your help and feel free to comment at any time. Biofase flame | stalk 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that your removal of the text on WP:NPOV was not in line with WP:POLL, and therefore not in line with consensus, as claimed by your edit summary. (In fact, it's probably the most deliberate and explicit flaunting of WP:POLL I have ever seen; what with the whole "polls cannot override NPOV" thing). I'm not going to undo you, because I think we'll still reach a consensus on the replacement, but I don't think what you did would be considered best practice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I certainly didn't expect a gripe about my removing that text. Virtually no one wanted it. Another admin had already made the same conclusion about the consensus, but reverted himself because the page protection was in place.  I certainly didn't see anyone voting and discussion had already moved on to what to do next, under the premise the text was going to disappear.  The RfC only focused on should it stay or go - and that is all that I decided on.  I purposely left it open-ended about what should happen next so that consensus could form about it. That said, if you think I did something wrong feel free to ask another uninvolved admin how they would have closed the RfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough; let's blame the procedure. That's always a good idea, because that way no one gets hurt.
 * This was clearly a pretty huge collision between current RFC procedure and the WP:POLL guideline. You can't use polls to determine if something is NPOV, but that gets kind of subverted if you can actually just apply the poll to the WP:NPOV page itself, and declare that that has consensus. It's actually easier to change the policy than it is to change certain articles right now. That can't be good. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * POLL means that consensus isn't determined by numbers but rather strength of arguments. In this case, the numbers and strength of arguments both strongly favored removing the material.  In fact, I find it hard to imagine a situation where consensus would be more clear than this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a number of participants had their first edit immediately be a !vote. That usually means you have a a bit of a problem wrt consensus gathering. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather it was more an opinion poll from which we have learned a lot to take us forward and not a vote only poll. In any case there is no opposition left, I will strike my original no if that will make it clear but if we want a 100% agreement on any decision nothing will every change so in practice a tiny minority often has to be discarded. Biofase flame | stalk 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did anyone try to reason with you, or attempt to reach a compromise? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not get what you are saying. Seriously do you understand the consensus concept because all your comments about it so far have indicated to me that you don't. The RfC has shown that practically everyone wants it gone and many wants something else in its place, it is as clear a case of consensus as you will see for a long time to come. I just didn't want it to simply dissappear without the concept surviving which would have been the case without the RfC. This seems to also be the preference for a lot of people though many are still confused about what the concept actually is. Biofase flame | stalk 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're saying I don't understand consensus? Okay, that's usually a bad sign.
 * Can you refer me to any wiki-pages or other documents that would show that this poll represented consensus? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't take it in a bad way, we all had to learn somehow. No document will give you the explanation you want. My best advice is to take part in the processes like this one or participate in some AfDs (Articles for Deletion) to see how it works in practice. You'll find this was one of the most clear cut cases of consensus there is likely to be. Biofase flame | stalk 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so you can't show any documents that show that consensus was reached. But I can show you at least one that shows that it wasn't, and that would be WP:POLL itself.
 * As to AFD, that's a process that needs to get a lot of things done in a limited amount of time, so we fudge things a little. I know I did when I used to close them. ;-) Sometimes, people don't want you to fudge though. At that point you need to respect that; because admins don't have any special magical power that exempts them from consensus.
 * In the case of our very important NPOV policy, where's the rush? We shouldn't deliberately go slow of course; but shouldn't we actually be listening to each other's arguments and talking with each other to figure out what the best solution is?


 * Fortunately, a bunch of people are doing just that, right now; (even though the RFC is ostensibly "closed". )


 * Rather than deciding to delete the section, it looks like the consensus is to replace and improve it; the results of which we should probably be seeing in the next couple of days. I couldn't quite make out what the new wording should be from the poll questions though, could you? O:-)


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why have you deleted Dan Forshaw (musician) wiki article
We have noticed that you have deleted Dan Forshaw's wiki article! The articles do not ALL go back to the homepage, many of the point to articles in published media from published media outlets in the UK (such as Observer newspapers and Johnston Press). Dan has also performed and studies with Branford Marsalis, who is a notable modern day jazz musician, I guess you do not know much about jazz!. We request an immediate reinstation of the article!

Jude Gray Professional Music Services —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.229.217 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, the article was deleted via our Proposed deletion (PROD) process. Someone (not me) suggested it be deleted and no one objected in 7 days time.  I then hit the delete button.  Fortunately for you, anyone can contest a PROD at anytime, including after deletion.  Since you have contested the deletion I have restored the article.  However, please note that the article currently has 4 references: 2 are dead links to local newspapers, one is Forshaw's webpage, and the last is a CD review from a site that is unlikely to meet our reliable source guidelines.  None of these sources are sufficient to establish notability. As such, the article will need some better sourcing or it is likely to be deleted via the Articles for deletion process, which can't be easily undone. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I proposed the article for deletion. The subject of the article is of no note, although he seems deluded that he is. The person above argues that the article points to the 'Observer'. It does not, it points to the *Watford* Observer, a local newspaper for the small town of Watford, and it is a broken link at that.


 * The person above argues Forshaw has studied and performed with Branford Marsalis. Firstly, studying with a famous performer does not qualify you as 'notable'. Branford Marsalis, just like many performers, takes on any student who are prepared to pay tuition fees. Secondly, where has Forshaw performed with Branford Marsalis and where and with whom has he performed since? Anyone of note? Thirdly, was the Marsalis performance rated favourably by an international jazz critic? I think not. Having the nerve to turn up to a jam at which a famous artist is performing and having the nerve to walk on stage and busk a couple of choruses of Watermelon Man does not qualify you as a notable.


 * When Forshaw cuts an album with Blue Note or shares the stage with Marsalis at Carnige Hall, then he might be worthy of a mention in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eartrumpet (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Journal compilation bot
Any update? (Also, you got a pretty long talk page which takes a bit of time to load, ever considered setting up automatic archives?) Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot finished compiling the stats a couple days ago, but I was too busy to write the code to upload the data. Hopefully I will get that done today.
 * I rather not auto-archive my talk page, but I did go ahead and manually archive a bunch of older stuff today. Thanks for letting me know it was getting slow - I had no idea because it always loads fast for me.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well it was not painfully slow :P or anything like that.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a footer for the compilation JournalsPrevNext. The A1 subpage is set up like the "final product" should be (aka with all the templates, merged lists, sortable tables, etc...).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw; nicely done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A new data dump is availible. That should prove useful.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Any update?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't made very many changes yet, but I will shortrly and will then will run the bot on the new dump. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, a new database dump is available. Make sure to use the newest rather than the 7 July 2009 one I linked earlier. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that this exists. Several links have been created and it would be nice to get an updated list. No need to implement everything on this run (although it would be nice if the bot at least used the templates I made to generate the navbox), so if updating the code is what holds you back, just run it like it is (if possible, using the templates). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'll run it within the next few days with just a couple of the suggested changes made (including using the templates). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to get an ETA on this? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will start the bot run today and the list should be ready in ~24 hours. Sorry about not doing so sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! No worries about the delays (I'm just very eager to see the navigation be improved, and get an updated missing journals list). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I know I'm annoying, but it's been a couple of days. Did the data crunching go well or has there been problems? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not annoying at all. My computer crashed mid-way through, so I had to start the task over.  It is running as I type. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bummer. I can't wait to get my fingers on a shiny new compilation. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Molander references
That's great that you found references. Now would be a good time to create a reference section and remove the notability and reference tag. Could you do it? Thanks in advance. --Stormbay (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RS Opinion
Just wanted to get your opinion on whether this should be considered a reliable source? I'd reverted addition of that link as a source on Tamil language and opened a discussion at the talk page. However, I later found that the link is used as a ref on other pages too. The link says they use Wikipedia as one source. If a discussion is needed, I can take it to RS/N, but I thought not. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is certainly pretty questionable, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily not reliable just because it consulted Wikipedia. They do seem to have concern for getting the info right which means fact checking is likely - a reputation for fact checking, not so much.  More importantly though, it should never be necessary to use it as a source, as it appears to strictly be tertiary so the secondary sources it used can always replace it as a reference. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But the non Wikipedia source they refer to actually has the numbers matching what the page currently has. I can only imagine that there's some other page somewhere on Wikipedia that lists a different number. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 09:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, sincerely. While I don't think my vote should ever be discounted, if I'm the lone oppose in a 100-1 vote, so be it. Keepscases (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shubhendra Shankar
Thanks for merging the content. Please consider in the future to mark on the talk page of the merged article that it is not an article anymore. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Young Pakistan Flag Movement
Thanks for cleaning up for me on this article restoration - I got called away IRL and forgot to get back to it right away. I've since added an so it will be clear that the page previously was prodded. Oh, and I see congrats are in order, let me add mine. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongbar Industries
Your removal of the prod tag I added on 31 July based on an "I'll get back to this someday" added on 7 July seems a novel way of interpreting a challenge to the prod. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake - I got my months mixed up there, thinking the comment was from yesterday, not a month and a day ago. I went ahead and deleted the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good luck with the Admin thing ~ hope you don't get too many stroppy customers like me :-) Bazj (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Performance report
The page is patently a dicdef, and clearly has no potential for expansion. There is one other article linking to it, and even that is not referring to the subject of said "article". The article was properly tagged as PROD for 7 days, the deprod rationale was that being a dicdef is not grounds for deletion, which directly contradicts WP:DP, which actually says that dicdefs with no potential are valid for deletion. I therefore believe it would be an utter waste of everyone's time to list such an obvious case on AfD. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that "dicdef" is a valid speedy. "Expired prod", however, is a valid speedy, and "dicdef" is a valid reason for proposing deletion.  If you disagree, tag it for AfD, and create the page (which you'll be well aware that I can't do).  81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I set up the AfD as you requested: Articles for deletion/Performance report. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to your response at User talk:Colonel Warden, do not deliberately misrepresent the views and actions of others. You stated the "warning" was invalid.  The article was prodded with a rationale explicitly listed in the deletion policy as valid, and was deprodded with a rational that directly contradicted that policy.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The warning was invalid - anyone can remove a prod for any reason, as explicitly stated by policy. This is the third time I have told you this. The fact that you disagreed with his assessment doesn't make it invalid, nor does the fact that dictionary definitions are allowed to be deleted invalidate CW deproding this dictionary definition.  Also by removing my comment you have  invalidly removed my view point from his talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it's "invalid" to suggest people provide a reason for deprods that is actually in line with the deletion policy as opposed to directly contradicting it? I also take issue with you deliberately mischaracterizing my views.  This is invalid under any circumstances.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the warning was invalid per policy because as explicitly stated in the proposed deletion instructions: "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the prod tag from the article." Note the lack of requiring a valid reason.  Additionally it goes on to state: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith."  No where does it say anything about users who remove a tag with a rationale that is "against policy" being invalid.
 * Additionally, I strongly object to your repeatedly accusing with of "deliberately mischaracterizing your views." I don't even know what view I am allegedly misrepresenting, let alone doing it on purpose.  As far as I can tell I have attributed any view to you at all.  The fact that I think you are quite wrong doesn't mean I am misrepresenting your view. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Might you consider...
Perhaps extending a polite word of caution to new accout User talk:Pdsabooks, and working out what is required to change his username? I'd hate someone land on him with both feet and block him for vioaltion of WP:ORGNAME, as he may not be aware that he is in violation. In my search to source an article, I came across this, and realized that even if unintentional, his use of that username is unfortunate... specially since his first article is about an individual who is an author/manager/actor. Are the two entities connected? Possibly. Just coincidence? Possibly. Should they have a chance to address this before the wall falls on them? I think so. From their talk page, it seems they simply may not feel Wikipedia is worth the effort... but maybe not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and warned him using UsernameWarn plus a personal message per your request. Really though the normal practice is to just block with a template that explains they can create a new account or can be unblocked if they request a username change.  I don't see any harm in a friendly warning though, as it might help prevent the loss of a potential editor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was my thought also. Your note makes this a bit less overwhelming... a more of a hospitable place... and might not chase away a potential future contributor simply because of an initial faux pas. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Modifying user comments
Please do not modify other user's comments without their permission per WP:TALK. -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a simply, uncontroversial change that I'm sure DGG would have no problem with as that is clearly what he meant. However since you want to waste everyone's time, I'll tell him to make the change himself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, thank you! -- Mythdon  talk •  contribs  05:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to thank Thaddeus for fixing my obvious error., as I am grateful to anyone who fixes my typos and other errors, just as they might fix vandalism.  Nobody need bother asking.  I do not know if others feel that way, but I assume everyone has good faith in doing this.  DGG (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was definitly trivial and a monumental waste of time.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

you may be interedt in this.
[] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent dispute (Flirt (album))
I think i should issue you an apology because i have obviously misunderstood the role of administrators and i do accept that my comments previously were more critical of the user and not the article. i would just like to state in my defence that since the AfD from march 2009 a lot of things have changed with the album and several months on we cannot even confirm that it is going to be released. All we can confirm is that Eve was planning to release an album called "flirt" and she had worked with many producers etc. Im sorry if it seemed that i was trying to force my opinion on others, i was simply applying my past editing experiences with other AfD. My issue is obviously that i assumed because Beyonce's Broken Hearted Girl was removed as was Nicole Scherzinger's Her Name is Nicole as they are both unconfirmed releases that 'Flirt' would also be deemed to fall under the same circumstances as it also is unconfirmed (details are sketchy). In future i will be more careful to accept that different articles will have had different circumstances and there AfD concensus will be different. If you insist so much on keeping the article open can i suggest that we place a second AfD on it (considering the time period since the last) and let the AfD decide? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Heads up
Articles for deletion/Latin Metal (3rd nomination). Fences &amp;  Windows  16:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just finished responding there when this message poped up. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gypsy Jokers
If you think Gypsy Jokers are notable, do you think it might be an idea to provide some evidence? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well first off, something doesn't actually have to be notable to avoid speedy deletion. It merely has to assert importance - "35 international chapters" is certainly a claim of importance.  That said, the club/gang is clearly notable.  I have posted a couple searches on the talk page of the article to get people started. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 222 Google books hits, here's one:  Abductive  (reasoning) 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Infosound entry on Wikipedia
Apologies for the two inadequate attempts to create an entry in Wikipedia for the UK charity and public service, Infosound.

