User talk:Addshore

			Email Me!
Homepage	Talk	Contributions	Email Me

Littlenobody orphaned article

The article has (rough count) 22 linked articles in wiki and another 20ish external links, please can you explain why this article has been orphaned or is it an error? If it is an error please can you remove the orphaned status, massive thanks - Kind regards k --92.21.53.225 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The notice at the top of the page before you edited says "If you have a question or comment about the tagging of orphans by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan." An orphan is an article that has few or no links comming INTO the article. Such links for the article we are discussing would be listed here. That shows that the article has no incomming article links. I hope you understand this. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologises - I now understand (I'm a noob to wiki) - How many links into the article would it need not to be orphaned? - thanks again for your help k --Kdelirium (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the current number is 3 but that may change very soon. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice, this never occurred to me before - Littlenobody is now linked to from Thou Shalt Always Kill music track - Contemporary animation studios - Pixellation - Amplifico the band - once all these links have been verified would you be able to remove the orphaned link - I have a lot to learn :) thanks again kind regards k --Kdelirium (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The oprhan tag should be automaticly removed, unfortunatly something is currently wrong with my bot but another bot should not get round to it. If not just remove it yourself :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, my bot just suddenly started working again at some point today, At the next DB scan the bot will untag you page if it has enough links :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Untagged orphans = zero-link only now

I just finished testing it - you will only get zero-link orphans from Unlinked orphans now. And I mean zero-link as in not even a link from a list or chronological article. --JaGa^talk 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Grateful if you would actually look for links before orphaning pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I have had a quick look through your contribs and all of the tags I check were correct and you have reverted wrongly. An Orphan is a page that has little or few (less than 3) incoming links from the article space. Please stop reverting good orphan tags. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

References in disambiguation pages

Hi. I noticed that this bot added a references section to a disambiguation page.[1]

Obviously, since disambiguation pages aren't supposed to contain references, perhaps the bot should look for the {{disambig}} tag and strip references out or put a {{disambig-cleanup}} on the page rather than adding a references section. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure with this case acctually, Should a disambiguation have a references section if it has a reference? It is the only way to get to the reference without going through the code for the page and also without the references section the page will spout an error. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of WP:MOSDP is that there is no basis for having a reference in a disambig page. If there is a reference in a disambig page, it needs cleaning up to remove it. The reference should appear in an article linked from the disambig page, not in the disambig page. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh right, Well thats for cleaning up the article, This explain why it is not taken into account for in the bot :P, As it isn't meant to happen. The bot just goes through a Mediawiki generated list of pages that have cite erros due to having a <ref> tag and no </references> tag. Thanks for the report and information ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Refresh question

Hi Addshore, I've noticed that at times if I request http://toolserver.org/~jason/data/untagged_orphans_list.txt the data is stale, but is fine if I hit refresh. Is your bot capable of refreshing the text file link before loading the orphans? (BTW I've almost got that uncategorized articles report complete if you're interested.) --JaGa^talk 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep every times the bot runs (every 4 hours) it refereshes the list and once it is refereshed it gets the new list. Awsome with the new list. Any chance you can take a look at the section below about pages being transcluded and maybe build a fix into the list? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot's orphan tags on court pages.

These pages are transcluded to a master page (Courts of the United States) which is definitely not an orphan. Can the bot not discern that? bd2412 T 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the report. I will stop the bot from editing now and set up an exception so it ignores all pages that contain "Courts of " in their name. Thanks for the report and I will try to get the list that the bot uses fixed so that it check for transcluded pages. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done this temp fix is now in place, If the bot continues to add the tag after its next run (which start 23:00) then please send me another message. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the problem - it has prompted me to find other appropriate places from which the individual pages should be linked anyway. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded pages are an issue in general. For example, look at May 2005 which transcludes individual days pages many of which have been incorrectly marked as orphans. You are using the Untagged Orphans toolserver report to determine which ones to tag, correct? I think we need to have JaGa update his report to excluded transcluded pages. I'll drop him a note. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I acctually spotted May 2005 and was wondering why it was showing up as tagged but had orphans, I took a quick glance and could not see the tag. Thanks again for the report and I have dropped JaGa a line and hopefully we can get this fixed quickly :). Thanks again for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I've got this under control. Couple of things:

1. Untagged orphans will not show any page that is transcluded by another page. That's a permanent change.
2. Adopted orphans will show any transcluded page that has an orphan tag. This will go away.

