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.

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

DYK for Underwire bra

On 1 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Underwire bra, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive Bot

The bot isn't a big fan of h3 subheadings in conversations. It picks the latest date for the entire h2 heading. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. (Assuming this is a reference to my recent change on the "region specific" subpage) even given that limit it seems there are a number of threads that should have been archived. I am guessing it is because the bot will only archive to a subpage of the current one to prevent abusively directing the archive to some weird location. I left the creator a note for clarification, but I don't expect a quick reply as he is fairly inactive these days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For keeping a watchful eye on the 2009 swine flu related articles, and the even-keeled sensibility you bring to the hourly "emergencies" that arise at the article/template talk pages. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just you at the moment ... only because I'm too lazy. Several regular editors have surely "earned" the award. It's amazing how much editing these articles have seen - I have >1000 pages on my watchlist, and the swine flu related pages have invariably been at the top over the last two days. The templates, essentially are re-written/referenced every 5-6 hours, and yet are pretty "stable". Wikipedia at it's collaborative best. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is WebCiteBOT having issues?

I thought the bot would have been working through a fair-sized backlog in the past 4 days, but it seems to have made very few edits (and nothing beyond the 1's). I hope it's not broken... Anomie⚔ 22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not broken. :) It was skipping some pages and I didn't know why, so I took it down until I could figure it out. It is back up now (with a couple other fixes as well). Should start making writes again shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "newlinks" database has just over 300k entries. At least half of those are duplicates or deleted, but still that is a heck of a lot of links waiting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew there had to be a backlog! Anomie⚔ 00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any movement on changing Template:Cite web so that the original URL is the principle one, and the archived link secondary? Perhaps you could drop a note at Template talk:Cite web? 86.44.23.31 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no. I placed a note some time back but it generated no discussion. I am not personally pursuing the matter at this time, but perhaps I will take it up again when I have more time. Of course, other interested parties (such as yourself) are free to raise the issue themselves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara McGuire

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barbara McGuire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... but now I feel guilty about not being as active on those pages over the past few days as before. Glad to see though that the pages are still in good shape, thanks to the tireless effort of some dedicated editors and useful input by others. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no need to feel guilty. The award was deserved based on your history with the article/table.  :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: the barnstar design is very creative! Nicely done. Abecedare (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I did put quite a bit of effort into the design. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Very clever design. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Came to add my thanks too. The star made me laugh :) |→ Spaully^₪† 22:35, 7 May 2009 (GMT)

Made me laugh too! Thanks, Avenue (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Karađorđevo

What's your opinion on the title of the Karađorđevo article? There is no consensus as to whether it was a agreement or meeting. PRODUCER (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu barnstar

I have done some work too. Parker1297 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Stopping link rot

Your bots to prevent link rot are a great creation. You are very good man among good men! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

notaforumn

FYI most of the irrelvant ip comments are from the ip(s) contribtor who posts the same message to the talk page and to User talk:86.29.246.35. Not sure what can be done except to remove the comments when they happen. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a notice on .35's page about Wikipedia not being a forum. Since the user seems to change IPs every few days and since they aren't doing any real harm, it probably isn't worth pursuing any further. The best course of action is just to keep deleting the comments & hope they go away when it is clear no one is paying attention to their nonsense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your feedback at Talk:Timeline of file sharing. I'll check through File sharing again too.   M  18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate you keeping an eye on that article. I expected things to be calmer at the file sharing articles, but then it's really difficult to deal with these sorts of edits without the support of other watchers (on most of my watchlist, vandalism and weird content changes get reverted within a couple of hours).

