User talk:ThaddeusB

Welcome to my talk page! If you leave me a note here I will probably reply here, unless you specify otherwise or unless I feel it is important enough to "get your attention" via a reply on your talk page. If you came here to ask why I deleted (or took other action) on a specific page, please specify which article using [[article name]] somewhere in your message or else I might not be able to figure out what you are talking about.

Please note: new text goes under old text on talk pages. Thank you!

Click here to leave me a new comment.

For older conversations, please see my archives:

• 2008
• 2009: Jan-Jul Aug-Sept Oct-Dec
• Thematic: My RfA

oldprodfull bot

I would really like this bot to be created (or the task assigned to an existing bot). Wouldn't it be easiest to just have a bot note on the talk page of every prodded article that a prod was applied? (A simple matter of looking every so often to see where the prod and prod-nn are transcluded to, I think.) It might annoy the admins who have to delete the articles if no talk page existed prior to the bot creating the talk page, so perhaps the bot could just do this for articles that already have a talk page? This would capture most of the interesting cases, since articles that don't have talk pages tend to be young and, in my experience, more likely to deserve deletion. Abductive (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The way it would work is capture the list of current articles with PROD tags on them periodically. Articles that disappear from the list and stay off for 24 hours (to prevent tagging articles where the tag was removed in vandalism) would be given an {{Oldprodfull}} tag unless they were deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteer is back, and I would really like to see this bot tagging implemented. Abductive (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up & the reminder. I definitely want to see this bot made as well, so I'll bump it up on my list of priorities. Hopefully I can get to it in about a week. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are busy, and I really would like to see progress with Dr B's TRANSWIKI idea, I am going to ask if any currently existing bots can be adapted to do this (unless you really don't want me to). If they don't/can't/won't I'll ask you again. Abductive (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The code is fairly simple & given my heavy involvement in PROD, I would really like to do it. I promise I'll get to it real soon - hopefully this weekend. :) Should be a 1 or 2 day project. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Abductive (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki

Hi! In light of the recent events I think it might be a good time to make a new project proposal at councils and organise a project which concentrates on trasferring content from other wikipedias but in a may which is much more efficient and can done with no community concerns. If I make a proposal in a day or two can you comment as I feel we both share the same view that it is important to transfer content from other wikipedias but done adequately as part of a project coordination. The ideal is a bot which can run through categories on a different wikipedia and extract any main information from an article and create it on english wikipedia with a reference. I know the community expresses an extreme indifference to automation in regards to content but if programmed correctly bots can do things much more consistently and efficiently than us. The idea is not that the bot writes the articles, the idea is that it draws up missing lists of articles from other wikipedia in the project space, members of a group check them for notability and then the bot is assigned to blue link them in the best possible way without community concerns and which adheres to our policies. The ultimate ideal of cause would be bot which can translate whole articles into English but as we know present, google translate is far from perfect. If it is somehow perfected in the future see google toolbar the new translation thing they have going then I think it would be possible to instantly translate articles but would need to be proof read. But at present I think something which can extracts some basic facts and reference them is most needed. The concern by the community is likely to be about the mass creation of missing articles started without full content and may cause concerns about the amount of work it will take to develop and maintain them. Personally I think arguments against the creation of new content "because they might be vandalised" is an invalid one. There are enough people who use wikipedia honestly to make it work. It might be difficult to programme a bot I don't know but the first phase would be to use a bot to draw up lists of missing articles by wikipedia in the project space. I am thinking maybe a taskforce of the missing encyclopedic articles project. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Transwiki/de/Politicians etc etc. We'd need a bot to be able to run off categories on other wikipedias and list them on here in the workspace. So it could generate lists from a diversity of topics and wikipedias such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Transwiki/nl/Writers etc. DO you follow? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that sounds great. Funny thing is that I've been looking for absolutely ages for a decent bot operator who is interested in content and willing to run. Your skills would be greatly needed to cleanup existing articles too. We have a whole set of municipalities of Colombia and Brazil which have just been dumped. As much as it seems I like creating new short stubs a lot of my time is spent cleaning up and refencing articles on districts and municipalities across the world. It took me a weke and half to add 500 references to the Vietnam districts and add infoboxes because nobody would help run a bot!! I believe for new articles there is a minimum requirement. As long as they have a bit of info and are immediately expandable it would be greatly appreciated I'm sure. Righteo then I'll make a proposal Monday and I've spent time trying to salvage several gundred of these stubs. The thing is a vast proportion of them contian the same references to the Bavarian Landtag and German National Library meaning of course the generation of such articles could be done effecitvely with a bot. Very glad to meet you and I hope we keep in good contact. Sorry if I come across badly at ANI and AFD discussions but I'm sure you understand the frustrations.

I certainly do understand the frustration. It is no fun at all to spend hours/days working on something just to have it deleted again. That whole thread was a mess with a lot of people (on both sides) acting poorly. I certainly won't hold anything said there against you (or anyone else). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to a project on this I would propose somethign along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Transwiki. The first task would be to create sections of the new project related to content on the different wikipedia. Then the bot would raid the categories on other wikipedia for various topics and list the articles missing from these categories. The ones that we already have maybe can be moved manually or the bot could by pass them. So eventually we'd have a directory of missing articles organised by each wikipedia and neatly by topic/sub topic so we know exactly what is missing. Inevitably the task is a tremendous one to do so which only a bot could achieve but I am certain that a bot is able to be programmed to copy categories from the other wikipedias and insert them into lists in the project space. Once we have that done or are happy with the missinglists for one topic maybe then the bot can be programmed to start the missing articles, a lot of related categories use similar sources etc so that should make it easier at least. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable and is probably the best way to proceed. i will support such efforts fully. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. Yes the thing was that we've had a great deal of experiemce of evne the stubbiest of articles being expanded like this so it kind of propels me to generate more because I believe they will be expanded. I could almost guarantee that if that editor had come across a red link he would not have started that article. It would satill be sitting as a red link. So while I don't endorse the creation of poorly referenced sub stubs (which is why I want a bot and project) I do think that it is worth creating stubs. Thats what motivates me is the many articles I've created I've seen expanded into real good articles. Even stubs like Xinjiang Medical University has ended up being good! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, the idea of a place to store machine-translated articles en masse from other Wikipedias away from namespace is a great one, if it can carry across wiki formatting and references. Good plan! It would need willing editors to copy-edit and improve sourcing if necessary, so give me a reminder if and when you've got the project going. We need to pilfer as much as we can from the other Wikipedias. Fences&Windows 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I do see the different wikipedias as one project and I can't believe there is not even anything in place which attempts to put articles in various languages into english and vice versa! It is the core goal on here "to provide an encyclopedia of the highest quality to anybody on the planet for free in their own language". We need a transwiki project and to create a bank of missing articles to bridge the gaps!! 12 million articles have been created by the rest of the world so their inut and content should not be ignored!! I think I'll make a proposal at councils tomorrow. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus are you still interested? Because the project is kind of dependent on a bot!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just didn't have a chance to read through everything yesterday. I am planning on doing so today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Randii Wessen Sources

After reviewing the 9 academic criterion, I was pleasantly surprised to find that he has accomplished multiple criterion for publication. Could you advise on which best establish notability, and which sources are most appropriate?

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Dr. Wessen was the first person to compose a fly-by film of Neptune from Voyager 2 post-encounter sequence photo frames. The first fly-by visuals of Neptune are the direct product of Wessen's work. He co-wrote a text book on Voyagers encounter with Neptune.

• http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Randii+R.+Wessen
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Neptune-Satellites-Ellis-D-Miner/dp/1852332166
  
• http://books.google.com/books?id=lZzD1D6PS3UC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=Randii+Wessen+Voyager&source=bl&ots=Mv6va-ue9-&sig=tUaCgmIGLiOCAQOPirfdg2lxnkM&hl=en&ei=JJZuSt_CGZS2MLC7iOEI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
  
  

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
He received NASA's Exceptional Service Medal

• http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/guest/wessen/
  
  

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

Randii Wessen is a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, and the British Interplanetary Society.

• http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~aiaa/AIAA%20Lecturers.pdf (Page 74/75)
  
  

He even has an asteroid named after him. That must count for something...