Although I was not comfortable with the original entry being suspected of being a commercial 'advertisement' (as the charity is run entirely by volunteers and is a totally free service), I have to accept your subsequent assessment that Infosound is not noteworthy or of any significance. I would therefore be grateful if you would please remove the entry completely.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky.p.dya (talk • contribs) 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The person who tagged it as an advertisement was mistaken. That is why I declined the speedy deletion and converted it to proposed deletion to give you a chance to improve the article.  It has since been deleted per your request to do so.
 * Please know that your contributions are welcome even though this time it didn't work out for you. If you need an assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh why have you deleted my page???
I have done loads of modeling. more than louise glover and 2 major films i want it back please i am very well known!

ill get my solicitor to contact you. Your insane

i suggest you read links. Im on loads of celebrity sites!!!!!! Louise Glover is not a model or half the people under GLAMOUR MODELS

and who are you? this is a public domain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyoldfield (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had bother to read the log information that pops up when you view the page, you'd have know that I deleted it as an expired PROD and said "page can be restored upon request, but the requester should be willing to address the following concern: self-promotion by an apparently non notable model."  As you can see, all you had to due was make a reasonable request & I would have restored it.  Unfortunately, instead you chose to insult me and make legal threats, the later of which is grounds for an immediate block. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA (Headbomb)
I've answered all your questions. Is there anything more you'd like to know before you can take a stance? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it is going to be a close call. I definitely plan to !vote, but I haven't 100% made up my mind about what I want to say yet.  I normally think my RfA !votes carefully and wait till close to the end to decide.  I will say that I am currently leaning support, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, there's no need for rushing yourself. It's just that you stopped asking questions and gave no sign of life, so I was wondering if you felt like "you exceeded your question quota" or something to that effect. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that this is about to conclude. Your vote could prove critical in deciding whether or not I get the tools. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

what are you doing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Lancaster+Community+Safety+Coalition

Since when are you allowed to contest a prod after someone deletes it? You had a solid week to contest it. And on top of that, it was listed on User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions for almost 24 hours. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since always. Contested PRODs are always restored upon request by policy. Sure, I could take it to DR, but that would just be a waste of everyone's time.  From WP:PROD: "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article should therefore be immediately restored by any administrator without discussion." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Sorry for being so combative the first time.
 * I should let you know that I nominated this article for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Lancaster Community Safety Coalition. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I am just surprised that you didn't know that PRODs were restored upon request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive
This page is ridiculously large. If you are too busy to archive stuff yourself, may I suggest that you ask MiszaBot III to do it for you. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alien workshop
I think you moved something from an article where it probably didn't belong into Alien Workshop where it appeared to belong. I have a feeling that you don't have a vested interest in the material, but just wanted to mention that I deleted it, in case you did. Didn't seem that notable to me and more about the media hype than about the company per se. 99% of the stuff I rv is from unregistered users. When from a long-time editor, I thought I should probably touch base. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly don't have a vested interest in the material. However, you are mistaken as notability doesn't affect article contents, only whether something should have a stand alone article.  It is certainly perfectly reasonable to have a short description of video the company produced within the company's article.
 * I see if I can work out a better description of the video. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Telecom Expense Management and Wireless Mobility Management
Please send me my article back that you just deleted titled Telecom Expense Management and Wireless Mobility Management. I was trying to create a educational page based on the many requests we get from our prospects and customers at AOTMP. You will notice that I did not ever mention or refer to our company and would not do that. That said, I am not sure why you deleted my page and didn't even give me the opportunity to keep updating it with content that will be very beneficial to hundreds of thousands of people. As I am sure you know managing telecom and wireless services is becoming more and more critical all the time and people are looking for information on it. I could care less about promoting our company but as the founder and CEO of our little $20 million company I am about giving people the information they are continually requesting in what has become a very fast growing and necessary industry. What pushed me over the edge to spend the time to write this article that you deleted was I just spoke to a MBA class at Indiana University as I do three times a year and they asked me why they can never find anything on this, what is becoming a multi-billion dollar, industry on Wikipedia.

Tim Lybrook CEO AOTMP tlybrook@aotmp.com


 * I have userified it to User:Chaddavid/Enterprise Telecom Expense Management and Wireless Mobility Management. However, I must make several cautions here:


 * 1) The article is on your user space now, which buys you some time. However, it will have to be worked on or it will be deleted again after a week or two
 * 2) No one would every find the article at the title you had it under
 * 3) You need to pick one topic and focus on it - as written it sounded like a bunch of loosely connected ideas
 * 4) You can't copy text from your own website, unless you release your copyright claims on it and follow the instructions at: Donating copyrighted materials - it is unlikely you really want to do that
 * 5) All articles must meet our notability guidelines - in short this means the topic must be covered in depth by multiple sources independent of it.
 * 6) All article must be neutral in tone
 * Now some good news:


 * 1) I am here and willing to help you neutralize the article if you can first narrow it down to a notable topic.
 * 2) I did a search, and your company meets our notability guidelines. If you'd like to write an article about it, go ahead and do so but I advise you read WP:COI first.
 * Once you think the article is ready for inclusion, let me know so that I can verify it will meet our guidelines (I'd hate to see it deleted again after yyou put more effort into it.) If you need any help along the way, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria #6
WP:MUSICBIO talks about both musicians and ensembles.
 * Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.

It is saying that an article about a musicians who have been in two or more notable ensembles is notable OR an article about an ensemble which contains two or more notable musicians is notable. Therefore, the article still fails criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess the wording is rather ambiguous. I can certainly see it your way.  However, if it is talking about two separate ideas, it should be two separate sentences.  I think it certainly has been used the way I interpret at times though.  For example, people such as Eric Griffiths are considered notable merely for being in a band with two independently notable members.  I'll ask for more input at the guideline's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so it is what I assumed. That's good. Then, I guess that means that the WP:PROD was put legitimately, and I will therefore revert the removal of the PROD. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I turned into a redirect, as that is the best way to deal with subjects that lack independent notability but are covered in other articles.
 * As a result of your query, the guideline's clarity has been improved. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just excellent. Good to see that our discussion clarified the information for others. However, I was wondering how you create that paragraph above the edit box in the edit mode. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me? 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You edit a special page called an "edit notice". In your case it is located at User talk:Warrior4321/Editnotice.  What ever you put on that page will appear whenever someone edits the associated talk page.  There is a template - editnotice - to make it a little easier.  Full details are available at Editnotice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club
Hi. I've nominated Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Dbratland (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Dbratland (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article deserves to make DYK, but you are far too modest. Your contribution to the article was far more significant than my own. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi's visit to Andipatti in 1934
I PRODded and it was contested. I don't believe this is redirect/merge material as this is no different from his visit to another 1000+ towns and villages during his lifetime and therefore not a merge candidate for the main article. I plan on taking this to AfD. What's your take? cheers - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment. We don't need an article for every visit he ever made, even if they technically all have 2+ sources talking about them.  Unless the visit is especially important (no evidence that is the case) then it is non-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's at AfD now. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Note
regarding this post. I was considering whether to "block" or to "warn" myself. Good catch. — Ched : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ThaddeusB
Thank you for the note. Don't worry, I wont be posting any more notes in Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen. I don't expect you to know the history of the article but after years of it, and so many insults from Dr Baileys ( the author ) co-workers ( they revealed it, the info was never requested  )  I fell prey to emotion. I can list 30 occasions where they called me things like " low hanging fruit " or other insults to my skills as an editor, but of course I never complained , nor did I call on cohorts who were editors block others. My comments and any talk in discussion are at an end. I will probably continue small edits on the article but trust that any discussion  is over. Everything I will do now will be to improve the article and I keep from discussion. Thanks. DarlieB (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ThaddeusB,
 * If you've got a minute, could you stop by Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen and help DarlieB understand that WP:BURDEN applies to the editor adding questionable material to the article, not to those that challenge it? I don't think that the unanimous opinion of all regular editors is going to be sufficient to convince DarlieB that it's inappropriate to describe a peer-reviewed paper by a professor as an "amateur investigation".
 * Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation seems to be under control now, but if it escalates again let me know and I'll be happy to try and help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

J Regina Hyland
Hi Thaddeus, what this needs is a complete rewrite, with everything properly sourced. As things stand, there are no sources at all for the personal details, and nothing showing notability. If you want to devote the time to it, and you have found sources, I don't want to interfere, but otherwise it should really be deleted. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. Cleaning it up is just a first step, then I'll find some references. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ANi
Hey, that thread on ANI you just closed has been reopened by the originator. This is extremely disruptive and completely out of hand, can you address it again?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Our little troll friend is back and continue his disruption. He opened a 3rd thread on the issue on ANI and we quickly closed it. I left a definiton of stupid and apparently he thought it was a personal attack [] (Repeating the same action over and expecting a different result is the definition BTW) can we pleaseblock this guy? He doesn't get it, isn't willing to get it and frankly very annoying with his sniveling.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24h for personal attacks & disruptive editing. Guess I'll be the subject of his next "admin abuse" thread. :-/ --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is almost everything I did when I first started but I didn't have a tenth of the people he has on his page trying to help. Then again I was being an idiot too.....Hopefully he can come back like I did but somehow at this point I doubt it. Thanks for the help though.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the side of fairness, maybe a reduction of UK's block would be in order. He's only been here since the end of July I believe and a one or two week block might be enough to jolt his system back to Article writing. Now if he were to start his disruptive behavior again certainly an indefinite would be in order but with the fact that he is still so darn new he may just be too raging mad to accept what we are saying. I had that problem too and it did work out ok when I figured out the greatness of this place. (Incidently I got blocked indefinitely when coming back to apoligize for being a dipshit, but this was later removed because it was clearly in good faith and needed.) I don't know that's just me, you may feel different.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The indef wasn't a punishment for his actions, but rather to prevent further abuse as per his threat to continue disrupting as soon as the block expired. He is welcome to email me anytime he is ready to drop the threat and move on. I will immediately unblock if/when that happens. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

38 AI AfDs
I dunno about speedy closing them. I tried to find one of them that was deletion-worthy and have failed so far. Maybe it would be better to let the ones that have lots of commentary and valid keep notvotes be kept, and the few that don't garner enough discussion will be relisted for another week? In the end I'll bet one or two will be deleted/redirected. Abductive (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do believe most are notable (and all are definitely at least notable within the context of the show) given that Idol is such a big deal. The thing is that I don't want to waste my time searching for sources to prove this for them all, and I doubt anyone else will either.  Thus, most people who participate will either vote (not !vote) on a bunch based on their feelings rather than research, or only bother to defend their personal favorites.  (There is already one person who voted delete on several with a "rationale" that that essentially said it is about time we start deleting this crap, arguing that previous keep AfDs used "bad" arguments.)  I suspect most would be closed as keep after a weelk, but some will be deleted and it won't be based on who is more notable.  Instead the results will be based on which voters showed up to that particular AfD.  Thus I don't think the current AfDs will be based on discussion and will reach their results "randomly" (more so than a typical AfD).  That is why I am saying speedy close. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't be upset if they get speedy closed, but I trust the process maybe a bit more than you. So far debate is going as well as might be expected if these were nominated one week apart. Abductive (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will agree with that - so far, so good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Result was: 36 keep, 1 redirect, 1 non-consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I predicted. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dramaonly
I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're around
I just tagged Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox1 as G2 and also left a note on the creator's page on how to create a sandbox in userspace. Maybe you could userfy this article and leave a note on his page? cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 03:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Userified with a notice on his talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thx, I didn't realize that userfication is just moving the page and deleting the redirect. I'll keep that in mind for the future, it's probably just easier to mark the redirect for deletion. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, barnstar, and Invitation
I would like to invite you to the WP:Article Rescue Squadron

Congratulations on becoming a administrator. I wish I would have known about you at the time, and the vote would have been 118. I noticed your comments on two of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron flagged articles, and looking at your recent history I was very impressed by several of your redirects...this and your work in AFDs is really commendable, so commendable I think you really deserve this:

So, here is the invitation to join 277 other editors in rescuing articles. Best wishes, and hope to see your name in the AFD trenches soon.