In this correction, the middle section about napster is misleading can be safely changed back. Though all of Napster's components are not peer-to-peer, this is a technical detail that's not appropriate to a brief summary ([1] "Napster was the first and most popular of the peer-to-peer file sharing systems" etc., and it gets into the details of this.) Most of the sources Deathmolor uses don't actually offer support - he's used the link above, changing the search query in the url, several times to support random statements. I think I'll probably need to start an rfc soon about this and file sharing (I'm apparently 'war editing', and I think he's given up and resorted to trolling). Ugh. Anyway, thanks again :) If you have any advice regarding whether I'm dealing with this correctly, I would appreciate that as well.   M  01:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need to keep things on topic, but given the volume of Deathmolor's comments that directly attack me I think some right of reply is appropriate. I've kept it very short, and I believe that there is only one message where I actually defend myself. I've left a wqa, but given that he is 'considering legal action', I think that this requires more serious attention than a request that everyone refrain from attacks.   M  19:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't blame you for replying, as that is human nature, but truthfully it is not helpful. Such comments would be better directed to the offending user than the article talk page.

That said, to be honest, I didn't read his latest rambling all that closely as they obviously weren't relevant to the article. If he threatened legal action that is a serious offense, and I will so inform him now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your (commendably neutral!) help and support :)   M  20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Script

Hi. I am in the process of developing a script to automatically correct common misspellings in articles. The initial goal is for users to have a button at the top of the article which will open an edit window and do a search/replace to correct common misspellings. When the script completes, it then shows the changes and allows the editor to decide if the changes were correct. The goal is to have as few falsely corrected entries, so some of the entries on WP:LCM wouldn't be added. If you are interested in trying it out, let me know. My initial prototype only has entries from the "A" page. There are probably some minor bugs in there as well, but it won't commit any changes without approval. The script is at User:Symplectic Map/spell.js and you just have to include it in your monobook.js file, e.g., User:Symplectic Map/monobook.js. If you are using something other than the standard theme, it would have to be included there instead. It should work on Firefox and Google Chrome. I haven't tested Internet Explorer. If you know of another script for doing this sort of thing, please let me know, so I don't unnecessarily waste any time. Thanks! Symplectic Map (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Advice/Opinion

I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, it's quite common for articles to be deleted in spite of significant coverage in reliable sources (Boxxy comes to mind). However, in Johnston's case, the notability goes beyond one event, as it is still being reported on eight months later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes, that's correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Paydin LoPachin

Did some work on the article. Apparently she is both loved and hated for her role in Triloquist. The coverage of her in genre-specific reviews of the film, being more-than-trivial, may just push her over the bar per WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I changed my !vote to weak keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice to people adding time-sensitive URLs

I think we're all in awe of WebCiteBOT, so massive, massive kudos for that. Now people are noticing it, and may start relying on it, is there an existing (or could you write a) couple of paragraphs for what users should do if they've just added a reference that they know is time-sensitive? It's come up on the help desk a couple of times. Can the bot be relied upon? Is there a process that users should follow to make sure it gets archived? That would be really useful. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Several people have asked for a feature to do a page on demand, so I am planning on adding that. In the mean time I'll add a paragraph answering these question on User:WebCiteBOT. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See User:WebCiteBOT#Frequently Asked Questions --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Revenge of the Little Shits

Thanks for taking care of that redirect. I despise these band articles; total waste of time, so far as I am concerned. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I find myself changing songs and albums "articles" to redirects fairly often. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoax alert - B96.3

What is your source for the claim that H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 is the official name of the virus responsible for the 2009 swine flu outbreak. It is a totally nonstandard name and I can find no confirmation. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Official was a bad choice of words, it is the WHO nomenclature per ICD-10 standards - the B96.3 part just refers to the type of virus it is. In any case, I moved the article to a better title (2009 A/H1N1). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rajeev Janardan

I nominated the article for deletion. Wanted to let you know. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Contesting of prod: Us and Them: The Science of Identity

Can you please drop me a message when you complete sourcing work on Us and Them: The Science of Identity? Assuming your work is successful, I don't imagine I'll need to consider nominating to AfD, but a heads up would be appreciated. Thanks! Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Just so you know, it will probably be about a week before I get to it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine, there's certainly no rush, as the article isn't high-profile or high-importance. I'll see if there isn't anything I can do in the interim. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush - unilateral moves

Thanks for your help in fixing this. I made a bold edit to add the word "not" to your warning to the new user, because I was completely confident that's what you meant. If I erred, please forgive me -- I meant well.  :) JamesMLane t c 00:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed. Thanks for correcting my typo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Faked Date