• http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=31664+Randiiwessen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obafgkmrns (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 July 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Lakes of Germany and Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Mountains of Swizterland etc. Or it could be listed as
Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/German/Geography/Switzerland/Mountains etc. So the Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject TRANSWIKI/ Polish/Politics/Polish politicians and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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#Cookie dough bites 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? -- Banjeboi 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)

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 --> {{sort|5|[[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{{verify source}}" 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 in paleontology|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

Hello, ThaddeusB. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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. [1] and [2]) 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‡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‡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? [3]

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)

Talkback

Hello, ThaddeusB. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Dead external links.
Message added 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for taking the time to get this project up and running again! Tim1357 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! You graciously agreed to re-launch the project a little while ago. How is the progress? If you have to much on your plate, then I can take a stab at it. I would probably use the python script (.py) , and try to modify it a bit. However, it would be some effort because I would have to get a tool-server account (I'm not sure my internet can handle it). Plus, I'm not sure the script produces a well-formatted list of dead external links. Tim1357 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

New dump

Just a quick note, there's a new bot dump for the journal database bot to go through. Would be nice to get an update list. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia#Presentation tweak Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to reply to this earlier... I have a couple higher priority tasks on my agenda, but I should be able to make the modifications and re-run within a week or so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any update? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been super busy with the GeoCities closure, but today is the last day for that so I should be able to get back to this within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make sure to go get something up this week - hopefully complete with all the desired changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)]]

Poke. Any update? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on real-world vacation for the next copy weeks so I will definitely get something up shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Any plans to implement a couple of the presentation tweaks? (The article links/search is much needed for cleanup). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will make as many of the changes as I can. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any progress? The current journal dump is getting quite old... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest dump (30 Jan 2010), for convenience. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest dump (12 Mar 2010), for convenience. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd Like your input...

Hello,

Im not sure if you knew this, but Geocities is shutting down. A lot of people are woried about all of the dead links that are going to be created. Seeing as you have significant expertise in this area, I'd like to see what you have to say. The discussion is at Wikipedia:VPPR#When GeoCities shuts down, how should we handle links to its sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

Hello, and thanks for all your work on fixing dead and dying links to GeoCities and Encarta. I was wondering if it's worth putting a request for help or comments on Template:Centralized discussion? If WebCiteBot's working fine as it is, then there's no need to invite well-intended meddling, but if on the other hand, you're looking for help chasing down dead links or searching all those other possible hosts, I could add a note to the Village Pump section above, and then add some kind of appropriate call for assistance to the Cent. template. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't need any help from human editors, but thanks for the offer. I'll let you know if anything changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#My_new_Template. Equazcion (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot feedback needed...

...here. It's a bot to assist Wikiproject Intertranswiki, so your advice has been specifically requested Fritzpoll (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance in the process would also be much appreciated!! Drawing up this missing directory is going to take some time even at bot rate! Himalayan 13:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Incubate

In case I wasn't clear before, feel free to use the template. In fact, I'm glad you guys have gotten that project started. Good luck, and I will be sure to put the concept to the test. ;-) -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

CC Bot

MoS prefers US to USA. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

DeadLinkBOT

Hello! It seems like DeadLinkBOT (contribs) has stopped running? Do we need a replacement for it? I would be willing to script up a bot to take its' place. Let me know. Nice speaking with you, MatthewYeager 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this popped up on my watchlist, I've got a couple of link replacement tasks for DeadLinkBOT, if it is still in operation? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still functional. It runs "on demand," that is when there is need to replace specific links. I haven't personally sought out any dead link replacements for a while, so it hasn't been active. I will be happy to run it again if you know of anything that needs done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The links I'd like DeadLinkBOT to tackle are IETF RFC links that point to faqs.org: "http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc([0-9]+).html" [4] and the old locations on ietf.org: "http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).html" "http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).txt" "http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).txt" [5] These should be updated to point to: "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc$number"
MediaWiki:Rfcurl was updated back in August 2004 from "http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/" to "http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/" [6] and then in May 2006 and August of 2006 to point to "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc(number)" [7] [8] but we still have a lot of manually created links in all sorts of namespaces that point to the old locations.
I came across these while doing prep work for {{Cite IETF}} and had considered doing them myself but DeadLinkBOT would make short work of them. Updating these should be very easy since the only thing that needs to be extracted is the RFC number and a really simple regular expression will do the job.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinkbot

Thanks to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center deciding to change their website around completely we in the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones have a lot of links which need pointing to their new homes. Anyway i was wondering if youre bot would be able to do it at all? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to help. Could you supply some examples of links that have changed or point me to the discussion about the change? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Geocities

Do you expect to get all 30,000 done before the deadline? MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet have enough data to say with confidence that there will be enough time, but I should have a better idea by tomorrow (I'll reply here again when I know.) If it looks like it'll be close, I'll switch it to archive only mode (i.e. no Wikipedia page writes), which will speed it up significant. It can always go back later and edit the Wikipedia pages, but it can't go back and archive pages after they are gone. :)

I'm also going to try to get through as many foreign Wikipedias as possible on an archive only basis. I imagine a fairly large % of the links will be duplicate, so hopefully that won't add too much. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had a bit of a disaster where I accidentally overwrote my updated code with an old version, so I was set back ~24 hours by having to fix it. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to make an accurate guess as to if there is enough time or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you hitting bandwith limitations and just need more bandwith? If so and this is something that can be run on a *nix host let me know as there may be something I can do. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. However, the problem lies not in the technical end, but on the human end. I had to make a significant number of modifications to my existing code for the new functionality (on demand archiving of links to a specific site). I have been having trouble finding time to adequately test everything, but I had some time today & I think it is 100% ready to go now.

I already have a backup plan ready to go if the main bot proves too slow - an archive only version (no Wikipedia writes). I'll start up this version my mid-day Saturday if things seem to be progressing too slow on the main bot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of saving this link (no. 18) which appeared on the Reference Desk/Misc. only yesterday? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Double-spacing with typewriters? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5kp7c3mO1 --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've adjusted the corresponding citation on the Ref Desk page. They may not know it now but it should turn out to be pppp-rrrretttty hannn-ddddy when this computer bubble finally bursts and everyone needs to learn once again how to operate a typewriter properly. Nothing will impress a future recruiter more than a high wpm. :-) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the current rate of archival, it should be able to get through all of enwiki's links before the deadline. The fate of the foreign wikipedia links will depend on what time exactly Yahoo shuts it down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Stats

• 40683 unique URLs archived
• 6365 URLs take were 403/404/508. Not sure about the 508 (which were a very small number), but the others were very unlikely to ever be available again even if GeoCities stayed open forever. A few % of these were probably due to onwiki typos, but the vast majority were due to normal linkrot; that is, sites moving or disappearing on their own.
• 81 URLs missed due to 503 (temporary unavailable errors): These would have been available given enough time. All pages were tried at least twice.
• or 86.3% saved, 13.5% already dead, and 0.2% missed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So when can we expect to see the links updated in wikipedia? I see that the bot has updated Encarta links already. Tim1357 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I moved to Encarta for a while since it was more pressing... It will probably be a couple weeks at least before all the links are actually updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wayback Bot

Hey there thaddeusB,

I did some research on the wayback machine, to help with that bot I've been pestering you about. Like you said, the bot would have to find an archived version that is at least close to the date it was accessed, so here is my solution.

Let us assume that the range for deviation from the access-date is 4 months.

And lets have example.com be our example dead link.

Also, the accessdate for that is July, 2008.

Because we have a range of four monthes, (2 months in either direction) our date range (in yyyymm format) would be.

200805 and 200809

So, in the wayback url, type the following

web.archive.org/web/200805-200809/example.com

this would produce the archived version closest to the center of the provided range. If no archive exists in the provided range, then it returns "no archive".

This, of course, works if there is an "accessdate" parameter given. If it is not given, you can query wikiblame, which gives the accesdate.

Use the following url, replacing pagename with the page's name, and linkname with the link's name.

http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?
project=wikipedia&article=pagename&needle=linkname&lang=en&limit=2000&ignorefirst=0&
offjahr=2009&offmon=10&offtag=26&searchmethod=int&order=asc

the page will produce a statement "insertion found between (datestamp) and (datestamp), which can then be substituted for the accessdate. Whew, and thats all i got. I might have just spent a lot of time telling you things you already knew, but I thought that was a good way to work through the problems you listed in the bot request i originally made. tell me what you think. Tim1357 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "pestering" me. I, in fact, was completely unaware of the wikiblame system and only vaguely familiar with the archive.org system so the information was definitely helpful. Hopefully I'll find the tim geocities e to program the bot soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely take your time, this is not nearly as urgent as geocities, what do we have, 16 hours left? Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea really - the wording is quite vague. I don't really expect it to suddenly disappear at 12:01a, although it is possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one links linger on for a few days. If they are truly deleting every page like they claim, that will take quite some time to complete.

