User talk:XDanielx/Archives/June 2008

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page cleanup bot
Hi, regarding Bot_requests, I'm the one who posted this thread looking for someone to do this, and I noticed that you're interested.

Question, what are your concerns about the difficulties of having the bot remove excess blue links and inappropriate piping? I think that it will actually be reasonably straightforward.

Kaldari was thinking of doing this previously, and I posted an explanation on his talk page of exactly what I believed needed to be done. I'll cut and paste it here:

The bot would hopefully be able to check all 100,000 DAB pages, removing periods from the end of entries, removing categories, converting numbered lists to bulleted lists, commenting out external links and references sections, and in those cases where it would be possible for the bot to do so, removing extra blue links and inappropriate piping of article titles.

I believe all of this could be done by following simple rules. Such as:

If a line begins with a "#", replace that with a "*". (numbered list to bulleted list)

If a line begins with a *, and ends with a period or comma or semicolon, removed the period, comma, or semicolon.

If an external link is found anywhere on the page, comment it out.

If a category is found which is not contained in (list of acceptable categories), remove it.

For the removal of piping and the removal of extra links from entries, both of these will only be done on lines beginning with a "*". In both cases, it would be necessary to look for linked terms which contain the title of the disambiguation page. So, if the page is x or x (disambiguation):

If an entry (line beginning with a "*") has exactly one linked term with x in it, and that term is piped in such a way that blah blah containing the word x, whatever becomes blah blah containing the word x, then remove the piping. Similarly, if blah blah containing the word x(whatever) is piped into blah blah containing the word x, remove the piping.

The removal of extra blue links will be done in a similar fashion. If the page is x or x (disambiguation):

If an entry has exactly one blue linked term with x in it, and if there are other blue or redlinked terms in the entry, then de-link the other terms in the entry.

I'm unsure of exactly how difficult it would be to spot whether a linked term was blue-linked or not, I'm guessing it would be necessary to look at the html code of the page, rather than just having the bot hit the edit button and look at that text. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed explanation. I guess handling piped links in the way you describe should be fine.
 * I'll post to your talk page (and the WikiProject) after doing trial edits so we can analyze and discuss them before the massive editing rampage begins. (Or possibly earlier, if I run into any dilemas before that.) I expect to be done with the programming within a few days, so the trial edits will probably be done within a week. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. There are other details I haven't mentioned yet; one is that we need to make sure the bot doesn't touch any set index articles.  I don't think that will be a problem, as I think they don't use the regular disambiguation tags, but instead use  and others.  There are a number of categories, such as Category:Ship disambiguation, which are a subset of Category:Disambiguation and whose articles should be left alone, but then some of the sub categories would be fine for the bot to fix.  These subcategories probably only represent a tiny percentage of the disambiguation pages, so if the bot missed a few it would be no big deal, whereas if the bot cleaned up some it wasn't supposed to, there might be an angry response.  I think that just sticking to pages which contain /// would eliminate the set index articles, but I'm not exactly sure. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I hadn't thought about that yet. My plan was to go through the articles with first, then go through the other templates in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. I'll be sure to inspect the templates first so that I can skip ones like Template:SIA. I think you're right that just using  should work, but just to be safe I'll have the bot skip any articles if it finds Category:Set indices (or Category:Set indices on __), in case some editors used a different disambiguation template but added the SIA category manually. It's nice being able to work with both templates and categories. :-) —  xDanielx  T/C\R 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game)
Glancing over Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) without having put a drop of coffee into my body, I don't see a single sentence which references the visual style at all. Which means that in an "identification and critical commentary" sense, all three images served solely for the purpose of identification. While I agree an ingame screenshot might be useful to clarify discussions of "cell shading, blend modes, and so forth", neither of those word pairs arise anywhere in the article. In articles with more in depth discussions, Beyond this, my own experience is that I'm fairly liberal in what I see as acceptable within the tiny subset of admins who muck in on images. This may be because I have an ironclad legal defense if I make a poor decision ("you can't get blood from a stone"), I don't know. Take a gander at the captions, for instance "Hogwarts is a huge castle just waiting to be explored" and "Dumbledore locked in combat with Lord Voldemort". Neither depict some gameplay point that's dicussed, or a plot event, or anything of that nature. They're just decorative. Looking it over again, I remained convinced that my closure was right. You can try DRV if you like, but I suspect the results will be no better. Only the few admins with a burning desire to be wildly unpopular close image deletion discussions. A better approach would be to fix up the prose first (which is atrocious) and include either discussion that makes those images necessary, or find alternative screenshots which necessary for the prose. Wily D 11:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Be aware that valid NFCC#8 is very sensitive to usage, though - apart from a handfull of examples, I don't think it's generally easy to talk about classes of cases.  Wily D  19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems
I looked at some of the bot's edits, I didn't realize you were going to be implementing it so quickly. There's something I hadn't mentioned yet, which will need to be taken into account. When fixing the piping in a link, besides the previous rules I mentioned, the bot should also preserve any italics or quotes it finds. That is to say:

If the bot sees:
 * Voodoo (album), a 2000 soul album by D'Angelo

This is correct, and shouldn't be changed. As per the manual of style, this is one of the proper uses of piping, to add italics to something that actually should have italics.