Hey Thaddeus, thanks for your message alerting me about the Deletion Date. This was a typo and I appreciate that you fixed it and have brought the mistake to my attention. However, please do not make assumptions and jump to conclusions that I was trying to pull a fast one and get a fast deletion. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I wanted speedy deletion I would have used the speedy deletion tag. I don't need to go around being deceptive as you seem to have thought. What happened was I copied the tag from my user page and forgot to edit the date to the current day. OK, lets get over that and move on. Thanks again for your vigilance and for letting me know the situation. Wishing you All the Best! --Kbob (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion

I have attended to your requests at WP:UND. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have initiated the transwiki process on both now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Winery deprods

Hi ThaddeusB,

Just to say thanks for showing an interest in the WikiWineProject (I'm the user who prodded the winery articles that you recently deprodded). Looking forward to seeing nice articles (with reliable sources and references, etc) :) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, it will be a few days - maybe a week - before I can get to them, but when I do I will make sure they are at least half way decent articles. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

...?

Hey I noticed the "Sanchana" page now has "Move to Wiktionary" thing on it, so does that mean that it has ALREADY been moved to Wiktionary or that it is requesting that someone DOES move it?

If so, how DO you move it to Wiktionary?

And why does it say ThaddeusB/Sanchana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoconutCookie (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it hasn't been copied yet, but a BOT will automatically copy it soon. The process can be done manually, but is a real pain. See Help:Transwiki for more information on the transwiki process. The reason it is "User: ThaddeusB/Sanchana" instead of just "Sanchana" is because it is in my user space, as opposed to article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table

I have nominated Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table for deletion. I have notified you because you are freqent or recent contributor to the template. Barnaby dawson (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Greg Handevidt article

The next time you contest another PROD, please take a look at the discussion page before doing so. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my deprodding as he was a member of two notable bands, even though he was only briefly a member of Megadeth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deprodded articles

I'll check back later to review the improvements to Dakawiter, Agent Ransack and WPrompter. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug Williams (visual artist)

A bit more than a week ago, you endorsed another editor's proposed deletion of the article mentioned above. As it was uncontested after seven days, I deleted the article a few days ago. Per a request on my talk page, I undeleted the page and sent it to WP:AFD. I included your rationale in the deletion request. If you have anything you would like to add, the discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Williams (visual artist). Cheers. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Renaissance Period

I noticed that you added a second prod; the first and only other reference to the "Kohli yuga" is on Narendra Kohli, I'd tagged that for G12, since there was another page [2] which was an exact replica, but apparently that was a replica of the wikipedia page and not the other way round. Narendra Kohli has been tagged for citations and POV for a while, and I also posted on the talk page recently. If there's no improvements within a week or so, I plan to edit out content that I can't find references for (the guy actually is notable and has been covered widely, so I can't understand why the page has been created this way). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually just touched that article to edit out that made up term & noticed what a horrible wreck of an article it is. I fixed the bizarro reference style used and cleaned up the tags a bit, but really that is one of the worst articles I've seen (no content is better than made up content any day.) The primary contributor admitted on the talk page that he wrote most of it "from memory." My suggestion would be: if no improvement happens soon stubify the article what what you can actually verify - even if it is only a few lines, it is better than having inaccurate stuff a fan recalled from memory. If, however, there is at least an attempt to improve it I would be lenient and try to help the new editor out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Milltown