As far as progress goes, all 26k enwiki links finished shortly after midnight yesterday. The combined total of all foreign language Wikipedia has about 3k links to go out of 51k. Then I have to do another run through to try and get some of the "503 - temporarily unavailable pages" (~1% of total). Based on the rate so far, it looks like a bit less than 2 hours of archiving remains. I believe just about everything salvageable (nearly 10% were already dead) will be archived in time. :) It will be awhile before all the Wikipedia pages are updated though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! I almost sent an email to yahoo begging them to wait a few more hours, I thought it would be really that close. Kudos for getting the job done so quickly! Tim1357 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the existing dead links may have been page renames or prior removals (like when Yahoo purged untold numbers of inactive accounts) and may still be salvageable with archive.org. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, many of these sites probably decayed for the "normal" reasons of people abandoning their project or changing sites and not leaving redirects behind. The higher rate than normal is probably due at least in part to people moving when they learned GeoCities was closing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whither?

There's a concentration of other free sites where GeoCities hosts were being encouraged to migrate (see my discussions in the archives of WP:Village Pump (proposals) derived from the GeoCities article in Wikipedia and the GeoCities home page: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/geocities/close/close-07.html ), so at some point, some kind of search-and-locate operation may be called for. Much of this will have to be done by humans, but is there any way that a 'bot could automate part of the search? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not easily. It has been my ambition for some time to write a bot that seeks out where dead poages have moved to. However, I have not yet had the time to actually do it. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CourtTV Linkrot

It's possible this problem has been brought up and is being addressed somewhere, but I wasn't sure where. And seeing as how you've developed a bot for the correcting dead links, I figured you'd be a good place to start in getting it resolved. With CourtTV's change to 'TruTV', they made sweeping changes to their domain as well. As a result, just about every unarchived link, external or reference, to CourtTV sources has been rendered useless (they now redirect to TruTV's redirect page).

For example, several references on this page, this page, and an External Link here. No doubt this affects countless other pages covering notable trials and/or criminals. I haven't figured out which of the two links on that redirect page lead to the archived documents generally being referenced, so I'm not sure if the repair process could be automated. Is this something your bot could be configured to fix?

That being asked, I notice this page was created with every CourtTV reference archived, but I can't tell if it was done as a result of this issue or if it was just someone maintaining best practice citation habit.
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you've got a lot of conversations with a lot of different editors going on here and you may have missed this particular query, so I'm just posting a bump in the hope that you'll catch it. :^)
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to your post. I'll take a look and see what I can do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WebCite

I just wrote Wikipedia:Using WebCite. You want to check it out?--Blargh29 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Input please

Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: BOT you were working on with Abyssal to record speicies info (?)

This may not make a whole lot of sense. Abyssal suggested that I contact you about a bot you were working on to automate "filing in tables" on arthropod invertebrates. Here is the text of his message to me...

"Actually, come to think of it, maybe you should talk to User:ThaddeusB before continuing. We were collaborating on a bot that would fill in the tables automatically from the PBDB, but it fell into development hell. Should it continue it may render your work unnecessary. You should tell him your plans and ask him if any future work on the bot would effect your planned editing. Filling in a lot of data manually would be an unfortunate waste of effort if it ends up getting overwritten by the database-harvesting bot. Abyssal (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)"

I have only entered a small amount of info in the list of eurypterids, which is what he was referring to. I am presently entering species descriptive information from the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology onto the pages on each individual genus. As the source I am working from is a non-digital paper source, I doubt that a bot will affect that work. As for the name and date info that I have entered onto the species lists, if that could be automated, more power to you. My input was minimal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digthepast (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

Hey there!

Just a reminder to generate the list of dead links.

This reminds me - a really need to generate that list... Yes, I will output two lists - a complete alphabetical one & a separate list with the most "popular" dead links. I'll make finally finishing the program the make this list my top priority for the next week.--ThaddeusB (talk) 8:28 pm, 4 October 2009, Sunday (1 month, 21 days ago) (UTC−4)

Thanks again for taking the time to do that! Tim1357 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi, I wonder if you're still interested in saving regularly the statistics as we had disucssed here. Cenarium (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I never noticed that you wanted some additional stats that aren't already tracked at the link the other editor provided. As such, I had incorrectly assumed the bot was no longer wanted... I am on real-world vacation the next couple weeks, so I should be able to get something programmed before the end of the year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A hope for the future...

Wikipedia is sometimes seen as a rather harsh environment for newcomers. I am currently working on an essay that might better ease newcomers into the family. Any input for Newcomer's guide to guidelines will be most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can You review?

Hello my friend! Union Avenue Historic Commercial District needs a bit of copy editing and you do clean things up so well. I would like to see it be nominated for the featured article but it's needs a buit more fleshing out. Can you please guide me? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to get to it w/in the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Auto-categorizing Robot

Hi! A couple of months back, you created this 'bot to work with National Register of Historic Places historic district categories. (THANKS!) From User:The Auto-categorizing Robot/Logs/NRHP Index, it appears that the categorizing work began, but then stopped. This task is still needed (see Template talk:Infobox_nrhp#Problem with autocategorization to Category:Historic districts in the United States for the latest expressions of concern). Was there a problem with the 'bot or the task design that someone else could help out with? --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem was that I never restarted the task after the last run finished... Thanks for the reminder - I will restart it w/in the next day or two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this bot be started again soon? --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please? --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I haven't done much the past few days. Will try to get to it tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It still hasn't run. Is there a problem that someone else could possibly help with? --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I see that real life has been interfering with your wiki-life lately. I hope things are getting sorted out for you. Is there anything anyone else can do to help with this 'bot process? --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please advise if there's anything anyone else can do to help get this job running again. It's been more than three months since it last operated. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'll get it back up tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Thank you for your patience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor & Publisher & WebCiteBOT

Due to time-sensitivity, thought you should be advised of this notice/discussion --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MacJarvis & AquaConnect

About this comment.

Why?

Someone who is obviously connected to the company is intent on making sure we have an article on their product. No-one else is showing any interest in the article. Surely if the product really was notable we would have some actual contributions from editors who do not have a COI?

What is the message we are trying to send to people intent on spamming us? "Just keep trying!" The article has been deleted multiple times now as spam. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple points:

1. Clearly someone (me) has shown some level of interest in the article or we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with, so your premise is flawed to begin with.
2. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that no one is currently working on, but that doesn't make those subjects non-notable.
3. A COI is never a valid reason for deletion
4. A subject being written as an ad (and deleted as such) doesn't make it non-notable. What if the first 5 tries at Diet Pepsi had all been ads, would that permanent disqualify from ever having an article?

The message we should be trying to send is that we judge content, not editors. If something is salvageable, it should be salvaged, regardless of the original editor's motives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but as far as I can tell the only reason you are showing interest is because User:MacJarvis left a comment on Template talk:Cent asking that the deletion be reversed. MacJarvis has been pushing this article for over a year now. I'm assuming you can see the deleted history of the article, you can see for yourself that he/she (and his/her IP address, sockpuppets) is the one and only significant editor. If the only one aggressively pushing for the article is someone who has a blatant COI, then that speaks volumes about the notability of the subject.

And please note that it isn't just myself. The article was nominated for speedy deletion multiple times by different editors, and previously nominated for AFD by another editor. Each time the deletion or AFD was successful, MacJarvis turns up to either re-create the article or ask for it to be restored.

Lastly comparing a piece of software that has received no coverage aside from that prompted by press releases to a hugely successful product like Diet Pepsi is frankly not a valid comparison. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How I became interested in the subject is irrelevant and your assessment of the press coverage is completely biased and inaccurate. Please show me any policy or guideline that says "if a COI account pushes a topic for a long period of time and the article is speedy deleted multiple times, the topic becomes permanently off-limits for recreation." Then show me where notability is said to be determined by "interest." Until you do, you have no valid argument to make - you are just trying to push your personal opinion on me. If I want to "waste" my time on a minorly notable subject, what concern is that to you?

And BTW, I am not the only person who thinks the subject is notable as evidenced by the AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe your last statement, please look closer. Three keep votes. Two of them from editors who only edit the AquaConnect article or articles that mention Aqua Connect. And the only other Keep vote said "Weak - with some cleanup, I do believe this article could live." And the only ones that argue the article is notable are the two who plainly have a conflict of interest.

And I never claimed notability is determined by interest. I only object because the only editor who is pushing for this article to be repeatedly recreated plainly has a conflict of interest. If another editor who had contributed even a single other article to Wikipedia were pushing for this, I wouldn't be bothered about it.

Lastly the article wasn't just speedy deleted multiple times. It went through AFD and was deleted twice after being discussed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again. The article was speedy deleted multiple times in 2008 as spam. A DRV overturned the last speedy and sent it to AfD. The resulting AfD was no consensus, which means it was kept. The votes were 1 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 weak delete, and 1 neutral. Last I checked, neither MuZemike or Suntag is a SPA pushing this article.