Furthermore, if the bot sees:


 * Voodoo, a 2000 soul album by D'Angelo

What we would actually like is to convert it into the first example above, to add the (album) into the piping. A complete set of rules would be something like (if the page is Voodoo):

Voodoo should be changed to Voodoo, whatever (this will almost always end up being place names, with City, country or City, state inappropriately piped)

Voodoo should be changed to Voodoo (whatever)

Voodoo should be changed to Voodoo (whatever)

"Voodoo" should be changed to "Voodoo" (whatever)

There are unfortunately a few more slightly more complicated things which could ideally be fixed. That is:

Voodoo should be changed to Voodoo (whatever)

"Voodoo" should be changed to "Voodoo" (whatever)

(Note, now that I've finished and saved the above, at least on my screen, I can't see the difference between the two single quote marks in a row, which create italics, and the double quote mark. You may have to hit the edit button to see the difference between some of the examples above) Hopefully this added complication won't be too much of a bother. What do you think? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, some of that will be tricky, but certainly doable (and probably worth it, considering how many articles will be affected). Thanks for bringing this up -- I'll get to work on implementing it. — xDanielx  T/C\R 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further potential problem: here's a quote from the bot approval page:

"Where piped links are found within the description of a disambiguation item, the links are removed and replaced with the alternate text (i.e., the string to the right of the pipe) Links within the description of an item are removed unless the item has no link at the beginning, in which case the page is listed for human review"

This should only be done if the link at the beginning contains the text of title of the page, and if it's a blue link. See the following example, from Silva (disambiguation)
 * Silva (Valença), a parish in the municipality of Valença, Portugal

We would not want the bot to de-link Valença, Portugal.

I'm not exactly sure what rules your bot is operating by at the moment, but basically, you can't assume that the link at the beginning of an entry is the proper one. I've seen pages where the links which should go at the beginning have all been placed at the end of each entry. And it's very common for editors to put the word "the" in front of many entries on a page. Here's an example of something one might see, from an old version of Sillery:


 * the commune called Sillery in the Marne département, in France
 * the district (formerly City) of Sillery, now part of Quebec City, in Canada

I think the best thing would be for the bot to be able to check all the links in an entry, and if it finds exactly one blue linked term containing the article title, de-pipe it (if necessary) and de-link all the other links. If the only linked term in an entry which contains the article title is a redlink, the bot simply can't know which other terms in the entry to de-link, and shouldn't de-link anything (although it could still de-pipe the redlink if neeeded).

--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The current behavior is actually very similar to that, I just didn't describe it very well in the RFBA -- I tend to over-explain things so I left out some details. The only difference (I think) between the current behavior and what you describe is that currenty the bot doesn't de-link anything in cases where there is exactly one blue link and it isn't at the beginning. So in pseudocode it looks roughly like this:
 * If a disambiguation item contains links that are not at the beginning:
 * If there is a link at the beginning of the item AND that link is blue:
 * Strip all other links
 * Else:
 * List the article for human review, noting the line number of this disambiguation item
 * (De-piping is handled separate, thus not shown above.) Does this look okay? I think removing links where there is one blue link not at the beginning would be useful for the "The link" and "A link" cases, but might be unconstructive in cases where the actual subject (i.e., what should go at the beginning) is in red. (For example, "A red link is a type of blue link" ). I guess the difference isn't very importance since the article is listed for human review in either case. — xDanielx  T/C\R 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we could probably get away with the above. It would be very rare that the first word in an entry would be a blue link which should be unlinked, although it does happen occasionally.  If the bot improperly delinks something 1 time in 1000, this would not be a crisis.  On the other hand, there are many thousands of entries spread across the DAB pages which begin with "the", so it would be nice to have the bot handle these, and they'd likely have to be handled in the way I had described above.   (But, it would be no crisis if the bot didn't handle these at all.  I would much rather have a bot that does 95% of what it could do than to make things so difficult for you in a push for perfection that you give the whole thing up!) --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Emma Taylor
I tagged it because now this is a redirect and not an article. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954
Hi, Daniel. I don't often disagree with administrators having been one myself at one time, but I feel as if I must do so respectfully at this time. User:AmericanLegendsmoviebyWaltDisney1954 is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Lyle123, a hard-banned user. In this case, even a supposedly good-faith edit has to be deleted. I refer to the near-contentless article he created about that Disney film. It's not only a clear-cut A1 and/or A3, most of the info he put wasn't and isn't correct. For example, I am unaware of Warner Bros. distributing any Disney film either here or overseas. If this film is worth an article, it's worth doing right and definitely worth doing under the correct title and without a hard-banned user in the edit history. Thanks for your consideration. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There still isn't much there, and if it's over the A3 threshold, I'm OK with that. It's just that this guy is hard-banned and I don't want to encourage him by letting this stay.  It's not much more than the infobox and a half-formed synopsis.  Tell you what:  I'll copy the infobox now that it's fixed and start a new article under the correct title.  That way, you can delete the existing version and we'll have a good, clean start without him in the edit history.  I'll get to work right now.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I'd left word with him as well since I saw he was active at the blocked users page. I've just recreated it under the proper title. Technically, it wasn't even a "film" as Lyle123 would have us believe, but a minor home video presentation showcasing some old Disney shorts. Thanks for the help. I greatly appreciate it and I appreciate what you do here even more. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah...found out that two of the shorts don't have articles and boy, they need them. Can't do them today, but I will soon.  Thanks aagain for the help.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gate City Bank
Hello! You had removed the speedy delete tag that I put on Gate City Bank earlier today. I just wanted to update you that I submitted the article for AfD consideration -- I thought that you might be interested in offering input in that discussion.