Your name sounds vaguely familar, we have probably edited before somewhere together. Have a nice weekend. Ikip (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you very much for the barnstar. I do try to PRESERVE whatever content I can, and and am honored that you noticed my work. The reason that I haven't previously joined ARS is that primary focus isn't on AfD, but rather on PROD.  I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges.  Naturally, sometimes people don't take my word for it and send the page to AfD after I've deproded.  Since I have already researched the topic, I am always prepared to make a strong case for it at AfD, usually resulting in a keep.
 * I improve as many articles as I can, and have indeed have saved some otherwise "hopeless" cases at AfD through editing. Of course, there are only so many hours in a day & I have other obligations (on & off wiki) so I can't edit as many as I'd like.
 * So basically, I've never felt a need to join ARS since their focus and mine isn't exactly the same, although clearly there is some overlap. However, since you were kind enough to extend me an invitation, I will probably join. :)
 * In regards to my name sounding familiar, that isn't too surprising. You and I are both "all over Wikipedia" and so I'm sure we have probably contributed to the same discussions on multiple occasions.  However, I do not believe we have yet worked together directly.  Hopefully that will change now. :)
 * If there is any type of article in particular you prefer to work on, let me know. Maybe I can throw a few PROD rescues your way for improvement. :)  If you ever need any admin help (such as copies of deleted articles), let me know and I will be glad to help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You deserve the honor. I am incredibly impressed by your statment:
 *  I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges. 
 * Do you do this manually, or do you use some tools? If you use some tools, I am very interested in how. I have been developing some pretty cool gadgets and hope to learn how to use bots soon. Some editors and I at ARS got a auto AFD notifier online.
 * Who else do you work with regularly on PRODs?
 * Right now ARS uses a shot gun approach to AfDs, we need to "patrol every single AFD" like you are with PRODs.
 * Thank you Thaddeus. It is good to see such a thoughful and detailed response. User:Dream Focus at one time expressed a real enjoyment in prod work. I mentioned our converation to Dream. Editors have expressed an interest in somehow making ARS include prod work.
 * Thank you for the offer about retrieving deleted articles. I am very familar with Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles and I have incoporated it into my template, User:Ikip/AfD. I asked about 20 admins for 5 articles each to build User:Ikip/AfD on average day. If I decide to do another study which will not change anyone's mind, I probably will contact you.
 * re: Maybe I can throw a few PROD rescues your way for improvement.
 * Or better yet, post them on WT:ARS, and we can all help. We have 277 members now. If you have the initative, you can incorporate PRODS into ARS. But if you feel more comfortable throwing work my way alone, let me know.
 * I hope you decide to join. Ikip (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned you on Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron I am quite impressed. Ikip (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and joined. :) I also added some to the PROD discussion.
 * To answer you questions, my dePRODing is basically manual. I use User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary to go through them in a systematic fashion.  I do, at minimum, a Google News search for every article no matter how unlikely it seems.  Certain topics aren't likely to appear in the news even if notable, so I often follow it up with a GBooks or GScholar search.  When applicable, I do a genre specific search.  For example, I put every musical act into allmusic.com to get an idea if they are notable or not.  I use AutoHotkey to help do certain repetitive tasks (like type "contest prod"), but all the searching is done manually.  I also have a script that organizes my past dePRODs for me.  The results are stored at User:ThaddeusB/PROD Log although they are quite out of date at the moment.
 * The only user I currently work with on a regular basis is MichaelQSchmidt, but I have worked with a number of editors on one or two articles at some point. I generally throw every movie-related article I find MQS's way.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:The Cow That Thinks She's A Horse. Thank you.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shade 3D
Please restore Shade 3D. Shade 3D is not an expired product but moved to a new company. It is one of the oldest 3D products available today (first available in 1986, so longer on the market than MAX, Maya and the rest). You probably don't know it because its originally a Japanese product. It also has unique features such as bezier curves, making it relevant to 2D designers. --Chikako (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PROD is short for Proposed deletion, not product. (You could have figured that out by clicking on word PROD which is linked in the deletion summary.)  That said, it certainly can be restored upon request so I have done so.  That doesn't mean the article can't be deleted again though.  If someone so choose, they can send the article to AfD where the community will decide if it is notable or not.  The best way to prevent that from happening is to add third party references to the article.  In this case, it might include things like newspaper articles, magazines reviews, or major websites that talk about the software.  These sources don't have to be available online, but it helps.
 * If you need help properly adding references to the page, or need any other kind of help, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Papa Was a Preacher
I didn't speedy it as an A8; I did so as an A7 (no indication of notability given) and then gave additional reasoning.

I'm willing to restore it if you're willing to add your links to it so that its notability is clearer, but what administrators are actually expected to evaluate when considering whether to delete an article is "does the article as written make a claim of notability?" — which isn't, strictly speaking, the same thing as whether the topic is notable or not. It's quite possible to write a speediable article about a notable topic, and it's also quite possible to write a non-speediable article about a topic that has no chance whatsoever of surviving AFD.

Speedy isn't necessarily just about the notability of the topic — it also has to do with the quality of the article itself. If your research had already been added to the article, it wouldn't have been deletable, but there wasn't any assertion of notability present in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thorne (The Vampire Chronicles)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Thorne (The Vampire Chronicles), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Doniago (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 film)
I just did a rewrite and copyedit of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 film). Go ahead and either merge histories or whatever need be done of Don't Be Afraid of The Dark into Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 film) as there is no need for the two, and it passes WP:NFF as principle filming has begun, and enough information exists to expand and source the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Normally, you wouldn't merge histories for a case like this as it can create a very weird history where it looks like people were edit warring between the two version. Fortunately, there were no overlapping GFDL significant edits in the history so I was able to get away with it.  :)  The only oddity that remains is that it looks like the article was recreated in the middle of it.  I is now safe to continue editing, if so desired. The Don't Be Afraid of The Dark page now redirects to the disambiguation page at the proper capitalization. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew it would be an odd one the moment I looked at it. Nice that it is already filming. As more is added over the next months, it will only get better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)`

Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island)
Hello! Please note my edit summary here. I do indeed say "merged from Isola (fictional island)". I also do note it on the talk page here and here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I didn't notice the diff incorporated multiple edits & thus missing the edit summary that showed it.  Thanks for following WP:PRESERVE and merging (properly). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. Your questions were tough, but made the RfA a good learning experience. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and just had to chuckle...
"Souring"? Glad to know I'm not the only one who makes an occasional typo. Keeps us human. (grin). MichaelQSchmidt (talk)`

John Lakin
Dear Sir

Please be advised that the content as altered by me are directly from Mr. Lakin

Correcting inaccurate content

Robin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinjhewitt (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * so you are correcting the article on his behalf? That would be a Conflict of Interest so I have placed an additional warning on your page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's PROD log
Can you take a look? An inordinate number of Astronomy club related articles up there, probably an offshoot of this AfD. Some are obviously bad PRODs like Royal Astronomical Society of Canada which I'll dePROD in a bit - 504 Gnews hits and 1099 Gbooks that are by the society or mention the society. Any reasonable way to address this? - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As of right now, there appear to be 22 of them. They were nominated in two batches, not lasting more than 5-10 mins in total.  The person who proded them almost certainly didn't make any attempt to check for notability.
 * Now you have two choices basically, you could deprod them all with a statement like "appears to be a disruptive nomination as the proder mass nominated these in a short period." PRODs can be contested for any reason, so it would be well within your right to do so.  The upside is it doesn't waste your time.  The downside is it is more likely to lead to a group AfD which is almost never a good thing.
 * The other option is to review them yourself & only deprod the notable ones... or just let them sit & all review any that remain after 6+ days like I do with all other prods. This way is a lot more time consuming but is less likely to cause further problems down the road. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've dePRODded three, some others have been dePRODded too. I'm going to leave it at that, I'm sure there will be others who'd take care of the rest, and I'd love to see Phil Bridger's edit summary when he contests a couple! Then I'll take a stab on deletion day. Different note - just saw the post below, didn't know I'd cause so much trouble! cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, you didn't actually cause any of the trouble. The guys was just a little upset over me removing a prod combined with the statement I made on your talk page some time ago about him being "snarky."  I looked a bit into his history, and he has a habit of sounding bitey - not sure if it is a personality issue or a language issue though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission Syndicate
I saw that you removed the prod. I really dislike the way that you use your Admin powers. Rather than deleting the page(which no one else contested), you saved it to make your stats look better. Mission Syndicate is now at AFD for people to judge, not just you. As you posted on Spaceman's page earlier about using your admin power because I made a comment, I would assume you would block me from editing for your own personal benefit. I'll just find another I.P and report your dirty tactics anyways.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to attack me, please at least make some attempt to get your facts straight. No special authority is required to contest a prod, so I didn't misuse my admin powers to do so.  I certainly didn't do so to "make my stats look better" as i don't even know what stat contesting a prod would allegedly make look better.  I also didn't use my admin powers when I sent your article to AfD, as any editor can send an article to AfD.  So, so far we have me doing two things anyone could have done that you didn't like me doing because my opinion disagreed with your.
 * Now, you say I will "block you for my own person benefit." Finally you have something that would actually involve admin powers.  Thing is, I would never do that despite your assumption of bad faith.  I will warn you, however, that these assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are unacceptable.  Your attitude will likely get you into trouble down the road if you don't adjust it. (For clarity I just mean in a general sense, this isn't a threat in any way.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can take that as an attack if you want. I am just stating what I read on here vs. what you actually do. When a prod is supposed to be deleted after seven days, I read that an admin will delete it. In this case, the prod had been expired and therefor ready for deletion for more than six hours (UTC), when you came along and denied it. Had this been any other editor (not an admin), this would have been justified. Furthermore, Administrators on wiki are supposed to be "free from decisions based on other editors". That is to say an admin is supposed to make decisions based on there own findings, not someone else's. Specifically, you seem to be the brainpower for spacemanspiff's eyes. I never made a "snarky" comment. I just do not think it's fair that because you are an admin, everyone else who is not in good with you should have to worship you. I owe you nothing.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any editor can contest any PROD at anytime, including say 3 months after deletion if they wanted. Additionally, by rule administrators are supposed to review prods are make an independent judgment.  If you are going to lecture me about policy, please take the time to read the policy first.
 * Secondly, this is collaborative environment . People are encouraged to ask questions if they don't know an answer.  Spacemanspiff regularly asking questions make him a model editor, not a lackey.  (He also ask questions of many other people, fyi).
 * Finally I don't expect, or want, anyone to worship me & never claimed you owed me anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Either way, I do not assume you to be a bad admin/editor. I just think as 1 of roughly 1500 select individuals(admins), editors should be able to question your tactics. Your reasons seem to hold firm, as I apologize if you felt I was assuming you were a bad faith editor.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but please choose your words more carefully in the future. I have read through a few of your recent comments to people, and a number of them could easily be read as insulting.  Please remember that online people can't hear your tone, so if words you choose convey a certain tone people will assume that is how you are talking to them even if that isn't what you intended. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your past kindness maybe helped me today
I just gave the an editor a second barnstar, and noticed this first barnstar,User_talk:Magioladitis Maybe she/he decided to negotiate and be nice about a redirect with me, because of the positive experience that she had with you before.

Everytime I see your work, I am impressed with what you do. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. You really know how to make a guy feel good. :)  In case you were interested, here is history that led to the barnstar: .  Magioladitis took the rare initiative and followed my dePROD advice instead of just AfDing, trying to redirect without merge, or ignoring the situation entirely.
 * The compromise solution for character articles is simple - merge several articles into one characters list. Yet so many people refuse to accept it, wasting everyone's time. I've even had people argue adamantly against even a redirect at AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PROD
I prodded several songs from Dream Theater's Images and Words album. After seven days without contest, user:Juliancolton deleted them as WP:PROD provides. You have undeleted and redirected them, in some cases with the edit summary "prod contested after deletion." What does "prod contested after deletion" mean?<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PRODs are intended to be entirely uncontroversial, so they become void when somebody contests them—even after deletion, in most cases. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By rule, a prod can be contested at any time, including after deletion. If I'd had a chance to review them before deletion I would have redirected them then, but I didn't, so I redirected them after deletion.  I restored the history in case someone wanted to work on them later.  My summary was simply stating why they were being undeleted.
 * A redirect is usually the best way to deal with a non-notable songs for a number of reasons: 1) People commonly search for song titles, so redirecting them to related info is helpful. 2) The presence of a redirect discourages inexperienced editors from recreating the article when they find it "missing".  3) It prevents creating new red links as all of these songs had about 5 incoming links.  And 4) leaving the  history in tact allows an experienced editor to go back in & restore the info if they found evidence that the song is notable at a later date.
 * All of these songs have potential notability, as it is plausible there are reliable source reviews of the songs "out there" given the extreme notability of the group itself. However, none have proven notability as no one has found these hypothetical reviews and put them into the articles yet.
 * If you have any further questions, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jac Vanek
Sorry to chime in here but I wanted to mention that this article has been created at least 6 times and then deleted over a period of 2 years. Also, condidering that the nominators stated that this article should not be speedy deleted to give the author a few days to determine notibility and get some better refs it was closed in roughly 24 hours. I recommend the article be reopened for at least a couple days to allow the creator a chance to build a decent article. I normally don't inlvolve myself in this area but I have recently found frustration with several articles I created being marked for deletion because the deletion nominator was from England and didn't think that receiving the Medal of Honor was notible enough. In my case google didn't turn up much on a couple of them because the sites were government. Although I am certain the government doesn't maintain info on this individual it did show that google alone isn't the key source to finding quality refs. Whenever the notibility issue comes up I like to point folks to this little article. Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, which although it isn't a biography certainly pushes the bounderies of notibility.--Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the article was deleted via AfD, it is no longer within my authority to unilaterally restore it. If the article creator (or anyone else) expresses an interest in improving the article, I could userify it, but to actually restore it would require a community consensus at deletion review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprod?
List of busking locations? I'm not sure if it's salvageable. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree with the nominators rationale, but on the other hand I don't think it is completely hopeless either. A tried tweaking the inclusion criteria slightly to make it a better defined list, but haven't deproded yet. Let me know if you think that helps.
 * Also the list has been around since 2006 and has over 100 edits, so it probably at least warrants AfD discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deprodded now, with a plea in the edit summary for a few days to try to save it. I won't be free to do any editing until Monday. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a few refs for the Central US stuff. Couldn't help wanting to do something especially since I've busked at the very first entry!There are some good sources about busking in many of the locations, although finding them is very difficult when there are so many about so-and-so busked at this place. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ASCAAD
Dear ThaddeusB,

The website of ASCAAD (The Arab Society for Computer Aided Architectural Design) has been deleted. Would you please un-delete it to allow the committee to produce the required changes according to your outlines and comments listed below. Thanks

A Al-Attili Member of Board of Directors (ASCAAD)


 * (Expired PROD - page can be restored upon request, but improvement will be needed. PRODer's concern was: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alattili (talk • contribs) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I have restored the article. However, if the article could still later be deleted via community discussion at articles for deletion.   The best way to do that is an third party reliable sources to the article that verify the article's contents.  If you need any help with reference formatting or any other kind of help let me know and I will see what I can do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare 2
Hey there Thaddeus. Just wanted to drop a little note that I answered your question at my RfA. Also, Happy Belated Wikiversary! <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A warm welcome
I don't think I have ever been more excited to welcome an editor to Article Rescue Squadron. I hope that the Article Rescue Squadron gives you back a fraction as much as your multiple talents are sure to give to the Squadron. Ikip (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

John
Dear sir I have not had a response from you yet and Mr. Lakian is concerned that the information is corrected. Please respond ASAP.