Transcluded pages will still show up on Lonelypages, so they can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, like the "Courts of ..." articles, it makes sense not to place the tag. But in others, like when only a section of an article is transcluded, it may not. Once the May 2, 2005's of the world are fixed, I'll remove the code from adopted orphans. --JaGa^talk 10:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the second change could just cause an editing war between the bot adding tags and the bot removing tags. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry ignore that last comment, It must have been because I had just woken up I didn't read it correctly. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Error reporting

This edit is in error as the issue was being discussed and no counter arguments were offered. All such edits done without community consensus will be reverted, since you've decided to go forth and do whatever you want, so will I. --KP Botany (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and note here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The edit made by the bot on Hydrocotyle_yanghuangensis is NOT an error, Special:WhatLinksHere/Hydrocotyle_yanghuangensis shown NO incoming article links and therefor it should be tagged as an orphan. The bot has been approved here. It will only tag articles with NO incomming article links and will try to avoid very small pages. All known bugs at that point as also fixed. I have not decided to go forth and do whatever I want so you shouldn't either. I am and have been sticking to the policies and other pages on WP. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

questioning the orphan flag on Johnny Roventini

This article (Johnny Roventini) seems to me to be linked to quite a few other articles. Could this possibly be an error in applying the criteria by the bot? Vaoverland (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has no incoming article links per Special:WhatLinksHere/Johnny_Roventini. I think you might be thinking of outgoing links. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

questioning the orphan flag on Jack Crabtree (artist)

This modest article has 27 internal links to other wiki articles, as well as four external links. What is the citerion for this bot's intervention? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot will currently only edit articles that have NO incoming links from articles (if you are referring to my orphan bot) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly confused with this header as my bot has not edited that article. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, the article is Jack Crabtree (artist) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. As you can see from this page the page has no incoming links from articles and that is the reason it was tagged. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I understand. Maybe some articles can be linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep :) That's the plan and the reason for the tag :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now linked from List of people from Rochdale. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good good and thanks! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your bot remove its own tag, and if so when? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When there are 3 links the bot will come round and remove them, This might be changing shortly though. The removal of the tag will not be instant either, it could take a few days. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why 3? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

3 links are what Wikipedia:Orphan and Wikipedia:WikiProject_De-orphaning#Criteria both say. So that is what it has been :). But as I said above this could change very soon. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: My Bot

Hi there,

Fixed this now, thanks for letting me know!

The Helpful One 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Np :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks, most people aren't really interested in bots until they go wrong, so it's nice to be appreciated! Richard⁰⁶¹² 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean :). Now GET BACK TO WORK! :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

Is it really necessary to mark lists as orphans, as the bot did here? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, February 19, 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I am currently trying to get someone from the orphange over here to clear this up as I am unsure. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The decision to tag lists is based on this discussion. And I believe soon we will be removing orphan tags from any article with a single article link (still in discussion), so hopefully we can achieve this even for lists. --JaGa^talk 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the link. Can you, please, point me to where the single-link discussion is being conducted?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, February 19, 2009 (UTC)

I think it is on this page somewhere. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that lists should be less findable than other articles? De-orphaned it by adding it to template of Moscow metro lines. (Seemed appropos.) Zodon (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason why lists should fall under different orphan criteria; we want to bring lists into the web as well.--Aervanath (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IAES question

It's interesting that no one wants to talk about an educational program that serves thousands of students across the country. I was an teacher in the Interim alternative educational setting program in the Gallup-McKinley County Schools for several years. The term doesn't even want to link here, yet the article (and the program) do exist. Could there be a technical problem?Richard Dates (talk)

It's just there are no links going to the page per this page. I will try to introduce a link somewhere pointing to that page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What most extraordinarily annoying bot!

FEW is NOT ZERO!