Also...if you don't mind my saying, you appear to be the very first administrator I've seen on Wikipedia that never issued a block to a misbehaving editor. (Your block log came up empty.) I hope this is not rude, but is there any reason for your lack of blocking to date? Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. My research showed Gate City Bank's notability was very marginal, which is why I put it up for erasure.  Hey, to build your blocking record -- if you want, I can start running around making trouble, just to get you started! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only kidding - Wikipedia has enough vandals without having me join the fracas. Thanks, again, for your feedback! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing
Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with WikiProject Computing for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Tag or Deletion
Arriving here, the radio just started playing Elton John's Daniel. Hopefully it's a good sign. You edited the image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3A2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg&diff=221622800&oldid=221534019 accepting the claim of being irreplacable, but the tag remaining states it will be deleted on June 30th. The Administrator who deleted it from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier actually wrote it made the person in the event look too good and removed it. Because the article is not that well known yet, there is no consensus in the Discussion for removal or restoration. The companion image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg was also removed from the article by the same Administrator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Milburn. In discussion he stated the images can be restored to the article, but he will not do it himself. What happens now? The Administrator who posted the images with the tag he deemed appropriate and created the article has been away and not available to defend his work. Being new to Wikipedia I have not yet developed any friends or allies on site, and while I type with my index fingers only, I have no clue how to restore the thumbnails to the article. While these images were speedily removed within minutes, the information in this image link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg was sent to Wikipedia permissions 8 days ago, and it is still not mounted to the article. Would you or anyone please guide me in the steps to do this? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort, but the article is totally destroyed, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes was factual and prophetic, not fantasy. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. The Declaration on Remembrance Day Day 1985, in the presence of the Governor-General of Canada, Government Leaders, the Military, Ambassadors of the Nations and 25,000 people he publicly declared,

"Hear O people and Nations, even to the ends of the Earth, the Word of the Lord God who is, and was, and is to come, The Almighty. The Lord has a controversy with the people. Do you do well to honour the dead, and yet, deny the God of the Living? Why do you follow the vain traditions of men, and make of no effect, the principles of God? You come here for one hour one day a year in a great show of public patriotism, and then forgetting, go back to work and make the same careless mistakes made by the generations prior to the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Hitler was killed, but it's his legacy that remains. A Soviet-American military-industrial complex consuming $trillions of dollars every year, holding the entire World hostage............"

"Hostage" was the last word he said perched on a bus shelter roof, as police got up and grabbed his megaphone. He was arrested for shouting, causing a disturbance, convicted and fined $250. He appealed without a lawyer to the Supreme Court of Canada.[16][17][18] is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. The world is being held hostage to the War on terrorism. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article I consider to be significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Deleting this information will not stop what is already in motion. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style. I just don't understand how an article on a prophet could be relevant with the prophecies deleted. Thanks again. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

not#news
Your clarification had e.g. this effect. Would you consider clarifying your clarification? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this attempt at combining your and LessHeard vanU's variants:


 * While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news or updates of expectably or fixed short validity period, even if sourced, since edits are supposed to be based on information of lasting encyclopedic value.


 * or:


 * While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news or updates the validity of which is known or can be expected to expiry shortly, even if sourced, since edits are supposed to be based on information of lasting encyclopedic value.


 * I'm not sure how best to phrase the part follwing "breaking news or updates" (not a native speaker here), but I think you get the picture of what I'm trying to express. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Information concerning recent developments should be included only if it has lasting encyclopedic value. is very elegant, I like it! Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User:XDanielx/RfA review
I think you forgot to finish one of your answers; the answer to the ''Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?'' question seems to end abruptly. seresin (public computer)  01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Hello Daniel. I've replied to some of the concerns raised by you and other editors. Please see my RfA. Regards, Masterpiece2000  ( talk ) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)