If I understand right, the Wisconsin wikiproject has decided to make towns that need disambiguation go by "___ (town), Wisconsin"; villages never have (village) in their name. I'm not a member of the project, but I'm going to ask a couple of project members to comment here. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I already undid my changes before receiving this message, but any clarification would be fine. That said, it doesn't really make much sense to have the dab in the middle of the name. It should really be XXX, Wisconsin (town) or XXX, Wisconsin (village) to be consistent with normal disambiguation format. (Also, you are wrong as some of the villages do have (village) in their title). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct. If there's a village or city with the same name as a town, then the village or city gets the primary use. The town gets named ______ (town), Wisconsin. Hundreds of articles are done this way. It would be too much work to undo this without a strong reason to do it. There are very few villages with (village) in the name. For example, the village of Oregon is named Oregon, Wisconsin and the town of Oregon is named Oregon (town), Wisconsin. The political subdivisions of Wisconsin are so different that it got its own article. Towns in Wisconsin are different than many other states. They are the autonomous rural unincorporated areas between cities and villages. Royalbroil 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yah, definitely unusual I started to move Millford to "fix" a disambiguation page, but when I realized that most of Wisconsin was like that I stopped & undid my change. Still, why disambiguate in the middle of the term instead of the end like normal? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I don't remember help coming up with the naming convention. Royalbroil 12:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Users Royalbroil & Myttend are both correct concerning the naming convention.One comment: each Wisconsin town has an elected town board with a chair so town elections in Wisconsin are the norm unlike other states that just have townships only on paper for statistic reasons.Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationwide, the standard is to place (community type) before the statename if there are multiple places with the same name — like any other means of disambiguation for community names, we please the disambiguation before the statename. That's why we have Centerville, Gallia County, Ohio, rather than "Centerville, Ohio (Gallia County)". And as far as the (village) remaining — the only one I could find was Superior (village), Wisconsin. I'd guess that it's a special case, because there's also a city of Superior, Wisconsin (but it's not Superior (city), Wisconsin) and a town of Superior (town), Wisconsin. I suppose it's good that Marble Cliff isn't also named Columbus :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: HersfoldBot

It's coming; sorry, I haven't been around for the past month. You can expect the bot to be run later tonight or later this week. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Genomic library redirect

Did you notice that I tried db-move on that page on May 25, and it was declined by the administrator, who told me to get consensus? Is this the correct procedure now, to put db-move back on the page? Agathman (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that consensus exists, I can't imagine it being declined again, so yes re-adding the template should work. If for some reason that is declined again, you'll have to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

deletion to be completed

Thank you for welcoming me in Wikipedia. However, please note that I am not the creator of the two pages (Michele Trimarchi and Neuropsychophysiology), rather I have called outloud their deletion because of the reasons you finally determined (and others). This is why I am now proposing to delete the links to ISN on the present page of Neuropsychophysiology, 'cause it rebounds to a self-referential, blatant, unclear site of Michele Trimarchi ("a bad penny is always turning up", isn't it?). Thanking in advance for finishing the work ASAP, ---- PernillaPthor

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PernillaPthor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by PernillaPthor (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuropsychophysiology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by PernillaPthor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't add the delete template nor say anything about you being the creator - all I did is clean up the article. Now, there is no need to propose a change to the article as "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit." That said, the external link is does no harm and I see no reason to delete it. It points to an organization related to the topic at hand and the fact that it was originally added by a WP:COI editor is irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

California Farm Water Coalition

Could you point me to at least one non-trivial source you found on California Farm Water Coalition? I don't want to take it to AfD if it's notable, but I sure didn't see anything helpful in my search. Thanks! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The main thing that shows their notability is that so many articles about water issues quote them as an authority. That said, here are two sources that would be sufficient to meet the GNG, in my opinion. (I'm sure there are others, these are just the first two I found:

• This article about a a brochure the put out that "caused quite a stir": [3].
• This one is about an ad campaign they did: [4]

ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold off for a bit on the AfD, but I'm not convinced about the notability. Many lobbying groups make sure they are in every reporter's rolodex so that they can easily be quoted as an authority, but to me that's more of a passing mention / PR thing. (I know some will disagree on that, and I'm fine with it.) The Fresno Bee story looks like a possibility, but we'd really need to see the whole article (and I don't feel like ponying up the $3) -- the California Irrigation Institute is a competing group, and it's hard to tell from a single paragraph if the "stir" was real or just manufactured as a way to get their name in the paper. What I see of the ad campaign article looks like a PR piece, but again, it's hard to tell from a single paragraph, and we'd need to see the whole thing. (I've been burned before with incessant spam from the registration news sites, so I'll pass on that one.)