PLEASE UNDO THESE MESSAGES! Don't make me waste MY TIME fighting automated changes! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC) {{Orphan|date=February 2009}}

EXAMPLE: List_of_25th_century_lunar_eclipses is a sublist, referenced from List_of_lunar_eclipses which has lots of references.

The list is not directly transcluded from the higher list, Therefore it is counted as a separate article. List_of_25th_century_lunar_eclipses does have one link from the article space but as it is a list it is not counted whcih brings the total links from article space to 0. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's your problem. I don't see a problem. Is this policy or are you justing being annoying for the joy of it?! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Orphan , Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage and Wikipedia:Build_the_web ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please UNDO the stupid messages, and I might look at it! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what do you mean "UNDO the stupid messages" ? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SockForTomruen, please be civil. Yelling at Addshore to stop his bot will not help one bit. However, if you real the links Addshore gave you, you'll see why this task is needed. Xclamation point 18:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maker of annoying bots need to be yelled at, so they'll be more anxious about their work and possibly annoy less people.

STUPID MESSAGE: {{{{Orphan|date=February 2009}}

That's not how it works. Yelling at them to stop will just annoy them, and it will not persuade them to stop their bot. Xclamation point 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags

Please stop cluttering up pages with irrelevant orphan tags. There is no point to them. Mohrflies (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The tags are not useless they help the wikiproject locate and try to deorphan articles as well as other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Build_the_web. If you want to question the use of maintenance tags try putting a message on the template talk page or on the relavant wiki project / wiki page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If their purpose is organizational, why CLUTTER the top of articles with an annoying infobox? Why not make them something less annoying to readers like Category:EVIL_ROBOTS_THAT_OUGHT_BE_DESTROYED Category:EVIL_ROBOTS_THAT_OUGHT_BE_DESTROYED? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LLAgain if you want to discuss the use of the Orphan Tag then please do so on its template talk page or maybe try the Wikiproject. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Replag

Hey Addshore, there's currently a one-hour replication lag on the toolserver - so Wikipedia changes older than one hour won't be in my reports. Is there any danger Addbot could double-tag orphans? --JaGa^talk 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I have built in a section to the bot to make sure that the bot WILL NOT tag anything with an orphan tag. (just incase this sort of thing happened) :P Which it looks like it just has. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Distributed Management Orphan Category

The Distributed Management page show be a sub category of Management. How can I make the existing article a sub-category of Management? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChangeManager (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. It already is in the Category of Managment. I think someone got there before you did. Anyway to add it to a category (such as managment) you simply add [[Category: Management]] to the bottem of the page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to make a link go from managment to Distributed Management you simply need to ass double square brackets around something to make it link there. For example [[Distributed Management]] will make Distributed Management. If I have not answered your question please ask me again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response and post missing?

I know your busy responding to complaints about your bot, but you 'archived' my post without responding. BTW, the post does not appear in your archives, so you may inadvertently deleted it. You may want to check that. Regards, cygnis insignis 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I will re add the section below and reply, It was located in Archive_15. Sorry I missed your message previously and thanks for bringing this to my attention. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot

As far I'm aware, the wiki software (MediaWiki) determines orphaned-ness based on whether or not there's one incoming link to an article. Your bot appears to be marking articles that have less than 2(?) links. This has several issues:

1. I don't see any approval from WP:BAG or the specific bot approval page regarding using an arbitrary number to consider whether a page is orphaned.
2. I don't see consensus anywhere (including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage) to base orphaned-ness on an arbitrary number.

Please clarify or adjust the bot. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up the question I would like answered, where is the bot's approval and specific bot approval page for what it is doing? Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a chat with MZMcBride so here are some key things i said.

[2] Is the BRFA. I have been told (as i have been told before) that a brfa is not needed for a simple code change or source change. The line this bot fits under is "If the page is an orphan the bot will add {{orphan|date=*****}}".

