User talk:R'n'B

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page .
• If you are expressing a concern about edits made by RussBot, it is extremely helpful if you include a link to a specific page or, even better, a link to a diff showing the actual edit that the bot made. This makes it much easier to diagnose and correct problems.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Requesting your input, assistance in moving draft (if deemed an improvement)

Hello R'n'B,

After noticing that you are active in topics related to the state of Virginia, I thought I'd ask you for some guidance--

The New Media Strategies article has several citation issues, is significantly out of date, and does not sufficiently describe what reliable sources have said about the subject. I am familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as the subject of this article is my present employer. Looking to bring the article in line with Wikipedia's content standards, I have written a draft here containing a more sufficiently sourced, neutral and verifiable version. I've paid special attention to WP:NPOV, and have made an effort to be especially objective in writing this draft. I've even removed the "Recognition" section in the draft and worked that content into the body in chronological order, as I feel that this article should do a better job of giving an accurate, historical description, while placing less emphasis on material such as recognition/awards won.

In order to respect WP:COI, I don't intent to edit this article myself. Instead, would you be willing review my draft at User:Jeff_Bedford/Sandbox7 and move it to mainspace if you feel that it is ready to replace the existing version?

Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

'Afternoon, R'n'B, I meant to mention that by all means if you are not interested in this subject, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to inquire elsewhere. What do you think -- is this something you'd be willing to take a look at? Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, I do think this version is an improvement, so I've updated the article with the new text (with a little minor copyediting of my own). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do so, and I appreciate the copy-edits you made as well. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hello there R'n'B - wondering if you would be able to take a look at this edit request I made: Talk:Pete_Snyder#Revision_for_community_consideration.3F? It pertains to the article about the former CEO of my employer--he stepped down from that position, and the article about him is now outdated, so I've proposed an adjustment to bring in up to date. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Review request for Pragmatic works

Thanks for reviewing the article. The product details have been re-written to make sure it aligns with Wikipedia rules and regulations. Also, irrelevant external links have been removed as well. Would you mind revisiting the article and reviewing the "This section may be written like an advertisement" banner over there. Appreciate your time. Thanks. GeekyPuppy (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind spending sometime reviewing the above changes? Appreciate your time. GeekyPuppy (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the changes, and although the article is now a bit cleaner, the section still appears to me to resemble an advertisement. All it contains is a list of the features of this company's product, mostly unreferenced. The two items that do have citations refer to (1) a blog by a company employee, which obviously is not an independent source; and (2) a very brief snippet on a magazine's website which, as far as I can tell, is largely repeating what the company itself probably said in its press release. The only function I can discern in this section is to promote the availability of the features. Just my opinion, though. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Yes, there are not much external references about the products. Do you think, adding external references will help fix the issue and will make it look less like an advertisement? Also, let us know how/what else can help us improve the page so as to comply with wiki rules and regulations. Appreciate your time. Thanks. GeekyPuppy (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The page has been updated adding external 3rd party references for each of the product. Please have a look and reconsider casting your vote for "This section appears to be written like an advertisement" banner. Let us know what else needs to be added to help make the article better wiki compliant. Many thanks. GeekyPuppy (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The wiki page has been updated and the product details have been removed and only the product names have been kept. Can you please review and help removing the "This section appears to be written like an advertisement" banner. Appreciate your time. Many thanks. GeekyPuppy (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Could you watchlist Oasis and take a look? We have a user (Tgrebinski), who keeps moving it to Oasis (Geography) and then making Oasis a disam page when Oasis is clearly the primary topic. Asking you to get involved because I've already reverted him twice. He redirected his talk page to a different page so I can't contact him that way. I'll add something to the Oasis talk page in the meantime. Hopefully he won't revert me again. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I even pulled rank, which I rarely do. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, will watch. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Now he made a mistake in moving a page, so he actually requested speedy deletion on Oasis. I'm going to circumvent the redirect on his talk page and talk to him. This is ridiculous, honestly. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about this. I've now re-added the hatnote that points to Oasis (band) and Oasis (disambiguation) twice. The edit summary that has been removing it says 'promotional'. The inbound link numbers suggest that the hatnote is correct (Oasis (band) has 3k inbound links - roughly half from the mainspace (I didn't count exactly), and Oasis has 750 inbound links, while the rest of the links on the disambiguation page have <75). Note that I am in no way saying that the band is the primary topic - I think the articles are correct as they now stand, I'm only bringing this up for informational purposes. :) -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So. Dumb question. :) I should know this but I don't. How do you find inbound link numbers? Which tool is it? I've been wanting to know that for awhile but I keep forgetting to ask. I'm sure it's right in front of my face and I just haven't seen it.