The article then sat for more than a year before you started the second AfD. The second AfD had numerous sock keep votes and three delete votes. All three delete votes were "delete - spam" which is a comment on tone, not notability. Furthermore, the AfD was severely hampered by the socking. For proof that this kind of behavior influences people to vote delete, you have to look no further than yourself. You have repeatedly argued the socking is a reason to delete it and your arguments plus the shitty behavior by the sock was likely a factor in deciding the second AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Palmer (chef)

If you want more of the fine foods meme this new article is mighty skimpy. Otherwise, you're welcome to help out on the Tacoma, Washington architecture subjects I've uncovered (see top of my user page article list...) or to do your own thing. :) Anyway, great job on that article you fixed up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WebCiteBot special request

Hi there Thaddeus. I wonder whether I could bother you with a special request for a bit complicated WebCiting (that needs a bit of coding)? We at WP:DW have a problem (read here for details) that Outpost Gallifrey, a website that hosted many reviews currently linked from 150+ articles, has been shut down. Those reviews have been cached at web.archive.org here but that service is always very slow. Would it be possible to submit all those links under the "reviews"-header (if archived) to WebCite using an adapted version of your bot's code and then add them to the articles in which they are used in? The tricky part here would be that the links are already "rotten" and there would be a difference between the link to archive (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20071001000119/www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=bbcp-69) and the link in the article (e.g. http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=bbcp-69). Regards SoWhy 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

After I get caught up on other things, I'll look into it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A bot for WP:Article Rescue Squadron

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Listing_the_articles_with_rescue_tag:_Fritzpoll_and.2For_Thaddeus_can_you_create_the_bot.3F Ikip 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 4?

Is it ready yet? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Opinion sought about User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Kevin Rockett. I believe even at this stage the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I am ready to turn it loose and let others join in on the fun. What'cha think? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice article. The subject definitely passes notability, although I wouldn't specifically refer to N:academics as my first choice. He easily passes the GNG, but is more known as an author than a pure academic IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, remember me? I was just wondering how you've been, and where we left off on ContentCreationBOT, and if there was any chance that project would continue. No rush, I was just curious since it's been a while. :) Abyssal (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I will hopefully be able to address the issue that previous held up the project sometime this week. (I've been mostly MIA for the last month+ until returning a few days ago.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saving Viva Chile!

Happy New Year :) I don't get on much anymore so don't get to see when articles come and go. Inti-Illimani had a huge influence in my life when I volunteered in Ecuador in 1989-90 and very popular recordings were sold on the streets, that's how I first encountered their music. I also had the wonderful opportunity to actually see them play in Montreal a few years ago at the Place des Arts. Wow. I look forward to reading your Allmusic contribution and improvements to the article. --Tallard (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoltan Mesko (American football) GA

This user helped promote Zoltan Mesko (American football) to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Zoltan Mesko (American football) which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maryland Historical Trust

I've been in touch with the MHT, and they've redirected the old main page to the new main page, but all of our links just go there rather than to an error page as they did before. It's therefore marginally better, but the links are still effectively broken. I don't think we'll get much father with them, as they don't seem to be interested in redirecting their 1400-odd subpages, since they're dynamically generated as far as MHT is concerned. Therefore, I'd say we should go ahead and make all of our links to www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net point to the new address at mht.maryland.gov. Acroterion _(talk) 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start up the bot within the next couple days and report back to you when it is complete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there ... just wondering where this bot request is in queue. User:Pilch62 has started to manually change links from www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net to mht.maryland.gov Thanks in advance --Pubdog (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A small nudge, now that the Olympics are over - any chance of a bot run? Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - I've been mostly inactive this entire year. :( Finally getting caught up now. I'll have by bot run through this by the end of the weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand that real life tends to take priority (or should). Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello?

I ready, T. Next lesson? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard McLean (Australia)

Could follow up your plans to add sources and improve the article? [9], [10]. It closed as no consensus with only you voting to keep. When it closed it still did not have any references, and it remains unsourced today. I looked but did not see enough information in independent reliable sources improve the article beyond a stub. And I'm personally not comfortable using the autobiography and the website as the only sources. If we are relying on them, then I would prefer to make the article about the autobiography "Recovered, not cured: a journey through schizophrenia" since it will not grow stale. This needs to be addressed because according to his own website, he no longer is employed by the The Age. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll attempt to fix the article before the end of the month. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT NY Times run?

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#NY_Times_content --Cybercobra (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Finish the sentence?

Been waiting for you to complete this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)&curid=23326133&diff=339076007&oldid=338323744 -- ends with a dangling sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The extra text was just some thoughts that I worked in elsewhere and then forgot to delete before hitting save. Now corrected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Simbo Olorunfemi

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simbo Olorunfemi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi ThaddeusB, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

(refactored) Ikip 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Schwa (restaurant)

I saw Schwa had 11,000 or so views of its DYK hook? Well done (although I like medium rare). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiStatsBOT not updating

Bot's down again. Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's working again now. Not sure if you are responsible for that, but if so, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Viable solution to the biography of living person debate?

ThaddeusB,

As one of the co-founders of WP:Incubator I was thinking you maybe interested in the proposal inspired by several editors, my question isn't whether you like it, (although that opinion is important) my question is:

In your opinion, will the community as a whole support it?

The name Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to bodly change any of the proposal as it stands.

Please note at a time that you and co-founder Fritzpoll were editing less, I proposed then created a subpage of the incubator project to incubate the articles in wikiproject Australia. There was disagreement about this, so this ceased, 70 articles remain on this sub-page. I would be happy to explain this to you, at your leisure....

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that user page if possible... Ikip 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks. :-) I picked a good/bad time to lose access to the internet for a week: bad because I would have liked to do my bit to steer us out of last week's shit; good because I was getting very worked up and achieving absolutely zip. A week of quietly writing stubby content offline is just what I needed, though not at all what I wanted. Hesperian 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

wayne stokeling

Hi Thaddeus

21 years ago, i bought a car that was stolen. I turned it in as a 26 year old NYU, London School of Economic PhD working for KKR.

It would not have mattered if I did not allow Tawana Brawley to stay at my house during her ordeal.

It is quit obvious that civil rights issues do matter much in your world.

One of you wrote that poor article. It is not a crime to hire a ghost writer. I would not take the blame for the poorly written article.

I have contributed to the betterment of humankind and will get my documentations to you. The internet is not research.

(Wstoke (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC))wayne

Hun? I'm not sure what you want/why you are posting this here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Stokeling. I too am not sure what Wayne is attempting to accomplish. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hey ThaddeusB, just letting you know I sent you an email the other day, hope it got to you okay :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I replied via email. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

MULTICUBE article review

Dear ThaddeusB, first of all, thank you for reading my article in the incubator MULTICUBE. You decline my request for moving to the mainspace telling: decline move to mainspace - article seems to demonstrate notability through third party references first; some minor cleanup

I'm not so expert and I did not get what do you mean. If you think the article is lacking and should be improved before moving to the mainspace, can you please tell me more explicitly what can I improve? If instead you believe the article is fine, can you graduate it and move to mainspace please.

Thank you --Marianig (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noted in my talk page your detailed comment... I'm going to work on it. Thank you. --Marianig (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

MULTICUBE article updated

I updated the page MULTICUBE with some new references. Mainly:

• HiPEAC newsletter: HiPEAC is an important Network of Excellence concerning the related research topics in Europe.
• DATE Booth: Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) is the major conference in Europe in our field. MULTICUBE is represented there with both, scholarly publications, and in the space reserved for EU funded projects in the conference Booth.

I did not add all reference from scholarly publications since they are quite a lot. I just placed a link where readers can find them all: MULTICUBE publication list.

If your suggestion is to place some of the articles published in conferences and journals (Many of these are published in major conferences outside Europe). I can filter out the most relevant.

Moreover, I believe the major reference is still represented by CORDIS, which means the relevance of the project is recognized by the authority represented by the European Commission which is funding the releted activities.

One of the two developed tools is also distributed within sourceforge Multicube explorer. If you believe this link is more relevant than the one actually on the proposed article (MULTICUBE explorer), I can update it with your suggestion.

Please, let me know if you believe these references are enough and your suggestions about how to organize them.

I really thank you for your time. --Marianig (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Schwa GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, kudos on a great article. You might want to consider taking it to WP:FAC. It is a very thorough article. Note the WP:LEAD will need to be consolidated into four paragraphs for FAC if you are interested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I am definitely considering taking it to FA, but that's something I've never done before so I'll have to read over the requirements first. I also have ordered a couple off-line sources from the library that I want to (potentially) incorporate first.