Thanks for the reply.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Radish Stew

I'm unclear on where Radish Stew has been transwikied to. Mind clueing me in? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

b:Cookbook:Radish Stew - I cleaned it up after transwiki so may have to view to the history to confirm. Its unfortunate that the template doesn't allow a link to the transwikied page or I would have added one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked in Wikibooks, not the cookbook section. Doh! (And yeah, a link would be super.) Thanks for the clue, :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MineWolf Systems

(For the record, I put the Prod tag before I registered)

Cheers for tidying up that article, it is indeed now a respectable stub and not a deletable article. Wikipedia needs more people like you patrolling the boring jobs. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Pin-Up

I note that most of the results here are either from 5 years back or are simply announcements/ticket sales notices for recent shows. With an admittedly quick glance, I don't see a single recent review or actual article. If you can find something, that's swell; I prodded it simply because this was an article made by her boyfriend that has remained without any mention of notability. I hope that you do follow up with improvement, 'cause otherwise I intend to wait a while and then bring it to AfD. Take care. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, thank you for coming here instead of just sending it to AfD. I do plan to improve the article, but I can't say when exactly - hopefully within two weeks.

I assure you I found some actual sources or I wouldn't have de-prodded. Off the top of my head, I remember a couple RS calling her one of the countries most influential DJs or some such. I will definitely try & improve/source the article ASAP, but be patient with me as I have a lot to do. :)

P.S. A source being from 5 years ago is completely irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but to try to verify notability it would certainly help to have some usable material from this half of the decade. ;) I'm not one of the much-feared "Deleationists", so I wouldn't have brought things to AfD immediately unless the one removing prod had a conflict of interest. I'm all for it being improved if that can acutally be done, I'm just not terribly interested in having a few non-tweaks like I've seen others do in the past just to avoid deletion (not a comparison to you, I should probably clarify. just a "historical reference" of sorts.). I tried finding something about her way back when it was created (I've had it on my watchlist it's whole existance), but I never did find much outside of PR statements and the like. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

At least one is open, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Sámi_Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I love Columbus, I visited last year. Fences and windows (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do before an earthquake.

Who will be handling the transfer to wikibooks?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already put in a request for transfer here --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Passion

I've seen others userfy similar autobiographies in the past, so I thought it was allowed, but go ahead and revert it if you want.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will seek guidance from those more knowledgeable than myself & get back to you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

A novice editor needs you to explain this, with helpful pointers, at Talk:Cross Enterprise Document Sharing (XDS). Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I normally watch-list all articles I deprod, but that one apparently didn't make my list. I can't blame the editor much for not being able to find sources. The article is about a specialized protocol used by health care providers. It is widely used, but if you don't know where to look you are unlikely to find anything searching for "XDS" on Google. I have pointed the editor to some good sources, so hopefully he will make some improvements on his own now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kathryn Ellen Lilley

Thanks for cleaning up and adding the appropriate tags. I took great pride in never having caused an article to be deleted, but in this case I had a hard time justifying notability. Thanks to you my record remains unbroken. --Leifern (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

I'm still in the process of making changes, & I hadn't yet gotten to double-redirects. Thank you for the help. It's more than a one person job if it's to get done in a reasonable amount of time. :) hmwithτ 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help. There are far more of these redirects than I would have imagined. Thank goodness for AWB. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Fell (novel)

No problem, I actually wrote a most of the article on the book which comes before it (using my old account). And I've been meaning to create Fell for a while, but forgot about it. So when I went back to that article and saw the most recent edit adding Fell to the infobox, I followed it, and the article as you see it now is the result :). Keep up your good work - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ongoing multiple de-PRODing question

Hello, I noticed you routinely de-PROD articles with comments like "will address sourcing conerns ASAP".[5][6][7] How often do you actually go back to do this? I note that such de-PRODs always seem to happen on or around the expiry date.

I see out of your past 5,000 article edits, you've removed PROD from 81 articles (just based on the subject lines). How many of the 81 did you go back and expand to meet notability concerns? Do you have some examples? rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Kick ass work on the pandemic clean up!! I was meaning to move them around this weekend if no one else did. :) rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct - I routinely deprod articles right at the end. This is because I go through almost every single prod that is about to expire and see if there is anything worth saving. I'd say the ones I deprod are about 5-10% of the total I look at. I believe that nearly every article I deprod could survive AfD if nominated (and several have). No one is perfect, so I am sure I made some errors too though.