Thank You in advance Robin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinjhewitt (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did respond on your talk page. It is you who has failed to supply me with the needed information - specifically I do not know what information in John Lakian is supposedly inaccurate.  I do understand some of the information is negative, but that doesn't make it inaccurate - and all negative information is attributed to reliable sources.  I am sorry Mr. Lakian is embarrassed by his failed political runs, but that doesn't mean they never happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Will properly source ASAP"
Lately, I've come across numerous articles de-prodded by you with links to Google search results in the edit summary and the claim that you'll source the article ASAP. This concerns me somewhat because of all these instances, you have yet to do any of the claimed sourcing, and considering your high volume of edits, it does appear you would have the time. Of course you're under no obligation to do any such sourcing, but to say you will without the actual intention of doing so is misleading and easy to construe as a somewhat shady way of deterring the editors doing the prodding from taking further action (i.e., AfDs) in the belief that you're handling the issue. I would like to think this is not the case, so if you could refrain from claiming you'll source the article ASAP when you're instead going to direct your attention elsewhere, it would prevent any confusion. Thanks!  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your concern. I actually have gone back and sourced a number of articles, but I am currently ~2 months behind in doing so.  I plan to try and catch up when I take some time off my real world job in the near future.  I also plan to enlist the help of other editors to get the job done faster.  Perhaps you would like to help me fix some?  I can give you a couple in your specific area of interest if you want.
 * If the issue can be solved, the article shouldn't be going to AfD whether or not I say I will work on it as AfD is not for forcing cleanup. Subjects are judged by their potential, not their current state. I defend every one of my dePRODs that is sent to AfD, almost always successfully.  Of course having to defend articles takes my time away from other areas (such as actually improving things), so I prefer articles not go to AfD.
 * Perhaps my promise to work on the article decreases the number that are sent to AfD, perhaps it doesn't - it is hard to say for sure. However, I do mean what I say.  I also dePROD a fair number of articles where I make no such claim since I have no intention of going back to work on those ones.  In my experience, those articles really aren't any more likely to go to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's the list of the backlog? I'm happy to help. Mbinebri's query has a hidden and probably unintentional assumption, which is that only the deprodder can source the article - there's nothing stopping someone else who comes across the article from picking up the baton in improving and sourcing them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, I'll put together a public list within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Falsehoods and biased comments regarding a living person - John Lakian
Dear Adminstrator,

I work for Mr. John Lakian. The current content on Mr. Lakian contends falsehoods and biased opinions which are slanderous and not in the spirit of Wiki especially when it's regarding a living person. I tried having a friend of mine make the corrections but the corrections got kicked out after one or two days. I then try to update it myself with the same results. Can you contact me directly to resolve this before this gets blown out of proportion. You can call me directly at (personal info removed for user's privacy)

Thank you!

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyuen10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what you tried to do was remove all the negative information. Perhaps if you would just specific which information is actually inaccurate I can help you, but simply removing all negative information is not acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've never tried to edit wiki before and do not know what the protocol is. All I'm trying to do is my job. Please let me know what the protocol is and I'll resubmit. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyuen10 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my private info...I thought I was talking to you directly/only. Like I say...haven't done this before. Tks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyuen10 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yah, this page, like everything on Wikipedia, is viewable by the general public so you don't want your personal contact info here. Additionally, writing a message here is usually the fastest way to get a hold of me anyway.
 * OK, I will try to help you as best I can. First, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not censored.  The mere fact that Mr. Lakian doesn't like the information in his article is not a good enough reason to remove it.  The second thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia generally doesn't decide what is true or false.  Instead, we rely on what reliable sources tell us is true.
 * Now, perhaps some of the information in the article is deceptive or biased. I have no way off knowing the "real truth" as I am not omniscient.  However I can tell you that nearly every sentence of the article is attributed to a reliable source.  You can't just remove sourced information from the article because your boss says it is untrue.  Instead, what you must do is provide some evidence (from reliable sources) that our information is wrong.  If there are one or more specific facts that are in question, let me know.
 * If you can, for example, find something that say Lakian was never involved with First New England Dental we can remove that bit as unverifiable. Besides removing information, you can try to adjust the wording to be more accurate and neutral.  If it isn't that facts themselves that are in dispute, but rather only the way they are presented we might be able to come up with a better wording.
 * Alternatively, if you view the article as too negative you can try adding some sourced positive information about Lakian's life. That would help balance the article without removing sourced information.
 * I will try to help you if I can, but I need some specifics to work from rather than just a general statement that the article is biased. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper Sourcing
I authored a page on Frank Camper and had it on my watchlist. An editor named fjcamper came and made some edits "fixing the record" I gae him a conflict of interest warning. I recieved an email explaining all he wanted to do was fix some unaccuracies, I advised him to not edit the article himself. I suggested if he had any reliable sources to send me the list so I could look into and see what could be included. He sent me some pdf documents including a senate transcript that he was an interview subject for. I want to add them as sources as they give a plethora of information of his activities and would help flesh out the article. I want to avoid violating Original research and make sure the sources are considered reliable, Can you help with some guidance?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is a government document it should be both reliable and acceptable for sourcing purposes. It is generally acceptable to use primary sources to "flesh out" and article, just not to establish notability. If you want me to take a look at the actual documents you can forward them to gtb38@yahoo.com.
 * Also, Mr. Camper is welcome to communicate with the community as a whole by using the talk page of the article. In general, that is the recommended course of action for COIs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * forwarded email, should also address the talk page concerns,Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard back from you yet, have you recvd my email?Jake/Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah, I got the email. I haven't had a chance to look over it yet, but I have some free time today ans its near the top of my agenda. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:R from character
Template:R from character 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. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoroastrianism Barnstar
Is it possible for you to make a WikiProject Zoroastrianism Barnstar, as the current one is.....okay I guess. Warrior 4321  05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can probably do that ... Did you have anything specific in mind? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like this image --> [[Image:Faravahar-Gold.svg|40px]] on the star (I'm pressuming the featured article star). Would it look good if it were in a gold circle? Warrior  4321  18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, how's it going? { Warrior  4321  14:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on my "to do list" for today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fresh to Order
Hi there, I was wondering why the article on Fresh to Order was deleted and if there is any way to have it restored? If you could please let me know I would really appreciate it. Thanks! I have included the link if that helps you know which article it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_to_Order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.43.244.146 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article - see Fresh to Order. However, this won't prevent it from being deleted again via the more through articles for deletion process.  If someone chooses to nominate it for deletion, it will be put up for community discussion to determine the notability of the subject.  If it is then deleted as a result of the discussion I won't be able to restore it again.
 * To prevent this from happening, you will need to find third party reliable sources that talk about the company in depth. This could be from newspapers, books, or major websites but doesn't include material derived from press releases and routine coverage such as directory listings.  These sources don't have to be available online, but it helps.  If you need help adding sourcing to the article after you find some, then let me know and I will be glad to help.
 * Good luck, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prods
When you contest prods of articles that have been deleted, please notify the original prodder. I know we have a bot that trys to do this now, but I don't think the bot does this for recreated articles that have already been deleted. I've also commented on the article's talk page about its notability.  Them From  Space  20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for AfD.  Them From  Space  21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Queen City, Iowa
I just ran into this entry, you beat me to adding the rescue tag. I am having a hard time finding references, and will leave it to the rest to the rest of the Squadron to find some. These 973 books may help. 

I am going back to searching AfDs. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Walleye Weekend
Good luck finding notability on this one. Please pull the tag off when you do. Doesn't matter to me but this seemed like a prime candidate for removal. Cheers! --Stormbay (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not pressing the issue... Based solely on the article's subject I too would have guessed it to be non-notable, but a GoogleNews search revealed a Chicago Tribune story about the festival among many other usable sources. The Tribune doesn't normally write about non-notable Wisconsin festivals. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dois I. Rosser Jr. and Dick Woodward
I noticed you declined the prods for the articles on these two ministers created by their "Web Presence Manager & Graphics Coordinator." In your decline notice, you said you'd get to sourcing and cleaning them up ASAP. I can see you've been active since then, so are you planning on following through or not? <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw  06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * MichaelQSchmidt was kind enough to take care of the first one for me. I'll get to the later one as soon as I can, which might be a couple weeks.  Please keep in minds that Wikipedia is a work in progress and has no deadline.
 * I agree there is no deadline, but I thought we were trying to produce a quality encyclopedia here. This trend of keeping everything and not improving it is disheartening. That is our goal, right? We are here to improve these articles and not just keep them, right? I actually don't think that what Michael Q Schmidt has done is much of an improvement on the first one either. So far it just says he's served on a number of boards that aren't particularly notable, but by all means, let's be sure to keep every article and not improve them. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw  17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to violate Wikipedia's core principles by assuming bad faith about me and other editors, please do so somewhere other than my talk page. Give me a break. I am sorry I offended you by disagreeing with your assessment that the articles should be deleted, but that is no excuse for posting this crap here.  I do tons of work trying to improve Wikipedia everyday and I will get to the articles when I can.  In the mean time, I don't exactly see you trying to improve the article which you claim is an embarrassment to Wikipeidia.  All I see is you wasting your time & mine by complaining about them.  Do you want a gold star for trying to get an article deleted rather than trying to improve it?  Do you really think Wikipedia would be better off if we nuked every imperfect article?
 * Do you realize that if we deleted every imperfect one we'd loose probably 2/3rd of the encyclopedia overnight? I suppose perfect articles are just supposed to pop into existence on their first draft?  Mandating perfect articles would be the perfect way to destroy this site by scaring away 90+% of our contributors who lack either the knowledge or the skill to write these perfect articles you so desire.  Tell me, which is easier: improving a existing "crap" article or starting from scratch because the previous efforts of good faith contributors weren't "good enough" and "had to deleted to improve the encyclopedia." --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not looking for perfection, but I see a shockingly high number of contested prods from you, where you cite a google news search but make no effort to incorporate the results of the search into the article. This is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of information, also one of the five pillars. <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate <font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw  19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see a shockingly high assumption of bad faith. I have reviewed every expiring PROD for months so of course I have contested a large number of PRODs.  It would be unreasonable to expect me to single-handedly fix every article that someone PRODs that I is likely to meet our notability guidelines. I fix as many as I can, and focus primarily on those that need the most work.
 * I have also allowed ~90% of those I reviewed to be deleted or redirected to an article that covers the same material, so I am hardly being indiscriminate in my dePRODs. Of those that were sent to AfD, the vast majority (80-90%) were kept, so I don't think my judgment is off by much; although obviously it isn't perfect.  If you think more of these articles should be deleted, then you should work on changing our notability guidelines not gripping at me for not letting them slip through PROD undetected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Loogaroo
You contested the prod. Fair enough, but can you leave a note of your reasoning? I couldn't verify any of the information from a reliable source. Can you provide a source?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put one source in the edit summary, but there are many others on Google Books: . For example, this source covers most of the information found in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added inline refs a few minutes back. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Monroe Mann
Just a question. The page was previously deleted and keeps being recreated.

06:13, 12 February 2006 Mo0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Monroe Mann" � (CSD G4 - Previously deleted content ) 17:04, 15 October 2005 Jaxl (talk | contribs) deleted "Monroe Mann" � (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe Mann)

Here is the previous discussion on the deletion of the article: Articles for deletion/Monroe Mann


 * Things change in 3+ years time and the subject appears to have gained notability in that time period. You are free to initiate another AfD if you want, but I would advice against it.  Instead I would recommend fixing the article to better meet our standards.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.99.34 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

JefferySeow says Thank you.
Hello ThaddeusB.

My name is Jeffery Seow.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, comments and the heads up.

Researching stuff about this place during colonial times is real tough because of the lack of available source materials in English.

Finding stuff at the National Archives of Malaysia isn't all that easy either. Sometimes I spend an entire day, just hunting for the right reference/call numbers so I can "order" the materials I want to study. Have not tried the Singapore Archives (at the Museum or National Library I think) but the best archived I have used is the UK Public Records Office.

Western researchers are familiar with the names of people they view as notable (and expect us to see those people as notable too) but because they cannot find much on Eastern people, events or places, probably because they are unable to find enough sources by Googling, they automatically assume these are not notable.

And that is really sad because it suggests that Wikipedia is NOT global and has a Western bias, with Easterners having to prove extra hard that their posts are of value.

In my earlier days on Wikipedia I've had people challenge my posting of Tan Kim Ching! Imagine that!!

They asked me my interest and when I explained that I was posting info about some of my ancestors who had a place in history they said my posts would be more suited to a Genealogy site than an excyclopedic one. I think they miss the point. I think that their introduction of foreign exchange banking and signing of the Pangkor Chinese engagement/treaty, among other things, earn them their places in history... even if they do happen to be my great grandfathers.

And now that GiantSnowman guy has posted notices that he wants to delete my posts/entries on all those people who may not mean anything to him but who are important parts of our history and whose lives and actions provide valuable lessons for the current and future generations.

Sad, really.

Like I said, it just makes Wikipedia look like a Western-biased place policed by trigger happy vigilantes.