In the mean time, any suggestions you have to improve the article (even small ones) are certainly welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see, I added a few minor things. Remove anything that you don't think should really be there. I look forward to seeing this at WP:FAC. FAC always encourages a visit to WP:PR first. If you are unsure of how this will fare at FAC, you might want to go through a WP:PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Callard, Madden & Associates

I have nominated Callard, Madden & Associates, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callard, Madden & Associates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Thaddeus, as a matter of interest, did you consult the original when you changed the punctuation here? [11] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course (although common sense would also say there is no comma there in the original). Personally, I think the guideline is unnecessary, but if we are going to have it we should at least follow it in our explanation of how to use it! Here's the full quote:

“ Alternative system. According to what is sometimes called the British style (set forth in The Oxford Guide to Style [the successor to Hart’s Rules; see bibliog. 1.1]), a style also followed in other English-speaking countries, only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system, which requires extreme authorial precision and occasional decisions by the editor or typesetter, works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.) ” — Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, 6.10

Okay, thank you. The reason I asked was to see whether the wording we have in that section is sufficiently clear so that people realize they do need to check. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ContentCreationBOT

Hi there. I'm really sorry to bother you, as I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you had any updates concerning Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT. The BRFA has been open since September, and the bot has been in trial for seventeen days. Are you planning on running this bot soon, or are there still problems affecting it? Best. — The Earwig @ 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You offered to help me some time ago. Please help me now.

Hi,

I am working on a revision of the Ivar Kreuger article on my talk page because I wanted to get your (and Kraxler's, who also helped a lot) opinion before editing the actual article.

Yesterday somebody deleted all my work. (Fortunately I was able to revert this.) Do others have the right to edit MY talk page? What would be the point if this is so?

I am very discouraged as it is and wish I had never touched the subject but since I am stubborn and said I will do it I am trying my best to edit a difficult subject matter. (Even Kreuger's financial advisers and accountants did not see the whole picture and Ivar said that he did not know how much money he had.)

Sorry to bother you. Would you please reply on my talk page? Thank you.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In see you deleted the page on the General Purpose Interface (GPI) used in video

Since the GPI is a real standard used in broadcast video, and I needed to learn about it last week, and did, I thought it would be suitable to create a page describing it. I see you deleted the old page on this topic. I don't know what was on it, but it might be easier for me than starting from scratch since your complaint seems to have been that it was too technical.

At the very least, it should say something roughly like: The general purpose interface (GPI) system is a scheme for sending data between components of a video handling system. It is typically used for broadcast (i.e. professional) video equipment and is based on encoding contact closure information in the vertical blanking portion of a video signal. --Nexus501 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying soon - I have been mostly inactive for some time & am just now getting caught up again. The deleted version consists of a one sentence definition and nothing else. If you still what me to restore it, let me know and I will be happy to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I can start from scratch when I get re-invigorated. Cheers. Nexus501 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You offered me help some time ago and I really need it now

Hi,

I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mark#Stability_of_the_German_mark and tried to follow the instructions at editing help on how to embed an external link.

I tried three times and every time I get the message "Server not found". I have no idea of what I am doing wrong and would truly appreciate your help.

The external link is: http://www.planet-wissen.de/politik_geschichte/wirtschaft_und_finanzen/geschichte_der_d-mark/index.jsp

Thanks in advance.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the problem myself. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC may delete web pages

Hello and thanks for all the citation help. WebCiteBOT may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archiving_old_BBC_News_articles. Quick summary: many Wikipedia articles link to BBC web pages which may be shortly be deleted. (I realise there's a similar notice on User talk:WebCiteBOT but I don't know how often it reads that.) Certes (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Webcitebot?

Why isn't it running? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

God Wears My Underwear

You deleted this page without cause. The movie has been shown in film festivals in America and Europe, is present in IMDB, has had reviews in several national publications and is currently in distribution through Gigaplex. See http://www.GodWearsMyUnderwear.com/press for details One of the actors is Masi Oka, star of NBC's HEROES.

It takes years for an indie film to build a presence - your untimely deletion of this film means we can't add the very references you want.

Mccainre (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news! The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, which means that it can be undeleted at any time no questions asked. (This was explained right on the same sentence that told you I deleted it.) As such, I have restored it. However, Anyone can nominate the article for more permanent deletion at anytime. The best way to prevent that from happening is to add some reliable source references.

P.S. You might want to be nicer the next time you need something. You'll find it is a much more effective way to get what you want, in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You - I've lived with this thing so long I get a bit emotional about it. I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I didn't know the page had been proposed for deletion until too late. When I went to do the updates, I was a bit freaked out... Mccainre (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

article adoption

Thank you so much for helping with this. I'm happy to hand it off to you and answer any questions you may have. Drs. Foster & Smith educational articles are regularly cited in pet species profiles etc on Wiki; let me know if you need any info to finish the article.

Best,

Brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFSBrent (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ContentCreationBOT - please advise

It appears that your archiving strategy means that you weren't notified by the bot: your attentions are requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT. Josh Parris 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been expired. Please see the request page for details. Josh Parris 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Priority : Archiving of BBC News articles

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I hope to have WebCiteBOT back up and running by the end of this weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your visit

Hello Thaddeus, thank you for visiting my user talk page. I am not sure what you did, but it is totally irrelevant to me. I guess it was the right thing to do. Thank you anyway. I visited your User page, and I noticed that under “Things I might be able to help you with... One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is its collaborative nature. Each editor is free to work on what they are best at/like the most, and leave the tsks they don't like to someone else”, there might be a spelling mistake. Since you are in the typo team, I thought I should bring this to your attention. I am not looking for typos anywhere; I myself make tons of them, not to mention the hundreds of spelling and grammar mistakes that I make. Spanish is my language, and I think in Spanish, and have a mental processor that translates simultaneously, but sometimes it malfunctions. Hope this helps. Maybe some time we can talk religion. I am an ordained minister of the gospel and used to be a fundamentalist Christian, and after I read “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman, I became an agnostic. I am still very interested in know who Jesus was, if he really existed. I have not studied Christian apologetics, especially on historical evidence; I have not found much historical evidence about Jesus. Nevertheless, I do believe that if Jesus really existed, He is the Messiah, and by that I mean the Anointed One. You probably saw that I edit a lot about Colombian Presidents, but my real interest in life is theology. Best regards, --Grancafé ^*parley 22:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for all your good work. Maybe one day I will ask for your help. Best, --Grancafé ^*parley 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thaddeus, I pray and hope you are doing well. I am wondering if you ever saw my message? I do understand that you have been away on leave of absence and coming back soon. I am looking forward to your response. Thanks. Take care, Grancafé ^*parley 12:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Thaddeus, thank you very much for your ample and comprehensive response. Very kind and most enlightening. Certainly I would very much look forward to having further conversations and discussions on the matters of Theology and religion. I am sending you an email, as I would rather have a more private forum of engagement. I am very pleased that you finally responded and I am very excited to know that you are knowledgeable and passionate about this subject matters. Please look for my email within the hour. Yours most truly, Grancafé ^*parley 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/MULTICUBE

Hello,

Please, I updated the Multicube page and I did not received any further suggestion or comment. Your previous comment was that the page was completely lacking of third party sourcing. I added some. Moreover, I referenced some publications (i.e, [1--6]), which speaks about the methodology developed in the MULTICUBE project and which directly refers to the project. Many of these references are published from IEEE, the most important association for the electronics and informatics research communities which grant the quality and relevance of the activities.

Among others I listed also a publication on one of the most relevant journals of the field:

• [5] Gianluca Palermo, Cristina Silvano and Vittorio Zaccaria. "ReSPIR: A Response Surface-based Pareto Iterative Refinement for Application-Specific Design Space Exploration " In IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems. Volume 28 Issue 12, December 2009 pp. 1816-1829

ReSPIR reference

ReSPIR pdf document

The reference to the project is within the text of the document... In the case you do not have access to the pdf, I can verify if I have the right for providing you a copy. Other referred publications are also on important conferences of our field.

There is also the reference to CORDIS which is the prove that European commission is funding the MULTICUBE project within the FP7 framework. Thus, also EU recognize the relevance of the activities...

In the wikipedia page: FP7, there are a list of other projects as MULTICUBE (e.g, Insemtives) from which I tried to take inspiration for shaping the article. I guess MULTICUBE is well suited for wikipedia publication as well as the others well written articles concerning FP7 projects.

Please, provide me with a feedback.