All of the pages tagged are orphans per this and are sourced from this. The bot has now stopped editing an I ill open up a new BRFA again for this task (in mroe detail). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

BRFA now located here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, everything Addbot has tagged thus far has zero links, not even from lists. It's based on this toolserver report I created, which in turn is based on WikiProject Orphanage criteria. The report is organized so Addbot tagged zero-link orphans before anything else. The Orca Basin tagging report above happened because of an edit conflict, so to speak; Addbot loaded a list of zero-link orphans, an editor added links to the article, and then Addbot tagged it. I removed the tag myself, but if I hadn't, JL-bot would've picked it up on its next de-orphan tagging run. --JaGa^talk 09:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that's not the criteria given about lonely pages, which is, supposedly, a synonym for orphans. And the wikiproject orphanage declares it must have three links to it. For an obscure organism, the probability will be that only one link to it will exist from either a genus, family (plants) or order (animals) depending upon how obscure, and if the genus/ family or order page has a list of species. This means, these will always be tagged as orphans, with a tag, at the top of the, bigger and more attention-getting than the text of the stub itself. The wikiproject orphanage editors are not editing species articles as far as I can see. So, you've distracted the reader from the article, and you've not gotten any editing help, but you've occupied the time of editors to remove your tags, so that readers can actually read the limited text that's in the article. A zero-link orphan may be just that, a zero-link orphan. However, since it has a taxobox, the user can get around to the genus, family or order articles, just fine. If they're not totally confused by the orphan tag, which then takes them to a page that's a wikiproject page, not a policy page explaining what an orphaned article is.

So, I should trash out other articles, making them unreadable, to link obscure species to as many as three articles to remove the orphan tag so a wikiproject can, .... I don't know. With even some tribes of the Asteraceae, this would mean creating articles that are hundreds of thousands of bytes in length to satisfy wikiproject orphan. How is that going to help the reader? It's not. --KP Botany (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well im getting bored of all these long messages, why dont we all stop fighting and come up with something sensible? Such as i change to bot so it will only edit pages over a certain length or it will ignore all stubs? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue over the Orca Basin article. Just to make it clear that without the bot I wouldn't have got around to adding the links on other pages and the same is true of a group of articles that I'm watching that have recently been tagged (I'll be working on them over the next few days). The tag is a very useful spur to get on and create links, I have no problem with it, I just thought that it might be malfunctioning in the particular case I mentioned above. As to your suggestion Addshore, I would say yes to minimum article length as a criteria, but no to ignoring all stubs. Mikenorton (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need spurring on, I'm not a draft animal, I'm a human volunteer. --KP Botany (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered adding the template to the talk page instead? This would still prompt editors to correct biota links, without cluttering up the header. The information is of no use to our readers, the reason that Pelargonium drummondii was orphaned was that nobody had got around to making a list of the 200 species of Pelargonium. cygnis insignis 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Addbot, and per the documentation on Template:Orphan the tag should be added to the top of the article. Maybe it would make a good change for mantainence tags to be moved? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for entertaining my suggestion, but I'm not surprised that your colleagues at the Orphanage have put forward [dubious] rationales as to why it must be in main space. It is not the first wikiproject to attempt to make mass edits to main space, the discussions tend to degenerate into fierce (and therefore unproductive) debate with the polarised sections of our community making assumptions about the motivations and neutrality of each other. I believe this tends to emerge when editors have focused on a single aspect of improvement to our document, it occupies so much of their attention that even the reader must be made aware of the problem. So it goes. Anyway ...

I am particularly cynical today, and no less so because your bot opened up an old wound. The article Pogona henrylawsoni was made an orphan because some jerk decided to counter my improvement to the most obvious link and move the genus Pogona to an article on the questionable practice of keeping these as 'pets'. Prior to this, the history of the article is primarily composed of editors either adding encyclopedic information or adding instructions on how to 'look after them'. This makes it a problem, under GFDL, for me to reverse the move or resurrect the redirect. The 'my pet' edits should be directed to wikibooks for inclusion of their care instructions, but I have no objection to the 'as pet' article (though it would need lots of work). What all this is leading to is:

Would you mind using your tools (sysop) to restore the genus article, satisfying the GFDL requirements (of course), so I can finish the work I began by adding a {{Howto}} tag to the page? Regards, cygnis insignis 15:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the message above confuses me a little bit. You want me to restore Pogona? If so it has never been deleted so it would be a simple revert of the redirect, but something tells me this is not what you mean. Please try to explain it to me again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be a bit obtuse, and I forgot to supply the link that illustrates the problem. Apologies for that. I also made the assumption that because your bot contributes to articles on fauna, you are familiar with the concepts and problems surrounding this area of wikipedia. I will give you the sequence of events:

• Someone created an article on Bearded dragons, a common name for some Pogona species.
  • This title sucks because it does not refer to all the species. However, ...
• It previously contained a taxobox for the genus (named in RS as Pogona), which listed seven species and their links.
• Some editors contributed to the article as a genus. Others, mainly IPs and newbies, added info on their pets which are loosely known as Bearded dragons (or Beardies), this was instructive rather than encyclopaedic content.
• I came along and copied the info to wikibooks, because I intended to make the genus article about all the species. I had no choice, because taxoboxes are unique. Again, only some species are kept as pets, but all of them are interesting.
• I added the tag {{howto}}, with the intention of returning after a grace period to cull the unencyclopaedic content and add the link to the wikibooks page.
• The aforementioned editor, "Ibanix", moved the article on a genus to an article on those that are kept as pets. The latter is a related, but separate topic.
• The taxobox was removed, making Pogona henrylawsoni an orphan.
• I discovered this when I came back from my wikibreak, it was too late to simply reverse the move. Editors were contributing to the pet topic only, but the history contained editors contributing to an article on the genus (a GFDL issue).
• Your bot tagged P. henrylawsoni as an orphan. I wanted to remove it, but there is no longer a genus (parent) article to link to it. I'm forced to readdress this heartbreaking sequence of events, if I want to remove the 'orphan tag' from an otherwise adequate article.
• I noticed that you have sysop tools, and so are able to do a history merge or duplication or whatever it takes for me to continue improving the genus article.
• I asked you to do that.

If this is still confusing for you, I will ask someone more familiar with WP:TOL articles to do the necessaries. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is still confusing me and sorry I could not be more helpfull. Feel free to link to this discussion when you ask someone else as it should be here for at least 3 days from the last edit (starting today). Sorry again and good luck! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Perhaps you should reconsider editing articles in the scope of WP:TOL. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free to edit for all but I am curious to which articles I have edited? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we fix this by reverting the Pogona redirect to this version? I'm surprised wiping out a genus article like that was tolerated. --JaGa^talk 11:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mann (surname)

Do you consider adding the template {{Orphan}} appropriate for Mann (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? — Also: it seems your bot does not obey {{Bots|deny=Addbot}}; is that intentional? Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This section of the bot (Orphan tagging and un tagging) does not and had not ever taken notice of {{Bots|deny=Addbot}}. This is only as there has need seemed a need for them to be used for it. If you have a question about the tagging of a specific article or type of article please take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hendrik Prinsloo

Hi. Addbot continues to add the orphan tag to the article on Hendrik Prinsloo which is definitely NOT orphaned. Please assist. Many thanks. Whoosis (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. the article is an orphan per Special:WhatLinksHere/Hendrik_Prinsloo. The bot will tag any article that has no incomming links from the article space that are not disambiguations, redirects e.t.c. This means the article we are talking about has no incomming links from real articles meaning it is tagged by the bot. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Addbot count links through redirects?

See WT:O#Counting redirects? for a question that hopefully you'll know the answer to.--Aervanath (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a question you will have to ask JaGa as the lists thhe bot uses are his. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it sure does. :) --JaGa^talk 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

'Small nucleolar RNA SNORAs' navbox

Hi There, I noticed your very nice navbox for the H/ACA box snoRNAs. Would it be possible to generalise it more to include all the H/ACA box snoRNAs and not just those with the HGNC 'SNORA' prefix?

eg. Small nucleolar RNA SNORA1 is an H/ACA box snoRNA but so are eg. Small nucleolar RNA_psi18S-841/snoR66, Small nucleolar RNA snoR86 and Small nucleolar RNA F1/F2/snoR5a. I suspect that just renaming it

{{{H/ACA Small nucleolar RNA}}}

. It'd be great to do a similar thing for the C/D box snoRNAs also.