Jeffery Seow

File source problem with File:HouseholdHacker.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HouseholdHacker.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vicenarian <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(Said · Done) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

''Just an oversight, I'm sure, and I hate to break WP:DTTR, but the template seemed the best way to bring it up. Cheers!'' Vicenarian  <sup style="font-family:Georgia;">(Said · Done) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The template was fine. :)  I rarely work with images, so I inadvertently forgot a step there.  It has been fixed now. Thanks for the notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge problem
Someone copied the content from Malgudi days and pasted on Malgudi Days without attribution. I've now added a R from merge tag and a detailed edit summary to the origin, but nothing on the destination. Is there some way you can fix this? There's been some edits since then, but nothing significant, is it possible to delete and just move the page over? I was looking to edit the page today, but I'm not doing it since I found this rather odd scenario. cheers - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 21:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it was actually a copy and paste move I was able to do a history merge and mesh the two histories up. If it had been an actual merge (i.e. both articles existed and grew simultaneously) you would have needed to add a copied tag to talk pages of both articles to document the precise edit the merge occurred on, in addition to adding the R from merge. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, trying to get R. K. Narayan to GA/FA, so I'm looking at all the related articles and creating ones for redlinks, that's how I came across this. Don't know why I have to find all these absurdities though! But for a wikilaugh - yesterday, someone added an Autobiography tag to Muhammad of Ghor! cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 00:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, copy and paste moves are quite common and that doesn't even begin to address the (likely) hundreds of thousands of actual merges done without any credit given. As it happens, history merges are rather time consuming and not much fun so there is indefinitely a massive backlog of pages needing fixes.
 * In regards to the autobio tag, that is classic. Dead for 800 years but still editing Wikipedia! :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Howdy
The article on Ng Hui is now much stronger. While input and sourcing from Malaysian Wikipedians would be terrific, it has enough now so it shouldn't get tossed to AfD. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fresh to Order
Did some cleanup and sourcing. Hope the author follows suit. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheat and the chaff
You maybe interested in this tool: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron

If it helps you, let me know. I will add a new one everyday. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rescuing articles vs. encyclopedic quality
Hi there Thaddeus. I guess this is more along the lines of a friendly chat than anything else, but I felt the need to bring something to your attention. Many Wikipedians who work near deletion have long known about your work with patrolling prod-tagged articles. And yeah, there have been past concerns about promises to improve an article, add sources to prove notability and such. You're the kind of person who I respect for their thorough and dedicated work; contesting a PROD with notability proof is something that I fully support. But if you want to contest a PROD that is egregiously POV/unencyclopedic without much retrievable, sourcible content (even if the subject is notable), would you please at least consider a) letting the article be deleted and recreating with a "fresh start", or b) stubbifying/whacking down the page?

I think it becomes a cost/benefit issue. Saving an okay/so-so article about a notable subject vs. a bad, mostly irredeemable article about a notable subject. For example, this. It's more damaging to this encyclopedia to leave that content around without deleting/removing it, than to have a little gap in our scope of broadness. I'm not really a deletionist, but I'd much rather a pretty bad article be rid of (or whacked down) than somebody seeing that and thinking that we, as a supposedly "neutral" info source, accept unreferenced bias. If the encyclopedia is ever going to improve, this is where we start. I know you don't always have the time to improve an article, but that only took me a few minutes. That article, as an example, had much essay-like, POV, "legend has it" unsourced kind of material that we simply should not be tolerating; IMHO it was one of those matters of "overhaul" rather than "solve via editing".

My point is, the fight for "rescuing" and the fight for "quality" can go hand-in-hand. It's rare, but I really believe they can. You're probably more inclusionist than I, and that's cool with me 'cause we're both here with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. But please consider being less contest-happy with low-quality articles if nothing is going to happen with bad content hanging around. Not sure, you might keep a personal list somewhere, but placing a couple of problem tags on the article and leaving it alone isn't going to solve the problem. The top of this userpage has lately been a humorous but truthful reminder for myself to be more bold when something's the right thing to do. Hopefully everything makes sense, I'm not a particularly eloquent person. Reply here if you wish, I've got it watchlisted. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  18:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, as far as I'm concerned this is on the back burner—if you've got more important things to do, don't feel pressed to reply. ;) Best, <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  01:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(after a funny edit conflict...)
 * Thank you for the comment. You are completely correct - I shouldn't have just let Yibir stand.  Thank you for stubifing it.  I was in a hurry when I removed that particular prod, but that is a poor excuse.  I should have probably at least reverted to an earlier version of the article (which has existed since 2006 BTW).  I will also add that if the article had been only marginally notable, I would have just deleted it.  However, this is an entire tribe of people and I didn't want to just erase them off Wikipedia.
 * It is not my habit to leave negative material sitting around and I do at least try to fix negative BLPs. However, negative material is rarely a problem - the far more often is overly positive material.  I do my best to take a quick wack and remove crapola of both kinds whenever possible.
 * I do understand completely what you are saying and I agree quality is better than quantity. On the other hand, I feel internal pressure to check every PROD every day since I know for a fact notable topics will be deleted if I don't act.  On days when I have only a few hours to commit to Wikipedia that can make life hard as I have to make some sort of unfortunate sacrifice.
 * Thanks again for your advice - I will try to be more careful about letting blatant junk stand. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd seen that article and put it on my to-do list to recreate once it had been deleted as I thought it was irredeemable! Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. If you want me to delete it in order to remove its mostly garbage history, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delayed response, but thanks for the reply Thaddeus. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia talk:Dead external links
Yes that sounds like a great idea. No update since 2006 does seem a bit long. Give me a buz when you've finnished.

Tim1357 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chick Hearn
Sorry about that, I assumed until now that non-controversial deletion tags were exactly that, clearly not always the case <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn
Hrafn has his own personal style. He can be perceived as abrasive, but multiple administrators have already tried to counsel him on civility. He has his own agenda, but interacting with him made me a better editor, even though it was incredibly frustrating at first. I wouldn't get my hopes up that you'll change him, but I would absolutely encourage you to not let him "get" to you. Even though I didn't believe it at first, he really is here to build a better encyclopedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I have no reason to doubt his intentions, but the edit in question was clearly inappropriate and that needed to be pointed out.
 * Don't worry, I won't let him or anyone else "get" to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Build a better encyclopedia" can be a rather subjective view. From what I have seen Hrafn's "abrasiveness" has been involved in multiple cases where other editors have left, editors I believe were also here to build a better encyclopedia. For some reason the articles where these users left is still biased and non-neutral after he has shut down discussions claiming them as off-topic. He has given me plenty of reason to doubt his intentions and I think more admins need to point his behaviour out. Biofase <sup style="color:red">flame |<small style="background-color:black;color:white"> stalk 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the gist of this statement. If someone is scaring away contributors then they are not a net positive to the project, even if their content contributions are quite valuable by themselves. Incivility isn't accepted when it comes from new users, and it shouldn't be considered acceptable when it comes from an established editor either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....
To refactor another editors talk page? [] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...
Could you please explain why you removed all disambiguation info from Fazal Mohammad (Kandahar Provincial Council 2005)?

You also deleted Fazal Mohammad (disambiguation), as an expired prod. Whoever nominated it did not honor the recommendation of the deletion policies, and did not leave a courtesy heads-up on the talk page of the contributor who created the article. I would have contested this prod, if I had been aware of it.

I think you wouldn't have completed the prod, if you hadn't agreed with the nomination.

For the record numerous former Taliban commanders were given explicit and tacit amnesties, and subsequently held senior positions in Afghanistan's post-Taliban administration. So I continue to think disambiguation is essential. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I will restore the page if you want, but it is completely unnecessary at this point. There might be numerous notable people with the name Fazal Mohammad, but only two have pages currently, making a disambiguation page unnecessary.  The primary entry at Fazal Mohammad points to the only other entry at Fazal Mohammad (Kandahar Provincial Council 2005).  When a third Wikipedia page is created for an individual by the same name, then we will need a disambiguation page, but right now it would serve no purpose.
 * There is no need to have any sort of disambiguation on Fazal Mohammad (Kandahar Provincial Council 2005) as it is already disambiguated via the parenthetical phrase. That is to say, no one would land on that page but really be looking for another individual known by the same name.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Muffin Films
Leaving aside the undeletion thing, how is this notable (or at the very least, independently notable from Amy Winfrey, who is only borderline notable herself)?. Like most of the walled garden of articles about her, no sources (and yes, I did look before I PRODded it - practically everything I could find was about Winfrey and mentioned this as part of her work). If it needs to exist at all, surely it should be in Winfrey's article. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well first please note that articles deleted via PROD get be restored without question at any time.
 * As to the actual article, there are about 15 news stories which at least mention it. Notability is fairly marginal, but, as I noted in my deprod, that is a reason to merge the material into Amy's article, not a reason to delete it.  I have no objections to such a merge as long as the instructions at Help:merge are followed to insure proper attribution. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the films are already mentioned in her article, surely it only needs a redirect then? The rest is merely a list of the films, which is clearly too much detail. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the episode info is excessive. Also, there are three paragraphs of background info on the cartoon.  However, I will just go ahead and merge itself here shortly - that way you don't have to worry about it. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for pointing out that my signature was incorrectly directed. :) I appreciate your help.

TheSpencer (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

votum
hi,

If you have been to CH Chapel then you will see the song on their first page. It is like Carmen Etonese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.216.240 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have no idea what this is in reference to/what action you are requesting from me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Just a note, in this section, you provided a link to deletion review using WP:DR, when I think you meant WP:DRV. Just something I noticed. Best, TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  17:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Feel free to correct any such mistaken of mine you see in the future without notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Borri
You recently deProded Borri with the explanation "appears to have coverage in multiple sources". I believe you'll find that none of those sources add up to "significant coverage" as required by WP:CORP. They all amount to business listings, press releases, etc. But happy hunting. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Forbeswood Heights
An article that you have been involved in editing, Forbeswood Heights, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shovel-shaped incisors
What are your thoughts on this one you de-PRODed? Any way to rescue it, or should I go to AfD? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have de-proded it if I idn't think it was salvagable. There are over 600 books listed on Google Books that cover the subject, many of them in great detail. Although I am not an expert, it appears to be a notable concept both to dentistry and anthropology.  The best way to get an good article would be to find an expert to write one, but failing that you or I could throw together a decent stub using material we gleaned off the internet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion
ThaddeusB, I have been reflecting on the deletion of the page Carmelo Rafala by Nuclearwarfare. While I believe that I supplied enough detail to establish notability, NW and discussion persons disagreed. However, considering techniques used in print encyclopedias and in other publishing outlets, I followed professional protocol. Words and comments used to describe the author's work does, indeed, reflect back upon his talent and him as a writer. This is current thinking and application in the fields. Moreover, the review outlets are established professional outlets for the genre and are recognized as such.

I was hoping you might take a look at the page (now deleted) and let me know your thoughts.

To be honest, I was asked to provide the information and I did. If the page requires deletion, then wiki needs to, firstly, recognize professional review markets when they are presented, and secondly, update its policies on how to use comments to reflect current practice in the field. Thank you kindly for your time. (Woomfy (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Thad, I responded and tried to help this editor, with three templates on his talk page. Ikip (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments. First, Nuclearwarfare acted appropriately.  If I was dictator of Wikipedia, I might have been inclined to keep the article, but if I had been closing the AfD I would have closed it the same way.  I reviewed the sources in the article, and I don't think any of them intrinsically meets our definition of a reliable source.  It is possible, the sources meet WP:RS, but you have provided no evidence they actually are reliable - you merely stated that they are.  You are welcome to seek community input as to the sources notability at the reliable sources noticeboard.  If you can convince people there that the websites from which the reviews come are in general reliable, then you would have a good case for restoring the article.  Failing that, you will have to wait for a mainstream source to review the book (such a newspaper or widely known magazine/journal), rather than just genre specific websites.
 * I can userify the article for you if you want, but honestly their is little hope of it surviving in mainspace unless you can prove those reviews are reliable or new sources can be found. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When you have some time
Can you move Bachelor of Arts (novel) to The Bachelor of Arts which is the correct title and is currently a redirect (albeit edited redirect, so I can't do the move)? cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, finally the links in the nav template are getting blue and correct. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion!
Hi Thaddeus, I saw this edit fly by on Recent Changes and took your suggestion to heart. Guess what, it's a FASCINATING topic and I managed to pull something out of it--look at Yibir now (and I put it up at DYK). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, thank you for doing so much work to improve the article. I took a bit of flack for dePRODing this article (see above), but I am certainly glad I did now.  Thanks again for making a decent article out of this stub/perpetual POV target. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

NDepend
Could you restore the article on NDepend please? (It was deleted as an expired PROD). A quick search of Google News indicates that it has had some coverage in third party sources. 194.60.38.10 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article per your request. However, it is still subject to deletion via the "articles for deletion" process.  If someone chooses to nominate it for deletion via that process, the community will decide if it should stay or go.  AfD deletions can't be easily undone, so it is best you improve the article to limit the chance it will be sent to AfD to begin with.  The article needs to be expanded, and most importantly it needs third party references in reliable sources.  This could include newspapers, magazines, books, or major websites, but can't include press releases or material derived from press releases.  These references don't have to be found online, but it is helpful if they are.
 * If you find some references and need help adding them to the article, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Spammer
User talk:MillionDollarDare. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * never mind sir. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