I don't have an exact # that I've fixed, but I know it is far fewer than I'd like. :( Most do need work, but not necessarily every single one. If I had to guess, I'd say 1/3 of them I have done at least some work on, with only a few being expanded greatly. Thus far, my work has been more-or-less random with little regard to importance or when I deprodded.

A few days ago, I wrote a script to help me keep track of my de-PRODed articles so that I could start going back and fixing up some of the ones I neglected. The log is at User:ThaddeusB/PROD_Log. At the moment, it is only updated through the end of April, but I do think just about all of those have been brought up to minimum quality standards. I intend to add May to my list within the next couple days and then go back and start fixing up the ones I've previously missed (like I said, I've fixed some but it has been at random rather than systematically).

As far as specific examples go, off the top of my head Barbara McGuire was one of the first articles I improved, Alchimie Forever survived AfD nomination largely because of work I did on it during the process, Neuropsychophysiology was changed from lame self-promotional piece into a legit stub, and JC Brown was greatly changed from a legend written as fact to a (still very-incomplete) article about the legend's surrounding the mountain yesterday.

I know I should probably spend more time improve the things I de-prod, but it is hard when there is a steady stream of new things I want to check. Thus, any advice you have would be appreciated.

I hope that this thoroughly answers your questions, but feel free to ask follow up questions if any doubt remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I know there have been several SPAs/socks deprodding stuff recently, so hopefully I am not getting lumped into that group. I assure you my intentions are to save only articles on notable topics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this, too. I suggest that the best course of action is that if you've searched for and found sources, leading you to believe that the proposed deletion is erroneous, cite them in the article straightaway. That way, another editor can build upon your efforts instead of having to duplicate them. If you'd cited the sources that you found in Cross Enterprise Document Sharing straightaway, for example, another editor wouldn't have had to duplicate your searches. As it stands, you are imposing the burden of future work solely upon yourself, because you aren't adding to the encyclopaedia the results of the work that you have done so far. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion message

Thanks for your useful message - will aim to follow that. Regards Eldumpo (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

FACT Software International Pte Ltd

On the AfD I saw that you suggested it be moved to the parent company Vedika Software, but from what I found, the company changed name from Vedika to Fact, and that's why the page is titled as such; quite obviously all the news refs are for Vedika. I don't know how this is normally handled, but I noted the name change aspect in the article when I was editing in the references. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was basing my comment on articles like this which says "Vedika Software through its 100 per cent subsidiary company FACT Software International Pte Limited, Singapore, has become the first Indian company..." It may have also changed names at some point, I don't know for sure. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at their webpage and they seem to have changed their Indian name to Fact Solutions from Vedika, the ownership structure etc appears to be the same. Oh well. The only reason I got involved in editing this was the undue pressure on the author with the AfD creation, who has since disappeared! Thx for your response, I'll see what I can dig up to figure this out, maybe, despite being a deletionist, I can save one more article! I also made a redirect from the product page to the company page, as I didn't think that warranted a separate article, at least not right now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hyman

Hi, ThaddeusB. You can find the article in your userspace at User:ThaddeusB/Richard Hyman. There are certainly a lot of mentions of Hyman in news sources, but they all appear ancillary to his work with Verdict Research. It seems to me that, at the moment, those sources only merit his information be on the Verdict page. If you can find some independent RS which provides enough background to warrant a stand-alone bio for Hyman, than that would be great. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

dumb question?