Thanks, Marianig (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Drs. Foster and Smith Questions

Yes, it is correct that the show was discontinued after the first two seasons aired. As for the name changes... when referring to the company it is Drs. Foster and Smith. When referring to the corporation it is Foster & Smith, Inc. The difference in the ampersand is simply what the company/corporation names are. You can use Foster & Smith, Inc., Drs. Foster and Smith, Foster and Smith all interchangably, but if there is a Drs. it should be Drs. and not Doctors to follow the actual company name.DFSClaire (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot II

Hi there Thaddeus. Hope all is well with you. I started running SDPatrolBot II (talk · contribs) my self a little bit, and experienced a few errors which I wasn't getting before. I'm pretty sure I've now managed to weed these out, so if you're still willing to run it, I'll send the up-to-date version to you. Don't worry about getting back to me quickly if you're busy :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am starting to get back into Wikipedia "full time" now, so if you want to send me an updated version of the bot, I'll be happy to try and run it again. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You have email! - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And again :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Incubator

No thanks neccessary - just didn't want to see these potential articles disappear. Dan arndt (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the process is once I've referenced an article I change the status to eval and let someon else move it back to the Wiki mainspace? Dan arndt (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:WebCiteBOT

Seriously, what's up with User:WebCiteBOT? It says it's active, yet doesn't seem to have run since November. This is a key task - if you can't run it, can you try and hand it over to someone else? Rd232 ^talk 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably caused by this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that down-for-maintenance issue must be recent; I've used webcitation.org plenty of times since November, I'm pretty sure in the least week or two. Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, I understand that someone's priorities on Wikipedia can change. You get burnt out on something and stop devoting attention to it. Given that, I was wondering if you had any desire to support WebCiteBOT any more? It hasn't ran since November and you have repeatedly said on the bot's talk page that you hope to have it running soon, but it hasn't ran since late November. If you no longer want to support the bot, would you be willing to hand it off to someone who does? If so, I will raise the proposition at WP:BOTREQ and hope we have other takers as I feel strongly that this bot can do a lot of good for the project. Thanks.—NMajdan•talk 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate your concern. Fortunately, I am finally getting back into Wikipedia after 3-4 months of being pretty inactive. I should have WebCiteBOT back up by the end of the coming weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thaddeus, do you have an update on the bot?—NMajdan•talk 02:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to make a couple changes to the code due to recent changes in the MediaWiki software. I'm optimistic that will happen tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there an update?—NMajdan•talk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thaddeus, sorry to ask again, but is there an update on the bot? Should we go back to WP:BOTREQ and request another WebCitation bot? Would you be willing to help the new bot creator if one does volunteer?—NMajdan•talk 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Drs. Foster & Smith

Hello! Your submission of Drs. Foster & Smith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token b4d8bae61012eff842068cecffd7f7fa

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

DYK for Drs. Foster & Smith

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drs. Foster & Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Transwikibot

Yep. Fritzpoll has left permanently for certain reasons and sadly will not be returning. If you like Thaddeus I can email him and ask him to give you the bot script to continue to download the lists from the others wikis. So far he has done Faroes and Albania and they look good.. Sometime we also want to programme a bot to create batches of articles... Are you still interested? I don't want this project to have been another dud and die out. Yes it is relianlt on a loose group of individuals often working independently but it would be nice to work towards a coordinated way of transferring articles together. Hope you are well. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your response is overwhelming me!... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time for any of my bot projects recently. Maybe this coming week, I'll have some time... Failing that, I have a lot of free time coming up in about a month. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brad Stevens

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brad Stevens, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW update?

Hi, would it be possible to update WP:JCW ? There are a few suggestions and issues on WT:JCW. IMO, the most critical improvement would be the verification of whether or not the target is an article about a journal, as I suspect this would result in many more high profile journals ending up on the missing list. I'd be happy to give you a hand with the coding if that is of any use. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am finally back on Wikipedia "full time" now after a 4+ month absence. I'll try to update the code, by week next, but if not I will at least run it to get an updated list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to be annoying but... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Any update? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, it's been 10 months since it last run. A new report without any code updates to the code would still be immensely usefull. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll get it done this weekend, 100% for sure. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I started the download/uncompress/run program cycle this afternoon. If it goes at the same speed as previous runs, new data should be on wiki on Tuesday. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Party time! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for United States v. Ballin

On 9 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Ballin, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Australopithecus sediba

On 9 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Australopithecus sediba, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

Thank you for taking on the review, ThaddeusB! I have followed your advice and made trims to the article. I have given some replies to your initial review on the GAN page. If you have any additional issues with the article, or feel I have not made sufficient progress on your present concerns, please advise there. Thanks again! G.W. (Talk) 02:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, your talk page is huge. You might consider archiving it! G.W. (Talk) 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I haven't archived in several months, so its about time that I do so. :) Also, I replied on the GAN page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! G.W. (Talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Finished a brief description of Leontius and his contribution. G.W. (Talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at the review page. G.W. (Talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

message in que

Message for you at User talk:ThaddeusB-public. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

65.24.130.43 and WikiStatsBOT

Looks like you should fix the log in module of your bot. vvv^t 09:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take care of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

About this edit:

On Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI, you objected to the material, arguing it was recentist. Yet now you deleted the references from 2005 about a legal statement by the U.S. government which is of lasting importance today (as well as the CBS article about the current debate, which is much more thorough on the legal background than the Times article which you left as only reference. I think Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is of relevance here.

Also, I assume that you know that Dawkins is not a police officer and therefore is not "starting to arrest" Benedict, but that he and others are mounting a legal campaign which could - theoretically - result in an arrest in September, and even then of course not literally by Dawkins, Hitchens etc. themselves. I am trying hard not to assume bad faith, but it is difficult not to see this as an attempt to summarize the issue in a distorted way to ridicule Dawkins and downplay the significance of the underlying legal question.

I agree that issues like this need to be weighed carefully (and I hope we can find a good compromise even with some editors who apparently let their faith and their emotions overcome their sense for Wikipedia principles). But it is just not appropriate to dismiss material that has been covered by numerous reliable sources out of hand as "irrelevant" and of undue weight.

(I started to write this before you commented on the article talk page, will reply there later, too.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I objected to the weight be given to the whole matter and pointed out that it only looks important b/c it is recent. The 2005 legal request is unrelated to the story and, as such, is an unnecessary aside. Let's try to keep the discussion about the incident to one paragraph.

Also, please note that the "started to arrest" was simply a typo, which I fixed a minute later to read "started a campaign to arrest". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the minute was seven minutes long, which happened to be the time span during which I saw your edit and started to write the above comment. But thanks for the correction.

You cannot dismiss something as recentist and at the same time ignore evidence that the same question has been discussed since at five years ago as "unnecessary aside" because it is not about the current news story. POINT came to mind because the only reference you left standing in the article was the one to which your objections seemed to apply the most.

I am a bit puzzled that you appear to be referring to me as "less experienced" editor in [this request to keep the edits by me and others "under control" (I have been active on the English and German Wikipedia since 2003).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything. The legal status of the pope has little or no baring on what he wrote it 1985, nor does it have any real bearing on proposed "arrest" as I'm sure you agree that is pure hyperbole at this time.

The less experienced comment was not directed at you, but rather the other 4-5 people who've left comments (on both sides) in the last 24 hours. Also, it was directed at keeping the debate, not the article, under control. I'm sure you'll agree the debate is getting pretty emotional and unproductive.

Let's try to keep the personal accusations out of this, and instead stick to discussing the correct wording on the talk page. I have just set up a new subsection for that purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Thai political protests

On 11 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Thai political protests, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Nice job! Looks like you're becoming an ITN regular! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess you could say I'm hooked. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You won't get many complaints- there's a dearth of regulars and a dearth of admins at ITN/C and since I seem to be the offical postman, you don't even need to worry about anything but the blurb! Out of interest, have you read WP:ITN/A? I wrote it a few days ago and I'm looking for feedback from those with less experience of updating the template (kind of ironic since, as a non-admin, I have none) so any comments would be appreciated. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't previously read WP:ITN/A, but I did a couple days ago when you sent this notice. I did find it helpful and as near as I can tell, it covers everything it needs to. My only suggestion for improvement would be that the language is a little informal at times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Greetings, I just wanted to drop you a warning about violation of WP:3RR. If you persist in making changes, you will be blocked. Also, due our policies concerning WP:BLP, if an edit is controversial as you seem to acknowledge, then the proper version to maintain should be the one without the controversial edit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look at the situation. I was attempting to mediate between two other editors who were actually edit warning, as such I restored the original version (once) and added a NPOV dispute tag (once). I hardly think that qualifies as edit warring. As it so happens, I was not even a fan of the version I restored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case then my apologies. I just saw an ongoing edit war and you appeared to be invovled... I was trying to warn all parties that the war needs to stop and that the version that should be preserved would be the less inflamatory one as it deals with a BLP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just glad you and NW stepped in to end the war (at least for now). Incidentally, I agree the Dawkins line is irrelevant to the article and said as much on the talk page. Originally it was 2 entire paragraphs on the subject - I cut it to the one sentence as a compromise... I didn't feel comfortable removing it since like 4 people on the talk page wanted it & only myself & Jenn (who is obviously non-neutral) were opposed. Granted all these people except for one are clearly inexperienced, but I didn't want to make it look like I was "imposing my will." Thankfully, that is no longer an issue you, myself, and NW all in agreement that the statement doesn't belong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While I would agree that Jeanne might not be neutral on the subject, so far I haven't seen her take an unreasonable stance (Although I've only witnessed two discussions on the page---the one concerning this fringe position and another related to a noted vatican journalist that the guy who wanted the fringe position wants to remove.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva

Hi ThaddeusB.