European Super League
You have been claiming that you will add content to European Super League for nearly two months, but barely anything has been added in that time. Maybe you should start writing before I decide to take the article to AfD. – PeeJay 09:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I already plan to work on it in the next 2-3 days or so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Moody
Hi, you have recently deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Moody. Apparently due to not being notable. Not sure if it reaches your shores but Pete Moody is a Voice Coach on UK tv inc. TRISHA GODARD SHOW and SHOWCASE TV - He also works for the X-factor team. As a member of his fan club I was a little upset to see him removed and would really like to know how to get the article back - does it need adding to? Can I Do something? I notice one of the comments on the deletion page said you are not notible unless you are in congress? Guess that counts out all people from the UK? - Bit confused by this? thank you for your time - Steph V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.80.209 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you are in luck. The article was deleted via our proposal deletion process.  In short, this process allows an article to be deleted if no one objects within 7 days time, but also allows the article to be undeleted upon request at any time.  (I didn't actually request it be deleted, I just push the button after the 7 days had passed.)  I will restore the article immediately.
 * Now, the bad news. Once it has been undeleted, anyone can nominate the article for more permanent deletion via our articles for deletion process.  If that happens, the community will decide whether it should stay or go based upon our notability guidelines.  The best way to prevent this from happening is to add references to third party reliable sources.  This may include newspapers, magazines, books, or major websites among other things.  These sources should talk about Mr. Moody, not just mention him in passing and can not be press releases or material derived from press releases. The coverage doesn't have to be available online, but it helps if it is.
 * I don't have time to help you find sources, but if you need help properly adding them to the article after you find them, let me know. I will be glad to help with that part of the process, if needed.  Feel free to ask me for help, or use the help desk if you need further assistance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves
I was linking to this today when I realized to my horror that this simple, eloquent recommendation was removed....By consensus! Now, I know that only jaded, old WP editors hang out in the WP:discussion pages, but I always loved this simple "You don't need to say Hitler is bad" guideline. It tended to focus the mission of WP and always seemed very... Jimbo. Do you think there is a way we can reintroduce it? --Knulclunk (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't part of the discussion and have no opinion on it, but from what I saw there was pretty much unanimous agreement to delete then current wording. Opinion was split on what (if anything) to replace it with. Your best bet to get it back it some form is to make a strong case on the policy's talk page and hope others "see the light." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Clayton Counts / The Beachles
Hi Thaddeus - I notice that you removed Clayton Counts' article. The article had been nominated for deletion, and the decision was 'keep.' Mr. Counts is currently in a drone band called Bull of Heaven, who have pieces of music that last for days. They have one piece that is an entire week long. In addition, there were other links in Mr. Counts' article that were independent of the Beachles controversy, including a Chicago Reader article describing an altercation with a bouncer prior to the Beachles' release. I'm not criticizing your decision to delete the article, but I am curious if this was your decision ultimately, and if so what prompted it. I would think that the AfD decision would count for something, and that his accomplishments merit his inclusion here, most especially because his page had been ranked as Start Class for Contemporary Composers. If Clayton Counts' article is non-notable, I would think that several other mash-up creators should have their articles reviewed for independent notability as well. TrevorPearce (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete the page - I merely redirected it. An AfD closing as keep doesn't prevent the later editorial move of redirecting, nor does it even prevent later deletion.
 * You are free to undo the redirect if you really want, but it was about 90% duplicate info with no claim of notability independent of the event. If the page were to have another AfD today, I imagine the result would be different as I think the first one was rather too close to the event for people to objectively evaluate Mr. Counts' notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. The main reason I thought it should be kept is that he is responsible for making the remix, and is mentioned by name in all the references. Now that he's creating pieces of music that go on for weeks, I'm sure he'll end up needing a proper bio one day, unless no one aside from me sees that as a notable achievement. As of right now, there's probably not anything to add to the existing article. TrevorPearce (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Superstar (Toy-Box Song)
My page "Superstar (Toy-Box Song)" was deleted and I don't understand why, I know that it did not meet some standards but there was not much info that I could dig up! So I am here to inform you that the page will be recreated in the exact same way it was (unless I get more info on it), and if it is deleted again I will be notified and the page will again be recreated. Multimusiclover1 (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are in luck, as the page was deleted via the proposed deletion process. Another editor nominated it for deletion and no one objected for 7 days time, which meant it could be deleted.  I merely pushed the button to delete it after the requite 7 days.  This process allows the article to restored at any time no questions asked, so I have restored in to Superstar (Toy-Box song).  However, this doesn't mean it can't be deleted again.  Any editor can send it to article for deletion (AfD) at anytime. If that happens, it will be up to the community to decide if it stays or goes and deletion via that process can't be easily undone.  The best way to avoid that happening is to add third party references to reliable sources that talk abut the song in depth or show that it charted on a notable chart.  Keep in mind that most songs aren't notable - see WP:NSONGS.  If improvements aren't forthcoming within a couple, I will send it to AfD myself.
 * You should know, however, that the tone of your message here is completely inappropriate. First of all, you don't own the article.  Second, what you have threatened to do (restore deleted material over & over again) is disruptive editing and is grounds for a block.  Please take a minute to read over some of the links on your talk page to get a better understanding of what is and what is not acceptable around here.
 * Have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: SoftJin
Hi,

Thanks for the update and thanks for making the SoftJin page available temporarily at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ThaddeusB/SoftJin&action=edit. I will try my best to edit it and put references there to make it notable.

I shall do this in a couple of weeks time. I hope that is all right.

thanks, Bhardwaj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardwaj.dss (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD Phatchance
Hi, I found your page off of user:Duffbeerforme he had prod tagged one of your articles a while ago. He's put one of the first articles I've poured any work in to up for afd discussion and I'd love your interjection/opinion on the matter, I feel it's an article worth keeping or expanding and would love an administrator's view point, especially as you seem interested in giving smaller bands and labels a chance for articles, I spent more than an hour digging up sources for the page and really found some well verified third parties but they seem to be being ignored in the discussion. I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I could use your opinion, even if that's to delete, I feel like there's an imagined animosity between myself and him because I edited some articles he'd apparently contributed to (we're in a small genre) and he felt I was targeting him (which I promise you I was not)

Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented. Unfortunately the articles chances seem pretty slim despite you efforts, as there isn't much to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) I guess I am in the wrong, still quite new to the whole thing, I'll take it back to the drawing board, I appreciate your time Stevezimmy (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Incubate
I like it. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Future templates
First of all thanks for taking on this closing. This is probably not necessary but I just wanted to make sure you were also taking the collapsed discussions and perhaps the talk page into consideration... as if the RFC section isn't big enough. That's all. Thanks again. Equazcion (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After about 2 hours of reading/thinking & 30-45 minutes of actually writing out my close, it is done. Hopefully that solves the issue. (For anyone wondering what this is, see Centralized_discussion/Deprecating_"Future"_templates) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that couldn't have been easy. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from here, too! I really hope this satisfies everyone. And for once, I entirely support the usage of WP:IAR. :) One minor thing, tho: You write "The reviewing admin is instructed to ignore all !votes that don't directly argue about how it is more or less useful/important than average" about the individual TfDs (emphasis mine). Considering that you only mention "more useful/important" in the previous sentence, was that intentional? Your closing comments indicate that there have to be especially strong arguments to keep an individual template, but that one sentence implies that there have to be especially strong arguments to delete it, too (which would make "This template isn't more useful than others" an invalid !vote). I'd rather have this clarified before any large discussion about this starts on a TfD. :) Thanks again for taking the time and effort to close this large discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, Conti. If I ever need a contract reviewed, I'm coming to you. :) Equazcion (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed from "is more or less..." to "is or is not more..." to avoid ambiguity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A well done closure, I must say. At the time I closed the first discussion, it seemed quite obvious what the consensus was so I didn't elaborate it to much detail (and you got my point correctly, yes ;-) ). When the debate got renewed, I didn't want to get involved much because of obvious reasons but I followed the development. And I believe that the IAR is well invoked here since it is the most reasonable guideline to proceed with those possibly useful templates. So, good job! --Tone 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone for the kind words. They are much appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SignpostBot
Hello ThaddeusB. I was wondering I could get the process of delivering Wikipedia Signpost articles automated. You see, there are bots that do it, but there is a considerable backlog and those bots can't always get it done. I inquired here and it was suggested that more bots be recruited. I was wondering if you knew how to make that bot? I or somebody else could operate it, and once a week, it would become active and deliver Signpost articles. Thanks, Airplaneman  talk 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice on bot request
Hello, I noticed your name while looking for direction on the WP:BTR page and wondered if you could give me some advice. A user,, is currently editing rugby league pages, replacing the existing with his own, newly-created,. He has altered several hundred articles (probably more) in the space of a day or so and while a few of the members of WP:RL have attempted to revert the edits it looks as though it could be a time-consuming job. Is this sort of thing too small for a bot request? Any advice would be appreciated. (The new template has been listed for deletion Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 20.) <span style="background:white;color:darkorange;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;letter-spacing:2px;border:1px dotted darkorange"> florrie  04:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First, make sure he has stopped doing this so he doesn't create anymore work to be undone.
 * Second, it is probably easier to undo all the changes using AWB that write a bot for such a specialized task. If you need help undoing them after the TfD closes, let me know, and I'll lend a hand. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Wish us luck. 2) Will do. Cheers, <span style="background:white;color:darkorange;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;letter-spacing:2px;border:1px dotted darkorange"> florrie  22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, the corresponding TFD closed as delete, and the links have been converted back. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Nightgowns
Hi - just curious on the reasoning for not speedy deleting this one. The only refs that are marginally evidence showing notability are the two "Weekly volcano" articles - which is a local interest arts paper. I don't see anything outside of that local interest demonstrating notability. Also, note that it was created by, who was blocked as a sock of , who was blocked for disruption of re-re-creating promotional articles - neither user engaged in any discussion about their edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In short "marginally evidence of notability" is sufficient to decline speedy deletion. That doesn't mean the subject is notable enough for inclusion, just that it is ineligible for speedy deletion.  The next step would be to PROD it or send to AfD if you think the band is non-notable.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I understand the reasoning now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 1
Let me know how I did. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You did pretty well; not perfect, but if you were already perfect you wouldn't need by help. :) I commented more thoroughly on the actual page.  If anything is unclear, or you have questions you can reply to my comments on that page.  I'll get back to you with your next assignment shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually went there before coming here to check my grade. Was it an A- or only a B+ ? I'll be heading out soon to do some posing at CSULB for the next few hours... I'll check in when I get back home. PS: I almost simply passed on that twisty Georgian one, as Google translate wouldm't touch it... but when I tried just one twisty word, GT said "we don't tramslate Georgian"... so I knew the language was at least real. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian
Been a rough day, but I believe I'm finally caught up on answering the sudden explosion of questions. Thanks for your patience! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BAG and BOTS
I posted this asking User:Hesperian to get involved about the BAG drive-by approval process that may see your poorly thought-out bot, with unmonitored data, without community consensus, be approved for a trial run. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, what EXACTLY is "poorly thought-out"? Once again, how is RS data that many eyes have checked "unmonitored data"?  Once again, you stating your opinion doesn't make it a fact that there is "no consensus" for this task.
 * Also, it is nice to know that when you don't get you way, you resort to canvassing & then come here to rub it in my face? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything that I already mentioned. That you chose to ignore and say was invalid rather than addressing. Where's the consensus? You were asked to post it already. If I hadn't alerted interested parties, instead of accusing me of canvasing, would you be accusing me of stealth? Yes, "hissy fit," "passive aggressive," all my issues are non-issues because you say so. Canvasing now. How many insults and personal attacks do you get? Any limit? My issues are on the bot RFBA. You opted to say my issues are invalid. They're not. Others agree they're not invalid issues. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't make any of those comments, except for the canvassing part - which is true. Please get your facts straight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nymphonics
Really? Wikipedia has articles on some of the most menial, insignificant topics and people out there but because there does not exist other articles about the band you deemed it not "worthy" enough to be on a FREE website that has the fact checking skills of Fox News and Glen Beck. This was supposed to be a stupid present for friends of mine from college after we just graduated together and you had to delete it for incidental reasons. I hope you had fun swinging your powerful Wikipedia editing stick around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchuty11 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry your "friend's band" doesn't meet our standards, but the fact that we have standards is a good thing, not a bad thing. If we allowed anyone to write whatever they wanted about anything then we'd be a lot closer to resembling your comment than if we didn't.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And sure... if you want a FREE website on which to create a present with which surprise your friends.... build them one on Facebook or Myspace. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BEAMES
Hi - you deleted my page BEAMES about Bath Engineering Society, but don't seem to have looked at my argument that Durham Univeristy Engineering Society still happily exists. Also, is there any way I can get my content back?Welshgolfer (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I did read what you wrote, but the problem is it wasn't a valid argument. The fact that some other engineering society has a page says nothing about the notability of BEAMES.  Your argument is the equivalent of saying McDonald's is notable therefore every hamburger joint is notable.  See the fallacy here?
 * In any case, if you'd like a copy of the content you can email me using Special:EmailUser/ThaddeusB and I'll be happy to supply it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Iboga Records
Hi Thaddeus. You removed a prod from Iboga Records as "the label has released some notable albums". That does not satisfy wp:corp. Whenever you remove my prods I leave a lot of time before returning to those articles but after further investigation I still can't see this article satisfying wp:corp. A few "notable" releases does not seem enough. I am thinking AFD is the go. Please feel fre to comment. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming here. I won't object if you send it to AfD as I mainly deprodded because I felt it should be discussed before being deleted.  However, I have an alternative suggestion - how about I send to to WP:INCUBATE and see if anyone can come up with some more solid sourcing.  It seems reasonably plausible to me that there is more out there than what GNews knows about.  Incubation moves it from mainspace to a noindexed page so that will at least remove it from search engines.  What do you say? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, incubation looks like a good idea for this article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Future Templates"
I just read the discussion at the page you mentioned and according to that if a person thinks that one of templates should be kept they should send them to WP:TFD. I also noticed that one of the templates seems to have been kept per discussion. Fei noh a  Talk, My master 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The first part of your statement is correct - any "future" template not sent to TfD within the next 10 days or so will be deleted. As to Template:Future product, I do not believe that template has actually been through such a TfD.  The removal of the notice seems to have been a single editor acting on his own accord & has since been reverted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

InterMapper
You haven't expanded InterMapper since contesting my prod. While I realize you may be busy, could you at least link me to where notability is established? 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right; I have been very busy and not done much of anything in depth on Wikipedia recently. As to notability, this search should yield plenty of viable sources.  Remember, only 2 sources that talk about the subject in depth are required to establish  notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will link to that search on its talk page in hopes that someone can come along and help the article out. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob the Wikpedian's RfA support
...was a bit late :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It must have closed as I was typing my support, as it hadn't closed yet when I hit edit. (It also closed 9 hours early, so I couldn't have anticipated that.)  In any case, not a big deal, as the vote was irrelevant to the outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the requests are done on GMT, in which case the closing was only 10 minutes late. But thanks for your support, anyway-- and yes, it does make a difference...it means I know you are backing me!  :)  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oldprodfull
Hi. You previously viewed my talk page and advised that I should add 'oldprodfull' to talk pages. You can see I have recently been de-prodding a small number of the mass of football articles being prod'ed. The majority of these are going straight to AfD. Is it still worth adding oldprodfull. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say no. An AfD is going to override a prod - that is, an article that survives AfD can't be legitimately proded.  As such there is no point in having both an oldafd and an oldprod tag on the same talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gast
Too many to list all of them. There almost as many gastropods as insects. Abyssal (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment...
Please check my reasoning at Talk:Rat-Trap. The original title has the greater searchable notability. After doing my homework, I attempted a move, but it seems that since the original name is now a redirect, this will take an admin. I believe a move back is the correct decision. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be all cleared up now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling the complicated move. Let me know when lesson two is ready. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A coupla things....
First, many of the things on this page as sandboxes are actually because they were moved from sandbox to mainspace. Sure looks worse than it is. Any way to remove the un-needed redirects? Might make the page look less cluttered. Second, this: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Reed Cowan is ready for your incubator. A few more tweaks and it should be fine back in mainspace, Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't hyperlink "this page", but based on your post on DGG's page/the AfD linked to there, I am assuming you mean the redirect found here. I'll be happy to delete them once you confirm that is what you mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry. Good eyes. That is indeed the page listing the redirects. But not all are redirects. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael, You simply type on the pages you only contributed too. Otherwise see Speedy Ikip (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleanup complete. :) Only two redirect remain & they point to other places in your userspace.  Ikip is correct that you could have tagged them for speedy, but it wouldn't have actually saved any admin work & would have cost you some time, so this request was perfectly fine.
 * P.S. Feel free to move anything you want into the incubator - I trust your judgment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ikip may have misunderstood my request. I understand how to tag for G7 to request deletion of a page I may have created... or blanking it to signify I wish its deletion. This was a different problem. After develop new articles in a sandbox, I moved them to mainspace, rather than do a cut and paste. This has left numerous redirects from the sandboxes that were seen here. Since the redirects from my sandbox to mainspace were not neccessary, it was those that I wished removed. ThaddeusB done real good. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incubation process
G'day, thanks for the message. On the "eval=status" thing, personally I'm not yet convinced that it's necessary. I mean, I can make articles in namespace normally without getting approval, just as I can split and merge articles etc. I guess it would make sense for someone from the incubation team to check *after* I've moved it back into mainspace, but it feels to me to be an unnecessary bureaucratic step to require that *before*.