Thanks for protecting the page, R'n'B. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(Answering here as well as my page) Actually, I just went to 'What links here' and set the page view to 500. It's possible that the 750 to Oasis is anywhere from 650-900, but it just looked about half the size of the first page of 500. If there's a tool that give the full stats on a page about inbound links (with details on which space they come from), I don't know about it, but I'd love to see it. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. :) Yeah it'd be very useful. The 2 I've often wondered about are country and dance. I realize that they should probably be at those spots but quite a few must point to them when people want country music or dance music. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR

It was fair to give me a warning, but saying "I am giving you the benefit of this warning rather than an immediate block" seemed a bit disingenuous. I count 1, 2, 3 reverts. Where did you get the idea that I broke the 3RR rule? StAnselm (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are correct; you made three reverts, but not "more than three" reverts. I miscounted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

R'n'B (russ)

	R'n'B (russ)
	i understand, but im just puttuing what is fair to end this editing thing thats going on. Ric5575 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bolshevist Russia

Hi there, just dropping by to let you know I reverted your redirect of that page (and its' redirect) to the way they were before. Apparently (judging from the talk page) there is no consensus to move the article elsewhere or merge it with the other article. //Halibutt 02:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

creating orphaned dab pages

I hope I'm not asking a dumb question, but I'm actually asking so that I can understand things better. It seems that the RussBot creates a number of orphaned disambiguation pages "page x (disambiguation)" that then redirect to "page x." If "page x (disambiguation)" isn't linked to anywhere, how is this helpful? I noticed this on dragon's teeth. Isn't this a candidate for speedy delete under Template:Db-disambig as "an orphaned dab page and dabs no extant pages"? Engelhardt (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

just to be clear, RussBot didn't create "dragon's teeth (disambiguation)," which was created as the result of a move. But when I went through RussBot's recent contributions to try to understand what it does, it looked like it was, in fact, creating orphan dab pages. Engelhardt (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not creating an "orphaned dab page"; at most, it's an orphaned redirect. But, yes, that is basically what it is doing. WP:INTDABLINK specifically calls for the creation of Page x (disambiguation) as a redirect to Page x to allow editors to distinguish easily between intentional and unintentional (i.e., almost always wrong) links to disambiguation pages. The bot was approved to carry out this task. Bear in mind that redirects are cheap, and our general policy is to allow redirects to remain even if they may appear unnecessary for the time being, as long as they are not harmful.