I respect that you provide your time to wikipedia monitoring - but the fact of the matter regarding your reverting my changes to this page (regarding the bombing) is that all media opposing Abhisit's government has been censured (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869273.htm)

The red shirt protesters are constantly the victims of government slur campaigns.

My interest in this is the freedom of speech and true information - I am a Thai national who has immigrated abroad due to being disgusted at the state of affairs within Thailand.

My brother is currently protesting with 'red shirts' and was in the vicinity of the bombing and watched his comrades/friends die as a result of the military bombing - where is the justice for them?

110.174.10.22 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Its quite a logical jump from "censored media" to "ordered attacks for which there is no direct evidence". And in any case, Thai media being censored doesn't mean international media will also be censored. What you really want to post is your opinion (point of view) about what happened, not fact.

I understand your motivations and sympathize, however Wikipedia has strict policies against this sort of thing, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. Accusations like the one you inserted absolutely must be cited to a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot simply take your word for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: 2010 eastern Indian nor'wester

On 14 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 eastern Indian nor'wester, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - People have been adding the above system to the NIO cyclone season and off course it doesn't belong there. I bring it too your attention as you may be able to use some of the bits people have been adding to help you in improving the article on the system.Jason Rees (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look at the provided sources and see if there is anything to add. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Industrial music good article review

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know, if you don't hear anything from the original submitter of this article, that I'm willing to try to work on the changes you listed to get it to GA status. Drop me a line if that's okay with you. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly anyone is allow to both improve the article and participate in the GA review. The nominator has no special claim on the article... Just be prepared for more suggestions once the first round are cleared up - my initial review was far from exhaustive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I made some improvements to the article. I'm not sure about the lead though. It seems like it does a decent sweep of the content, rather than having original content that isn't repeated later. Let me know what you think of the changes. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some more work on the page to address your most recent set of issues, and a few other editors made minor changes as well in the last couple weeks. I believe we should be ready to move on to the next step. Let me know what you think! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't noticed... I was watching only the GA page. I probably won't have a chance tonight, but I'll post a full review shortly now that the "big" problems are out of the way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Why did you remove my submission and send me the source to your discussion please. It was relevant and should be included, as in the UK it's receiving high-profile media coverage (which you may not notice in Ohio). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stueydessler (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I assure you we have plenty of access to plenty of media coverage even here in Ohio. Now, to answer your question see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI where the issue has been discussed extensively. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian storm

Oh ! thanks for correcting me. have a nice day! God bless :) Jpuligan_12 (talk) 2010 - 04 - 17 19:29 (UTC).

ITN: Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot

On 20 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Just letting you know I've sent you an email - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: 2010 Thai political protests

On 23 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Thai political protests, which you substantially updated and recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: April 2010 Baghdad bombings

-- tariqabjotu 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot II update

More mail :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2010 April 30

Where do we draw the line? Does every movie release get its own entry in the Current events page? Will we mention it when the DVD comes out? What about the Director's Cut? Why don't we also list the releases of Furry Vengeance and Please Give? Does every foreign film deserve a release mention?Woogee (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not appreciated or helpful. Obviously, it is a judgment call, just like every single other type of story. To say because one highly anticipated (not by me) movie release gets an entry that every other movie will as well is ridiculous. Should we not list a large natural disaster because that would lead to every thunder storm being listed?

The top few (international) movie releases each year are major entertainment news and deserve entries. To say otherwise, is to say this area is simply never worthy of inclusion, which is not supported by any current rule/guideline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked on the Current Events Talk page. Was there an entry on the day Avatar came out? To be honest, I don't know the answer to that. But you're starting a bad precedent, because now we'll have every Bollywood film listed there on the grounds that we're being prejudiced. To be honest, I am looking forward to seeing NOES, but I don't think it belongs here, it's just too dangerous. Woogee (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Avatar either, but there certainly should have been. I don't see how providing readers with more news (that may or may not interest them, just like all news) is a "bad precedent", but I certainly don't mind a discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can just see the next Tamil film release showing up on Current Events and an edit war starting over whether it "deserves" to be there. Then the next French film, then the next Greek one... ad infinitum. Woogee (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very seriously that anyone will care enough to edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of a movie, but I guess you never know. That said, you still are making the same argument of exclusion of all b/c of the theoretical problem w/some. This is an invalid argument. Do we exclude all elections b/c of the possibility of someone edit warring over the inclusion of their local city council elections? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Kentucky Derby

--Finally, i get to template someone for something I posted! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like your input....

Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/The GNG and notability for actors and share your thoughts. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN: Floyd Mayweather vs. Shane Mosley

-- tariqabjotu 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Johnson & Johnson children's product recall

- Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Need you to take a look at this

Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. [12]

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the Nefer Tweety account to back Arab Cowboy on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tik Tok

Please inform me if im wrong, you just protected the song as i requested, but why is there no little logo saying its protected? ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The icon is independent of the protection due to software limitations, so it has to be added/removed manually. I forgot to do it, but will do so now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Thank You =) ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to reconsider this protection. Unsourced edits are not a vandalism issue, and what this user considers vandalism isn't actually vandalism. We don't page protect because IPs are making good faith edits that aren't quite right. For example what he's claimed as vandalism here [13], isn't remotely vandalism. It is a content dispute. The last act of genuine vandalism I can find was April 30th, 4 days ago, and 4 days before that on April 26 there were a couple. This is not a high rate of vandalism and doesn't remotely warrant a month long protection. 3 incidents of vandalism in 8 days isn't even worth consideration.--Crossmr (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected because of the large number of edits that needed reversion recently. You are correct, though, that they weren't vandalism. Protection is primarily, but not exclusively, to stop vandalism. In this case, I felt that protection would do more good than harm, but it is certainly possible I erred. As to the length of protection, it was based solely on the article's history of granted protection requests. Please feel free to remove the protection or reduce to a length that you feel is more appropriate. I will defer to your judgement since you have more experience in this area than I do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the ones that needed reversion were stylistic choices. Several times IPs were reverted for the same thing because they didn't provide a source, but if the editor had bothered to google it he would have found sources rather than continually reverting the IPs. I would change it but I'm not an admin ;) That's why I've asked you to change it. In the last two weeks it seems like the total reversions on the page is only averaging about one a day which isn't excessive.--Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Got ya. Protection removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lee Jun Ki

Please look into this Thaddeus. You seem to be understanding. Here 212.100.250.207 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thank you. There won't be anymore edit warring and just as a side note the user Ophois was the editor starting the reverts in the first place. Thanks for looking into this matter and doing such a thorough job. Oh and thanks to the other IP editor who pushed this matter.99.243.113.181 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, as I explained in my initial reporting, both anons are InkHeart, who has a way to switch IP's to avoid blocks. She was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and has come back numerous times using anons that have subsequently been blocked. Her MO is to appear as an innocent anon to try to gain sympathy of admins unfamiliar with her previous abuse, even though a glance at the edit history will show it is her. She only convinced you to unprotect the page because she is concerned that her future anons won't be able to continue the abuse. Ωphois 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have jumped to a conclusion not backed by evidence (unless I missed something). Just b/c a user abused the article in the past doesn't mean every anon that shows up is that user. I will, however, keep an eye on the article for future problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not just that article, it is many articles. However, most of the ones that she goes for have been semi-protected against her. She is easily identified for adding improperly cited episode ratings and vindictive editing, which looking at the edit histories of these two anons show. I would suggest you take a look at the edit histories of Style (TV series) and Princess Hours to see her work. Ωphois 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Removing unsourced edits by a banner user is not edit warring, and I was specifically given rollback rights to deal with this user. I tried to fix the situation the official way by getting admins involved, but you undid another admin's actions and are continuing to allow InkHeart to edit. Ωphois 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reverting over and over again over "bad content" is edit warring and is not a solution to the problem. What you needed to do is report the user, not the page. Page protection is normally for vandalism by multiple users, not one. The "final warning" I gave seems to have worked for now, but just drop me a note if the edits resume and I will block. In the mean time, I am checking on the nature of IPs to see if I can block as open proxies.... give me a few minutes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally that would work, but I have been dealing with InkHeart since last fall. She has a way to avoid blocks by switching IP addresses, and there have been days where she would keep coming back even if three or four IP's had been blocked. Semi-protecting pages is the only way to deal with her. Anyways, thanks for your assistance. Ωphois 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, I haven't explained myself well. The user can switch their IP by using proxy servers, primarily open proxies. These open proxies represent a threat to Wikipedia, so in a way the user is helping us out by finding these and alerting us that they need blocked. The problem with semi-protection is that it just encourages the user to find a new target, perhaps one that is poorly monitored. And, of course, it also shuts out some legitimate editors.