Regarding copy-pasting rather than moving the article, thanks for the tip. For some reason I didn't think I'd be able to move the page over an existing deleted page. I guess I was wrong. And you're right about keeping the attribution being important. Thanks for fixing up the history - I'm not an admin so couldn't do it. Stevage 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/The Auto-categorizing Robot
This task is now approved, and the bot has been flagged, so feel free to start when ever you want. Also, I must say, I'm most impressed by the bot, so:

Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the recognition - it is very much appreciated. I didn't previously know this award existed, but I must say it is pretty sweet.
 * To me, programming a bot to do something that requires making an intelligent decision (i.e. adding a specific state category) is far more interesting that just having it blindly do the same thing to every page (i.e. add the national catgeory). Of course the later can be useful at times, but I like to do the former and fight the perception that bots are incapable of making decisions.
 * Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread about User:CobraBot
I see that you have closed this as requiring no administrator action. I disagree. This bot is still running despite no consensus having been reached as to whether its edits are appropriate, and despite this assurance by the operator, so administrator action, i.e. blocking until consensus is reached, is very much needed. Allowing the bot to carry on goes against the principle of WP:BRD, i.e. that it should be possible for an edit to be reverted until discussion leads to a consensus. There's no way that I can keep up with all the bot's bold edits to revert them, which it very difficult to have a calm discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More congrats
Congrats on adminship. Right then. What we can do once the project is rolling is to contact all the people who have listed themsevles as speaking a certain language and them notification of the project. It could be bot generated although it would need BAG approval I believe. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There are several message bot already approved, so it is simply a matter of asking one of those to send out a message for us. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on WikiProject TRANSWIKI, I'll have some assistance with page design and layout shortly I rather like the logo. You'll see there is a language pages red linked. The idea is that each language functions as some sort of taskforce and editors are recruited for each who speak the language or are interested in articles from that particular wikipedia. It will take time to build followers but the first step is to draw up missing article directories for each wikipedia. The list pages will be listed under each language wikipedia neatly in topics/sub topics and sub pages. There will be a massive amount of missing articles to list and organise up but this is the idea. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern about this project as with many projects is that one moment there will be tens of people posting in rapid succession and seem interested and suddenly it just seems deserted!!! It seems everybody is away at once!! I honestly hope there will be enough people interested in this project to maintain it and not make it die out like several other projects on here. Do you disagree with the idea of the way in which missing lists could be drawn up? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 21:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the way it is structured. Everything looks good. Recruiting and maintaining active members will be a challenge, but that is nothing unique as all WikiProjects have that problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German. You get the idea? In the missing article directory there will be the sub pages by main topic and then sub ordered and propbably sub ordered again by topic in a chain down way e.g WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Lakes of Germany and WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Mountains of Swizterland etc. Or it could be listed as WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Switzerland/Mountains  etc. So the WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography page would list all of the sub topics and then the lists would be generated on a further sub page as shown above. I will now emulate this layout for the other main wikipedias to get us started, I think we should concentrate on the main wikis at present. I doubt welsh wikipedia for instance is first priority of translating decent content. Now we need to discuss how we go about using a bot to copy categories from another wikipedia and use them to generate organized lists by topic in our project space. I would imagine that the bot would be able to detect en: wikipedia links in the foreign article and skip it? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created WikiProject TRANSWIKI/ Polish/Politics/Polish politicians and WikiProject TRANSWIKI/Spanish/Culture/Museums as examples. Ideally the bot would generate lists like the museums with the es wikipedia version also linked. The bot will be essential to copy the categories on the other wikipedias and ermpty them linked into the lists. Are you sure you're still up to it? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All that you have written above sounds good to me. I took a look at the example pages and everything seems fine.  I'll start work on the bot as soon as I can - in the mean time I suggest you listen to the advice that someone else wrote on the talk page: "We need to walk before we run."  I know you want this project to happen instantly, but that isn't realistic.  I only have limited time, and have other obligations on and off wiki.  Other members are the same.  We don't need all this content "imported today", we need it "imported right", which will take time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't mean to pester you, just if you are busy I'd appreciate you saying so, so I know to get on with things! Dr. Blofeld      White cat 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Historic districts category
Thanks for the reminder; you may not have forgotten, but I nearly had. And no complaint about a delay — congratulations on the successful RFA :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with articles such as your example is that they really shouldn't be linked there. Please go simply by the infobox; we can figure out what to do with articles like this at some other time.  Thanks for the attention!  Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no good reason that an infobox should show a state other than where it's located, so going by locmapin is a great idea. Some infoboxes have a nationwide map, not a state map, but adding the nationwide category would work fine there.  I expect that "nrhp_type2" etc. would be a good idea, since if it's an HD as well as something else, it's still an HD.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the replace-USA-with-state category change idea; it should save us even more work. Thanks again!  Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you run into some sort of problem with this bot, or are you simply working on other matters at the moment? Not trying to bug you; just curious.  Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the later. I could just have the bot zip through the rest, but I wanted to do a couple more semi-automated ones before unleasing it full scale, just to be sure.
 * Most of my time currently is going towards making user WebCiteBOT archives all GeoCities links (including on foreign wikis) before GoeCities shuts down on the 26th. Thus, you can expect to see NRHP edits no later than the 27th.
 * P.S. You aren't bugging me at all. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a bit more pressing; I don't expect the historic districts to cease to exist anytime soon :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Babel fish
I've emailed you. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you need to calm down a bit. I am busy and can't instantly reply to everything that comes up.  I have a real job that I am trying to get done and can only spend a few minutes on Wikipedia at a time.
 * In regards to Babel Fish, Wikipedia shouldn't be saying "we prefer this one and only this one service." If there are alternative available, we should list them all.  Also it would be rather pointless to have a translation tools section with only 1 tool.  We need to find more tools and add them to the list, not just rely on Google translate for everything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, Babel fish is good but not as good as google translate but if you feel it should be linked I have no problems. I would just have really appreciated it if you had quickly said you were busy and said you'll discuss it when you have time. When there is no response in 6 hours and I can see you are on here then I begin to have doubts. I understand now. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, next time I will say I am busy. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to appear so anxious, its just I've had failures with bot projects in the past when I put a lot of time into trying to create a project so I don't want to do so again! As Blofeld once said "This organization does not tolerate failure". As long as we gradually make process in our own time allowing for RL and other committments I'm happy with that, when you are ready we should discuss how a the bot would go about copying from categories and auto geenrating them into lists on the project talk page. That's the next step but whenever you are not tied down!! Perhaps we can discuss it next week some time. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. I have another bot project I need to finish up, but I should be able to start on this one early next week and the first step should only take two-three days to program (and then a few more days to await approval). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it! One thing though, wouldn't it be best to call it TRANSWIKIBOT as it will also be creating missing lists? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already was making a bot called ContentCreationBOT for another project, so I figured I'd reuse the name rather than create another. The reason being that it will be actually creating content in step 2. (Step 1 being just creating the lists.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hokay, sounds cool! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Generating lists
Hi there. I've set up the sub pages for the projects now. They are all ready for filling.... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll start working on the bot coding for this today or tomorrow. I'll make a post at the Wikipedia when I'm ready for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did start adding to a few like WikiProject Intertranswiki/Slovenian/Sports but that was because I moved them from the previous project space. I'd imagine what we'll need is a bot which by passes all articles which have en: links in them and lists all articles without en: links in the workspace. I'd imagien it would be able to read off main categories and core categories so we at least know what main topic the articles fall into. What we will need though is a way to be able to organize it and know exactly what each category refers too. That may require manual work later... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any developments? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have some material ready to help us proceed. I plan on posting it on the Wikiproject page sometime today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I always see your name on the recent changes, you are a busy dude and seem to be also be all over the encyclopedia like me! Dr. Blofeld      White cat 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

About WebCiteBOT
Hi Thaddeus, I recently came across your WebCiteBOT project which I think is pretty exciting and a good solution to the long-term link rot problem. I'm working on something related on Commons, which is using ImageStamper to keep a permanent record of the license of images (particularly Flickr images) at the time they were uploaded. I just wanted to inquire about the status of the WebCiteBOT project and if there's anything I can do to help. Dcoetzee 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That ImageStamper site is pretty neat, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
 * WebCiteBOT is pretty thoroughly tested now, so mostly it is just a question of ramping up the volume it does per day. Webcitation.org is a fairly small operation and is not accustomed to the volume of links I've been sending them (which isn't even enough to cover the new links being generated yet) so I am trying to take it easy on them.  I've already caused them to have to upgrade their server once.  Eventually, I want to port the bot to other Wikipedias, but given the current situation that isn't likely to happen soon.  If/when I expand the project and need help, I'll drop you a line.  Thanks for the offer, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge instructions
Hi. Would you mind copying your summarized instructions from User talk:I dream of horses to Help:Merging or a holding section on its talk page? I could copy it myself, but I prefer to avoid an attribution trail pointing to a random user's page. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will take a look at the merge instructions and write something similar to what I said at [User talk:I dream of horses. I have barely been online the past few days, but I will try to get to it today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The message was just to make sure you were aware of my request, so please don't feel a need to prioritize this task. I can work from the full existing directions. Whoever gets there first can take the first crack. Flatscan (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot help for ARS
Hi, I definitely need some bot assistance for ARS. Where should I draft up what I'm looking for to see if you're up for it? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where ever you want is fine - a page in your user space, one in mine, or even one in the ARS project space. I must caution you however, that it will likely be a couple weeks before I can act on the proposal, as I have several other BOT obligations to address first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trasnwiki bot
Hi. Have you made any progress with the coding or how it will be done? Himalayan   16:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much, but don't worry its still on my agenda and I should be able to get to it very soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PAC bot
I use the online Sepkoski database. The only useful information it offers is the order, the generic name, and the time range of the subject. See here for an example that won't take all day to load. Abyssal (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing with the Paleodb is that it doesn't, in my experience, tend to have any more info than the Sepkoski database on the species included in the latter. I don't know of any other, unless this one counts. Thanks for taking an interest in this project. Abyssal (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How are we going to proceed with this project? Abyssal (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great template! For the see also section, are you sure you can't use the bot for some of that? The paleo db lists sister genera, they would be useful there. The morphology tab has diagnosis and measurement data that may be useful for the article. Also, you might want to rephrase "(Genus) were first identified by (scientist name) in (year)" to "(Genus) was first described by (scientist name) in (year)." IT would also be cool if the year linked to the corresponding article in this series. Maybe the collections tab would have something useful. Other than that, I'm really pleased. Thanks for your hard work! Abyssal (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing I think needs added manually to the See also section would be a link to the List of *higher order taxon* article for each major group. Abyssal (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, just checking in and see how things are coming. Also, I was curious if a bot could, say, scan and extract information from a PDF the same way it would an online database. Later. Abyssal (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I uh, had no clue what was going on. Here are the Sepkoski abbreviations. Most of the start and end times are in the respective articles on the time periods. The Paleodb has info on the start and stop times of subepochs. I can't generate the higher order text until we pick out a taxon to use the bot on. There's no real way for me to anticipate any scientist whose name may be encountered by the bot. There are just too many of them, and I'm not an invertebrate specialist to know any of the big names, who probably only named a small minority anyway. For the see also list, all we need to list is the sister genera listed in the pbdb and the List of taxon article, which can be done as soon as we pick a taxon to work with. If I can assist in anyway please keep me posted. :D

By the way, maybe you should clarify exactly how this bot is going to work, just so I'm up to speed and not making moronic suggestions. Abyssal (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a PDF that is a list of every Trilobite genus named before 2003, plus their family, time period, authors, years, and a bibliography. I thought it would be useful when we work on the Trilobites. Abyssal (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How goes things? Abyssal (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't had much chance to work on it yet, but I should be able to get to it within the next few days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed the number of articles on the front page? Considering that our bot could end up creating more than 20,000 articles (~5,000 trilobites + ~5,000 brachiopods + ~10,000 molluscs not to mention echinoderms, bryozoans and cnidarians), we have a very serious opportunity to be the Wikipedians that create article number three million, if we time this right. I estimate that the day that number of articles would be reached without our intervention to be at the very beginning of august. I think we should go for this. Maybe the second we see the article counter get within twenty thousand or so of the goal we let the bot do its thing and mass generate those articles. What an opportunity! Abyssal (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hate to be that obnoxious guy that constantly harasses you, but, uh, how are things going? Anything I can do to help? Abyssal (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to know I've not been a bother, and glad to hear about your progress. What did you think of my proposal for us to shoot for being the guys who make article 3 million? I think we have a shot, and it would certainly give us bragging rights. :P Abyssal (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update, stat! :P Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You said before that you could use the prod, so here I am prodding. I'm curious about how you're progressing, you said before that you were on the verge of collecting the data. I've started working on the stub templates we're going to need to create. Do you still want me to collect the start and end dates of the time periods? Anything else I can help with? Abyssal (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you avoiding me? I've left several messages on your talk page but have yet to hear from you in over a week even though you've been very active. Abyssal (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a yes, I suppose. o_0 Abyssal (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
Nice to see that you weren't just ignoring me. :D I know it's going to be a difficult fight, but I think we can win them over if we start small. Maybe they would allow us a trial-run to demo it? Say, create articles for Ciliophora, which would create about 30 articles. If something goes horribly horribly wrong, then we could catch the problem early, and correct the bot accordingly with little in the way of clean up.