These pages are extremely brief and not terribly useful. I suspect that they probably should be merged into snoRNA or perhaps a dedicated 'List of snoRNAs' page. Best wishes. --Paul (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be best to have seperate nav boes for each different group or just one large one for all the genes such as those? Give me some example groupings or something like that :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the most generic grouping for these would be ncRNA or RNA gene, followed by snRNA, followed by snoRNA, followed by H/ACA box snoRNA. It's a hierarchical tree. We use something like this for typing RNAs. Would you suggest a more or less generic classification? Or perhaps multiple classes? Would it help to put some numbers on these? ;) --Paul (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can do but I am going to be inactive for the next probably around 48 hours. You could always copy the code and do it yourself :P See Template:Navbox --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (I also followed one of the nav boxes here), but can I suggest you move this discussion over to one of the WP:MCB discussion pages? I think there is great potential to do large-scale nav boxes for the gene pages, but there are lots of details of how to categorize those pages beyond looking for similar-looking gene names (as I think Paul is alluding to). Boghog2 in particular has done a lot of work with some gene family nav boxes, so it would be good to get his input... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ppgardne I agree with AndrewGNF. If there is someone over there that is familier with the field and with nav boxes I think that would be the best way to get it done. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

... oh, and nice job with all the orphan tagging. After seeing thousands of edits on my Gene Wiki watchlist, I think I have a good strategy to deorphanize a sizeable chunk of those pages. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Paul (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Souds good to me also :), I did notice the day before yesterday that many of the pages looked the same and turned out the be genes. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I chime in here. I have taken the liberty of replacing the {{AKR human genes}} with {{Alcohol oxidoreductases}} navbox since all the gene names starting with AKR encode aldo-keto reductases which are a subfamily of alcohol oxidoreductase enzymes. The {{TXNDC human genes}} are all thioredoxin related enzymes which apparently do not fall so cleanly into one EC number group and therefore into the existing enzyme navbox hierarchy. This family will be more difficult to link. Finally the {{KIAA human genes}} apparently do not have any structure or function relationship to each other beyond the fact that they are all human genes that were first cloned by the HUGE sequencing project. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this definatly shows that the navboxes for this topic need someone more familier with it than me :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fantastic that you've actually rolled up your sleeves and got involved! I say keep doing what you're doing - it's a great start for others to build on. I'm still reading the NavBox docs - slowly. Might be a while. ;-) --Paul (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Blackpool F.C.

It's a disambiguation page, so please stop tagging it as orphaned - it's getting annoying. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for reporting this. The bot will nott run again until this bug is fixed. The bot shouldn't be given this page to tag so I will build in a fail safe. Thanks again for reporting it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot will now skip all pages with that template and other templates that redirect to it. Thanks again for the report I will also try to get this bug fixed on the list. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bug. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice and categorization. The History of Blackpool F.C. page had a {{dablink}} hatnote, which is really just a "see also" type of template to which the author added the phrase "This page acts as a disambiguation page". The hatnote does not mark a page as a disambiguation page or place it in Category:Disabiguation pages - for that, the page needs the {{disambig}} or similar template. --JaGa^talk 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taniwharau

Hi. Taniwharau got tagged as an orphan, yet its a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if it has been set up wrong and is missing a tag that its meant to have or if this is an error with the bot. Cheers Mattlore (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the bot only currently looks for the template, I will try to get this changed either just on this page or on the list builder. Thanks for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Untagged orphans =

Hi I don't understand why there is a orphan added to the Liviu Cangeopol's Article. There are lots of links. In addition, please see below many other links and please feel free to correct the article if you wish. Please contact me if you have questions, Thank you David 122.

References below: m -References added. Please improve if needed. - All the references are there, just need to list them properly) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.58.149 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Below, are the APA Style references and some additional ones: Please include them into the article to meet the Wikipedia's standards. Thank you!

References:

1. Nicoleta, Vieru. (2006, December 12). Iassy’s dissidents, the pylons of Romanian dissidence. Ziarul de Iasi.

2. Open Society Archives (1988, April 6). Weekly Record of Events in Estern Europe. Daily Liberation.

3. United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. (1990). Pace of democratic reforms and status of human rights in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. The Supt. of Docs: Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O.