Also, {{db-disambig}} only applies to a disambiguation page that contains exactly zero (or in some cases one) blue links (links to other existing articles) in its text. Dragon's teeth contains well over 20 such links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, and I appreciate your point that redirects are cheap. But while dragon's teeth has over 20 links, "dragon's teeth (disambiguation)" has only one from a talk page. I guess I was thinking more about, e.g., "The_Last_Patrol_(disambiguation)," which is not linked to by anything and was created by the bot. But as you say, redirects are cheap -- I was just trying learn, so thanks for the response. Engelhardt (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I was talking about the links on Dragon's teeth, I was referring to the links that appear on the page, not the other articles that link to the page. Of course, Dragon's teeth (disambiguation) doesn't have any links on it, since it is a redirect, not a disambiguation page. {{Db-disambig}} is intended for disambiguation pages that do not have any links either to or on them, so it is not applicable to redirects under any circumstances. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Engelhardt (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait -- I'm confused again ;) So the hat note on The Dragon's Tooth should link to Dragon's teeth (disambiguation) and not dragon's teeth? I think I'm originally the one who put that hat note on there, when the actual disambiguation page was on Dragon's teeth (disambiguation), but it was afterwards moved to dragon's teeth. I also went through a number of "dragon's teeth" articles and added dab top notes, and when the dab page moved, I changed those hat notes. (There are three or four novels alone). I thought under the good faith for moving, it was required to change the incoming links, as well. Is that not required in this situation? (I only got involved on this trying to help and add clarity, and now I'm afraid I did neither.) Engelhardt (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you've been to dragon's teeth (fortification), as well. I'm sorry I created work for you. I didn't mean to create a mess ;/ Engelhardt (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the hat note on The Dragon's Tooth should link to Dragon's teeth (disambiguation) and not dragon's teeth. That is what WP:INTDABLINK is all about. Don't worry too much about it, it is an exception to the usual guidelines, so it's easy to get it mixed up (and it's also easy to fix). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kréyol La Lwizyann

I received the changes to the brand new page I created entitled Kréyol La Lwizyann to which I had Louisiana Creole French redirected. Not only was the content of Kréyol La Lwizyann different, and more in depth with different source material and therefore was not a copy-and-paste, but the page holds more academically sourced material, valuable for users of this website.

In the first instance, I did copy-and-paste Louisiana Creole French through the assistance of another user who changed the title with disambiguation. That was difficult because a page already existed at the target title.

I resolved the issue by launching a brand new page all together, Kréyol La Lwizyann, distinct from Kréyol La Lwizyann (Louisiana Creole), which offered an entirely different, and, at least as it pertains to actual language, history and research, more accurate to wikipedia users.

Louisiana Creole (without 'French') is the most desired title for the page on this language, so Kréyol La Lwizyann, title-wise, we can accept to do without.

The information in the present (original) article is largely unsourced, linguistically, and is demographically inaccurate.

Instead of constantly battling reversions to inaccurate material, we resolved by creating a brand new page with more accurate information.

How can we make this work?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criollokid80 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, my concern was with keeping the history intact, not with the content. In principle, if you can improve the content by wholesale rewriting and replacement, that is fine, as long as one can tell from the history what you changed and what you kept. I may have gotten confused because of the several different versions with very similar titles that were floating around after all your edits, and if I restored the wrong one, I'm sorry. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Smithville High School (Texas)

Thanks for doing the correction. I was just trying to take a really poor article and turn it in to a good one. Sometimes the articles are so far gone(not Wikified) that starting over is about the only option. Indyjrg1762 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Imperial China

I had taken a swipe at disambiguating Imperial China, but I couldn't come up with a good strategy. When I saw that you had moved it to the "Done" section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/January 2012 I wanted to see what your strategy had been. Your idea of changing the link to "History of China#Imperial Era" was a good one that I can learn from, but I found an error. In the History of China article the heading is "Imperial era" instead of "Imperial Era" with a small "e". That causes the link to go to the first part of the article instead of the "Imperial era" heading. I thought you'd want to know. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. This award is presented to R'n'B, for successfully fixing 3057 links in the challenge of January, 2012. Rcsprinter (constabulary) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues template usage suggestion

I have started a discussion about making the Multiple issues template the new cleanup template here. Since you have edited this template several times in the past I thought you might have some insight into this idea. --Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RussBot: Huntsman

Please fix your bot, the disambig page for uses of "Huntsman" is Huntsman not Huntsman (disambiguation). Huntsman (disambiguation) redirects to Huntsman. It keeps changing this on the dablink for The Huntsman. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the bot. WP:INTDABLINK is very explicit -- when referring to a disambiguation page, we are supposed to link to the redirect, not directly to the disambig page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Could you please temporarily reduce the protection on Kate Kane to semi-protection, so I may redirect it to Katherine Kane, repairing a double redirect.

• Looks like someone else already took care of this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)