Now two questions,


 * 1) Do you want that PDF?
 * 2) What do you need me to do to prepare us for the actual article creation?

Abyssal (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Ok. Abyssal (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Thad, just some random thoughts on our project:


 * I think we should start trying to distance ourselves from the anybot fiasco in advance of our request for bot approval to make things easier for us. What advantages does PACbot have over the anybot thing? I think we'd have more human involvement in the articles, since there are aspects we have to pick and choose by hand, like in the see also links, and we'd have to pick a stub category for the major groups by hand, and that sort of thing. Also, our bot won't have problems with security the way Anybot did with that webpage it was publicly accessible from. Maybe we could compile a list of the specific issues that happened with Anybot and write a corresponding list of corrections and precautions that will be present in PACbot? I believe that would go a long way in alleviating concerns from the BAG.


 * Also, could our bot be used to fill in data in a table with data gathered from our sources? Like say, go through the List of placoderms and automatically add in the authority, year, age and such? If you could get it to do that and it works, it may dispel any doubts the BAG might have about your ability to program a successful content generating robot before they're even brought up.


 * PS: Sorry for moving this, but you said you missed previous messages because the topic wasn't near the bottom of your page. Abyssal (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's great news. BTW, any comments on my thoughts above here? *points up* Abyssal (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll get started on everything tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent both the pdf and a copy of what I've completed so far of the txt file. Your feedback on the latter is requested. Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, I'll get a complete version to you tomorrow afternoon. I'd finish it tonight but my monitor's going bad and it's getting difficult to do anything on the computer because the screen is mysteriously blurring up. Abyssal (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sent you the finished copy. Let me know what else I can do. Abyssal (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to nag, but if you need me to do anything very soon, please tell me, as I won't have internet access tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on the "lists of" tonight for the taxa I already have. Hopefully I'll get it sent out to you tonight, but if not, Monday is the soonest I can get it to you. Abyssal (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your email. :) Abyssal (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we still using that page template? 'Cause if we are, we need the start and end times for the time periods, and I can get to work on that. If you get this before 10:30 AM, please reply immediately 'cause I have to leave for work. Thanks. :) Abyssal (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, personal life is interfering with my ability to get all that geologic time info to you. Hopefully things will clear up. Sorry I haven't gotten all that to you yet. I'll hopefully create all the Lists that were marked with the *** in the txt file I sent you very soon. Also, can we look into being able to use the bot to fill in tables more seriously? I'm facing significant pressure from other paleo-contributors about my unfinished lists. Sorry for the delay. Abyssal (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll get to work on that. Abyssal (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a big chunk of those lists that need filled:


 * List of prehistoric starfish
 * List of prehistoric barnacles
 * List of crinoid genera
 * List of prehistoric echinoids
 * List of edrioasteroids
 * List of graptolites
 * List of prehistoric sea cucumbers
 * List of hyoliths
 * List of prehistoric malacostracans
 * List of prehistoric brittle stars
 * List of prehistoric ostracods
 * List of prehistoric chitons
 * List of prehistoric stylophorans

There are some more, but I have to hunt them up. Abyssal (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Could you remind me what else you need from me for the page creation project? Abyssal (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this --> Middle Jurassic


 * With the number being the order of the epoch in the phanerozoic eon. EG: Early Cambrian= 1 Middle Cambrian = 2 etc. Abyssal (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good except the status column is for taxonomic status (Valid, Jr. synonym, Nomen dubium), not extant/extinct. If our database doesn't have that info, just use " Valid " or something. Or maybe just "Valid," since the vast majority of them will be anyway, and it can be tweaked as errors are found. Also, the year should be in the " XXXX " format. Other than that it looks really good! Thanks for your hard work. Are you an admin yet? Abyssal (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am finalizing the code right now & will likely file the BRFA tonight or early tomorrow. I'll let you know when I put it up... My RfA still has about 1.5 days left, so about midday Wednesday is when it is scheduled to close. Seems nearly certain to pass at this point though. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * gorgonocephalid= either gorgonocephalida (if you mean the order) or gorgonocephalidae if you mean the family.
 * Mikrocidarió= no clue :/
 * Hemieurylae= no clue :/
 * Megantocrinus = it's at least mentioned in the PBDB.
 * Priscanermarinus = is fine, has a mention at the PBDB
 * Diceratograptus = seems fine, a google search turns up many references
 * asterometrid = asterometridae
 * squillid = squillidae, the mantis shrimps

Abyssal (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure we can confidently link to the names, what if there are multiple Wanners? I can't find who they are anyway, although I'm confident Agassiz is Louis Agassiz. I should hopefully have the stage times completed tonight. Abyssal (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Geological periods are done. Abyssal (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break
How are things going? Abyssal (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for your dedication. Abyssal (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ever find that hour of time? It's looking like we're gonna miss creating article 3,000,000. :( Abyssal (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How's it comin'? Abyssal (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No pressure. Thanks for all your hard work! Abyssal (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How goes the battle? Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished filling out your geologic stages page. :) Abyssal (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you got the previous message. Abyssal (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Abyssal (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :D Abyssal (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I notice you didn't mention stub creation in the BRFA, is this something we're planning on doing later, or have you decided against it? Also, is there any way I could be an operator? Abyssal (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to worry with the request, I didn't actually do any actually work on the bot itself. As for the operator business, I just had assumed it would be run multiple times (eg. creating stubs in sessions, like 100 today, 500 tomorrow, arbitrary number the next day, etc.). Obviously having two operators would cut down on the total amount of time it would take to run through the database, if that assumption had been correct. Abyssal (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
im sorry, i just think its too important to be forgotten Tim1357 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, you win. I'll put it on my to-do list. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im sorry! I did not want to come off as annoying, as I know I CAN be. Congrats on getting WebCite bot up and running! Tim1357 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not annoying at all. It is a good idea, I just never prioritized it.  Your passion for the idea convinced me it is worth doing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot question
Hey Thaddeus, long time. Bot related question, is there a bot that can create infoboxes for current articles based on a data set? I've been creating pages in Category:Indian women cricketers and adding infoboxes is a tedious process, so was wondering about this. The template in use is Infobox cricketer biography. About 25-35 pages in this cat weren't created by me, and most of them are missing infoboxes, so rather than add them in manually, I was wondering if there's some way to get a bot to do it. I'm also creating a lot of pages for Indian books, so it'll come in handy for that too. Let me know. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡Hobbes 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is technically possible, but the bot would somehow have to figure out the data to put in each field. Without looking at the specifics, I can say that is probably going to be rather difficult.  since we are only talking about ~30 pages here, it is probably more effort to make a bot than just do it manually.  However, if there is a reasonable chance of you using it for a much larger number of article (i.e. newly created ones) than let me know.  Perhaps there is some database it can pull data from rather than using the article text?  That would help a lot.
 * The novels idea has some possibility since this potentially applies to a very large number of articles. It also has the benefit of me being able to pull data from something like openlibrary.org.  I'll definitely think about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been focused on this cat, but I'd say that over 30% of cricketer bios don't have infoboxes, and there are a lot of pages still left to be created (that pass WP:Athlete) in this area. If you look at Sudha Shah, the references can go to two databases - Cricinfo and CricketArchive (e.g. and ) and the entire infobox can be sourced from them, preferably the CricketArchive one as that is more complete for First class stats. Does this hold some promise? If yes, then I can request a couple of people from WP:Cricket to define specs etc. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is probably viable. (Assuming it doesn't violate the TOS of the websites in question, which I haven't checked.)  Go ahead and generate a spec list.  I must warn you, however, that there is a possibility the idea will generate opposition once it gets to BRFA as there are those who feel bots shouldn't be used to "generate content" which this could possibly be seen as. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me read the ToS on both sites carefully. However, if content creation is an issue, can we just use the bot to add infoboxes to existing articles. That way, a human will still be required to create the article and then add to the bot's queue before it does anything. cheers. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A reply to "Expert opinion needed"
Hi Thaddeus, I read your post on the Project Gastropods talk page and I just wanted to say something about these Sepkoski lists... User JoJan and I struggled for a long time in 2008 to clean up and fix up a simple list of "Prehistoric gastropod genera" generated from one of these lists. One problem that we perceive as living mollusk researchers is that a considerable number of the genera are still extant, some of them very much so. We think that calling them "prehistoric" gives a misleading impression. We finally came up with "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record" as a title, which I see has now been changed back to "List of prehistoric marine gastropod genera" by User:Abyssal. Invertzoo (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank for the reply. I wonder is there really a reason to call an article "List of prehistoric starfish," for example, instead of just "List of starfish?" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically these are lists of organisms found in the fossil records. This is bulky nomenclature for a general encyclopedia. I have glanced through all of the lists, and, as I said before, they all contain numerous extant species, not just extant species, but common and well-known extant species, making the current name, using "prehistoric," confusing. I opt for the bulky title over the inaccurate one. The simple title "list of starfish," for some lists, will confuse the fact that some common or very well-known extant species are not well-represented in the fossil record. This may give confusion to the reader: if this is a list of this members of this taxon, why isn't something well-known included?
 * The lists need to indicate that species found in the fossil record may include extant species. I don't know how to word it well, but it needs to be worded for the general reader. Also, the taxonomy sections are too long. I suggested a streamlined version somewhere.
 * Wikipedia has some very nice mollusc articles, by the way. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, ThaddeusB, can you put up a single centralized discussion page for this, rather than having it all over various editor talk pages. My IPs change a lot, so my talk pages are not useful. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will copy everything to User_talk:ContentCreationBOT after posting this. I suggest further discussion go there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of what kind of gastropods?
Too be honest, these Seplowski lists are not very useful. We seriously considered deleting our list article altogether about a year ago, but instead we did a huge amount of work to turn it into something vaguely respectable-looking, but still I don't think it is a very useful list at all. It absolutely cannot be called a "list of gastropod genera", and it certainly cannot be called a "list of gastropods". It is not even remotely complete in either of those ways and is unlikely to ever become so. This is why:

The list contains only those marine gastropod genera that have been found in the fossil record. It includes no land or freshwater gastropod genera whatsoever, of which there are a very large number. It includes no sea slug genera whatsoever, of which there are many hundreds. It includes no species of any kind whatsoever. Many gastropod genera have been found in the fossil record, but countless thousands of minute or fragile shelled genera have never been found as fossils and probably never will be. Most genera that have no shells left no trace whatsoever in the fossil record. Even in terms of larger, more solidly shelled species, only a tiny fraction of all the genera that ever lived have been found in the fossil record, which is of course extremely patchy and incomplete by its very nature.

The list we have does however include a number of bogus genera which were first described as gastropods, but which are no longer considered to be gastropods, and which in many cases are not even considered to be mollusks!!

The list is arranged alphabetically, not by family. All in all it is not very useful at all to anyone who is interested in living gastropods. I am not even sure how useful it is to paleontologists who study gastropods.

I imagine many of these same objections apply to the other group lists from this same source. Sorry, but there you go... best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Useful commentary. The intention was, at some point, to only list valid species from the paleontology database, but use Sepkowski for age ranges. However, the lists appear to include all species from Sepkowski, even though Sepkowski has since been updated.


 * Sepkowski does contain only marine taxa. I thought the taxa were being pulled from paleoDB, though, not Sepkowski, so I did not catch that the species on the lists were only marine; also I only checked the chitons and some of the crustaceans to any extent, both are outside my area, and my focus is marine, so, I'd miss that the lists were only marine. This is why these lists require your input, Invertzoo!


 * The bogus gastropods, and mollusks, would these then be still listed as valid species in the paleontology database? --69.225.5.4 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I personally had no idea of any of this. Remember, I didn't generate the lists and the bot is only filing them in.  To answer the specific question, it would be listed as invalid if it 1) has been renamed\found be an error\etc. - I.E. if the taxa itself is considered invalid or 2) it was demoted to a sub-genus.  However, if the genus was moved to another class bu not renamed, it would be listed as valid.  I do not know if this is what was intended by Abyssal or not - either he didn't consider it or he didn't feel it was a problem, as I was never informed of this possibility.
 * If stub creation ever takes place, the stubs wouldn't suffer in this way, as all classification data would be coming from paleodb and not be reliant on an existing Wikipedia table. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian infoboxes
Hi. I was wondering if you could code a bot to successfully transfer infoboxes on Hungarian wikipedia into english but to avoid initial errors like Délegyháza? Bascially I believe all you'd have to do is find out what each paramter means and then get it to display infobox settlement in english like User:Himalayan Explorer/Hungary rather than Magyar. Could you help? Himalayan   19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can help. You are correct that it should be a 1:1 correlation in most cases.  I'll take a look into the specifics within a day or two.
 * P.S. I haven't forgot about the transwiki project - I just put it on hold because I've been on wiki a lot less recently. However, I should be able to finally get to it pretty soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)