4. Tismaneanu, V. (2006). Statement of the President of Romania Mr. Traian Basescu, at the Romanian Parliament. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from Romanian Presidential Webpage Web site: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8288&_PRID=search

5. Lucian Gheorghiu, Alina Mihai. (2006, December 19). Commnunism’s phantom fights until the last moment. Cotidianul.

6. Craig Smith, S. (2006, December 19). Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule. The New York Times

Hi there. The edit notice that you should have read before you posted on this page says. If you have a comment about the tagging of orphan article by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan. "An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere." You have got the wrong definition of an orphan.

An orphan is what is said above, it has few or no INCOMING links, These you cannot see on the page itself, You have to go to Special:WhatLinksHere.

Liviu Cangeopol Only has one link from the main space per Special:WhatLinksHere/Liviu_Cangeopol, and this is from a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not count as links therefor it is counted as having no real links from the article space and was then tagged.

I hope you understand what I have said above, Thanks for the message. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My response == Hi, I still don't understand exactly what is wrong with the page above. Can you use the references listed above? This is a very important journalist and writer that fought against communism in Romania, Europe. I don't understand what it can be done. His name is also included in the Romanian presidential website, when he was recognized by the president for what he did for Romania. Please type his name on Google web or books and see what comes up. Please help me make the page according to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, David122

i want to be eco freindly by making bricks

help me to get fly ash from dadri , i want top ash which is using cement quotas , i acknowledge that you selling out there , but it is not helping us to manufracture bricks through it , please get me free of cost that can only the way to help in eco freindly in building bricks , thanks my name SUMIT MITTAL

Sorry I do not understand what you mean. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot and Category:X1

I'm curious why the header that addbot puts on Category:X1 doesn't include a parent category such as Category:Sandboxes. If it did, that would not only make the category easier to find, but would also keep it from showing up in the empty categories report. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to create a template for the header really with everything in it (will make it tidier and will be easier to change), Ill get to it in a couple of hours, Just got to finish what I am doing here now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for volunteering to take care of it! --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Linda Lou Taylor

Can you please explain those maintenance tags you placed on my article. The first one just baffles me as the article is filled with internal links, and the name Linda Lou Taylor should appear on any world record category, while I'm inclined to find the second quite offensive, considering I spent a long time carefully wording the document specifically so that it couldn't be accused of plagarism. Thank you. --Heslopian (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. As you should have read in the notice obove the edit box to this page if you have a comment about the tagging of orphan article by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan. An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere. Special:WhatLinksHere/Linda_Lou_Taylor shows the article has no incoming wiki links from other articles and this is the reason the bot added the orphan tag.

As for the {{Copypaste}} template on the page that was not added by the bot, it was added by User:129.252.87.77. If the article is not clearly copied and pasted from one of the sources listed on the page then just remove the tag. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I did think the term orphan simply referred to links within the article, so thanks for enlightening me there. --Heslopian (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Huggle

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for getting Huggle up and running with version .9.0! -download | sign! 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Addshore, it works fine for me (too slow IMHO) but it works. Is the blocking and reporting extension fixed?. Thanks. --Dferg ^{(w:en: - w:es:)} 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is fixed is the fact it work and a few other small fixes such as exceptions. If you think it is slow then take a look at the download list where you will find a fixed version of 0.7.12. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. I have successfully logged in with the new Huggle. Thanks for your hard work. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and good to know it is working :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar seconded, and a virtual chocolate cake sent with heartfelt gratitude. You're a star. Karenjc 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Addshore, thanks for your message. Huggle is working for me again. Thanks for your help! -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the new Huggle! --Aka042 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey Addshore how are you doing i saw your adoption page and i was wondering if you would be ble to help me prepare for a RFA Application so that i may become a sysop i have done two other previous RFA which went horribly wrong.Hope to hear from you soon take care

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis_Social_Club

You placed an orphaned tag on the subject. I have just adopted this orphaned Article as my first Wikipedia Project. I am not that experienced as an Editor, but I have already linked the Article to other cannabis subjects within Wikepedia. Does this mean it is no longer orphaned? Before I proceed any further, am I on track? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Small tags

Hello, could you please explain to me why you made my name small on the guestbook page? I made my name normal sized again. Thanks, obentomusubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, happy early birthday! obentomusubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)