I much rather shut down their proxies one by one than encourage them to find holes to exploit. Yes that means, we'll have to deal with useless ratings and what not for brief periods of time, but it is the best of the various alternatives available. Eventually, they will get bored and give up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 World Snooker Championship

--Thanks for taking the time to sort it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

I just would like to acknowledge for noticing that KnowIG is making unecessary edits which rubs people the wrong way and edits that were done by more experienced editors. My Thanks and Gratitude Dencod16.

Dencod is bullying KnowIG 08:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

Thread at VPM about Webcitation.org bot, and about Wikimedia creating its own archive service

Hi there,

I'm reaching out to people who I see have been active in Webcitation.org threads in the past.

I started the above-mentioned thread at VPM, which

1) asks how things are going with the webcitation.org bot (because i think it's SUCH A COOL idea), and

2) inquires whether WikiMedia should create its own archiving service, to avoid the risks of relying on another organization's services (e.g., the downtimes experienced now).

I hope you'll take a look. user:Agradman editing as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost?

Hi there. What's going on? I according to wikipedia rules as long as you add references and sources things should be fine why did you remove the post in the Personal Preference page? 189.90.240.21 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know very well that you are edit warring using proxies. I won't tolerate this behavior... I suggest you stop wasting your time, as similar edits by new IPs will be blocked on sight. However, thanks for helping me find proxies that need blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: AIV report (since removed) —DoRD (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ec And this just in. —DoRD (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

An IP vandal

Hi there; I do not know if you noticed that an IP whom you have reverted nominated you as a vandal in WP:AIV(!). I have removed the warning and in turn warned him; obviously is for you to decide if you follow it up. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But I see that this message has overlapped with the conversation above. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

you might like to look at user:Yimiju, who may well be associated with one or more of the IPs with which you have recently been involved.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I'm the one that's supposed to make redundant posts. :D —DoRD (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assume good faith on Yimiju for now, but the account obviously bears monitoring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There is now no doubt, looking at the edit histories, that the IP and Yimiju are one and the same. He is on final warning for vandalism; whether blanking messages on his own talk page using an IP can be classed as sockpuppetry is an interesting and unclear question. But using both to attack you is socking beyond argument.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 09:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InkHeart --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

'nother update

Yet more mail ;D - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

ITN for May 2010 Greek protests

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good editing on the Greece protests

Yeah, that about sums it up. Good edits there, I didnt realise that someone had removed that line. How can we protect this article from users who dont have a log in? Or something like that, I dont know it works. Best wishes ValenShephard 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection is what you are talking about. It can be requested at WP:RFPP. However, it is primarily intended to stop vandalism and only used to stop POV edits in extreme cases. As such, it is unlikely to granted at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You've been doing a pretty good job defending the article from biased edits yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. With ref to May 2010 Greek protests article, pls dont blind revert. The phrase "protesters blamed police for starting the cycle of violence, police brutality for the escalation of conflict" does not stand. Which protesters are those??? The other phrase about the bank management's prohibiting participation to the strike does not stand because participation to any strike is constitutional right.--Vanakaris (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't blind revert, or revert at all for that matter - I selectively restored valid information that had been removed. The phrase stand just fine, as the information/accusations has been reported in reliable sources, which is the standard for inclusion. Yes, I know the line doesn't have a [1] ref directly on it, but that is a result of various people messing up the refs at different points, not b/c it is unsupportable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

After more careful review, I remove the one small part of the phrase that appeared to be based on blog reports, not actually reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Election

Hey, could you keep an eye on United Kingdom general election, 2010 please- I need to turn in, but I've been trying to avoid semi-protection. Hopefully things will have calmed down by now, but I'd appreciate another admin keeping an eye on it with a view to blocking any vandals until after all the results are in. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't be up that much longer myself, but I'll keep an eye on it for now. I've made requests to monitor high-profile article on WP:AN before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot II

You're currently running an older version of it. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When you do switch over, could you revert the most recent edit to User:SDPatrolBot_II/Warning and User:SDPatrolBot_II/run. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I stopped the bot and will restart shortly. I think I accidentally restarted the wrong version after it crashed this morning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oh Eun-Sun

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK

I approved your Provenge hook. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You weren't the only one who found it interesting: it narrow missed being featured on WP:ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

InkHeart question

Hey, EunSoo has been adding unsourced info to Princess Hours‎, and has been reverting it back. I know that it is InkHeart, and I saw on her userpage that you, too, believe it to be her. She posted on my talk page as EunSoo, and I've dealt with her so much that I know there is no point in trying to reason with her, so I was hoping you could help. Thanks. Ωphois 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to reference it (like I just did) than argue about it? Most the rest of that section is unreferenced as well, so reverting an unsourced addition to it is a little silly when the addition is obviously factually accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You blocked only one of his proxies

You blocked the IP address 118.122.88.5[14]. Another IP address even states its the same guy as the one you just blocked.

At [15] he says

proxy, I'm same as 118.122.88.5 by the way, hoping these I found in a :blackhat SEO pool that haven't been caught by your net will be block...')

You might want to also look at [16]. All of these have been posting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CarsDirect and they and perhaps other IPs keep editing those articles affected in that mass nomination for deletion. Dream Focus 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

hanks for the heads up - I blocked the 208.67 now. There are always new proxies opening up, so its impossible to get them all, but I'll certainly block any I'm made aware of. 24.11 is not a proxy and appears to be unrelated. I'll take a look at the history and so if any other blocks are warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Provenge

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

user Agent4453 and his prolific IP hopping insanity

Bringing this directly to you since you have some background with it. Special:Contributions/207.69.139.145 should tell you all you need to know. The weird thing is that some of this character's edits actually appear to be constructive, but there so much fabrication that I tend to roll 'em all back. In any event, this is obvious socking to somebody with a bit of background (read: you), so do what you think is best. Majorclanger (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is he is on EarthLink, which uses dynamic ip allocation. Thus, the contributions for any given IP will be from many different people over time. I left his current IP a stern warning, and will give the main account one as well. I will block any additional disruption that is clearly the same guy on sight. If he remains persistent, I can semi-protect the affected articles, but since that will affect many people it is best to try and discourage him away through blocks first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you have a chance, run through the main account's contributions to see if this are legit or not. Some are clearly harmless, but others need knowledge of the subject to tell, of which I have none. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that (the dynamic IP). The more I look at it, the weirder it becomes. The named account is on right now, and the edits seem to be legit - he's changed some dates back to what they were early in the life of the articles (a common gimmick for these kids' TV vandals is to mess with the dates to the point where it's not at all clear what's accurate, and next to none of 'em have citations). Most of the misinformation seems to be coming from the anon socks. Maybe a case of good cop, bad cop, where he vandalizes anonymously and cleans it up later with the named account.

Honestly, I don't have much knowledge about this stuff, apart from a small handful of series, none of which this guy has touched. I ended up with a lot of these pages on my watchlist by following vandals around. Many of these cartoon articles are so full of cruft and subtle misinformation that they're practically useless. The "episode guide" ones are a bit cleaner, as there are decent sources around for air dates, at least.

Regarding semi-protection, I'd recommend considering it if this goes on much longer, at least on pages that should have relatively static content - episode lists and ended series. Almost all of the action on such articles is vandalism reversion, with next to nothing useful coming from anons.

Anyway, thanks for your attention to this. I'll bring any near-future action here. Majorclanger (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Hello mate. Just to make you aware, I use an ISP that assigns a different IP address to users each time they connect. Therefore, I got this as a message from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.143.196.68&redirect=no despite the fact I haven't touched that page.

Just wanted to make you aware, because it's very unlikely the same person will connect twice on the same IP address, so these kinds of messages are a waste of your time if not directed towards a specific user ID. Thanks. (78.143.196.68 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

3O

My bad..., sorry about that. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of article protection

The article Nuclear program of Iran is protect for editing due to disruptive editing caused by you, please don't violate that protection as you continue to edit that problematic text.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it was YOUR disruption that locked the article. Your continued refusal to accept any responsibility for your actions is very troubling.

Now, in response to your accusation... If you are going to accuse me of something, you should at least READ the policy first. Are you seriously suggesting that removing a duplicate sentence (that you yourself complained about) is anything but a completely non-controversial edit? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)