Hey Thaddeus, I noticed your perfect installment of a speedy deletion warning (at User talk:Claude girardin). I've just proposed a speedy for another one of that editor's contributions, but of rhte life of me, I can't figure out how Template:Db-spam-notice works... Can you give a brother a hand and tell me what to copy and paste and what to fill in? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I guess I should start reading the fine print at the bottom... ;) Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Is the notability calculation for the Iddo Netanyahu article that simple? Just go to Google News Archives? ShamWow (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, all notability calculations are judgment calls really. In my judgment he has sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion (not overwhelming, but enough). I pointed to the archives to show what I was talking about in a brief enough manner to fit into the edit summary. I didn't see any major changes that need to happen in the article (it is already sourced, decently written, etc.) so I didn't see any need to personally make improvements to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian/married userboxes

I note that we are both in the relatively small subset of Wikipedians who are both married and confessing Christians. I removed this information from my userpage some time ago, however, as it can lead to divisiveness, factionalism, and recruiting of people with particular faiths or lifestyles to vote in matters of common interest (and the perception of the same even when it has not taken place). I would encourage you to remove this information from your user page as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kidomiyon

I made some fixes to that one, too. More to come. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Five wits

On June 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Five wits, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WebCite alternatives

Do you have an opinion on BackupUrl? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look and did some poking around. Obviously they are just getting started as they don't have any real info, no TOS, etc. I doubt they have considered legal issues and they currently aren't honoring robots.txt exclusions or cache-control meta tags. Until they establish themselves, I wouldn't want to risk archiving something important there as they well may not last very long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Neuropsychophysiology

I understand that a previous prod was contested, but I can't find a link to any discussion as to on what grounds it was not deleted. Frankly, this appears to be an invented "field" with very little notability or advocates. Famousdog (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The term has a good number of hits on both GScholar and regular Google, so at the very least it isn't something that someone invented just to describe their own work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Webcite archiving

Just thought I'd mention Talk:WebCite#Getting links to archive; I was surprised to see the twitter mentioning your bot, as I thought I was the only one running a bot to archive links (although I just do New Pages). --Gwern (contribs) 15:08 20 June 2009 (GMT)

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)

Funny location

Can you check Bahal_(disambiguation)? Four cities linked there with the name Bahal were created a couple of days ago, I haven't been able to find anything about one of them in India, the Kenya one is on PROD for similar reasons. If there's anything at all to say these cities exist, I figured you might be able to find it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a source for the India one. The Kenya one doesn't appear to actually exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx, somehow I couldn't find it, and to think I've actually been to the district. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Journal compilation bot

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

The bot finished compiling the stats a couple days ago, but I was too busy to write the code to upload the data. Hopefully I will get that done today.

I rather not auto-archive my talk page, but I did go ahead and manually archive a bunch of older stuff today. Thanks for letting me know it was getting slow - I had no idea because it always loads fast for me.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

College soccer players

Hi. I'm not willing to say that all college soccer players, male or female, are automatically not notable - of course they're not! However, the players nominated in the AfD are, in my eyes, clearly non notable. If they start a pro career, however, then I'd be willing to change my opinion. Warm regards, GiantSnowman 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I went back to all the artcles to see what had been improved, and unfortunately I still wasn't satisfied. Sorry. GiantSnowman 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so I see! I'll have a read and see if it makes me change my mind! Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Angeli

Yes, I do feel some college players can be notable. For example, a college player that plays in the Olympics would be notable. And yes, I think that the criteria is sometimes wrong. But until the criteria changes, I have to go by it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've read the criteria. I know what it says. And the way I read it says she isn't notable. Sorry. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As above, I don't believe someone can be notable just for playing college sports. If they appear in the Olympics or the senior national team, then yes, but these people haven't. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pretty much. I really don't see how playing college soccer confers notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Samonas

Take a look at Daniel Samonas. I only spent a short time, but there's more that can be done if kept. Any advise how your "weak" might be upgraded? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like to see two good sources. Currently the Starry Constellation is the only one independent source that is actually about him. I imagine you can find another good source if you wade through the regular Google search results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Angeli & Co.

Do I think there are possibilities where college players can be notable? Of course. Before he played professionally, Archie Griffin won the Heisman Trophy twice ... the only person to ever do that. Much closer to "home", Kara Lang is the youngest player to receive a full appearance for Canada women's national soccer team, has healthy caps and goal totals, and is still only a redshirt junior at UCLA. Those are just a few examples of college players who would be considered notable.

Just because the players I have AFD'ed are among the best players in a non-professional, non-highest level of the game, at this particular moment in time does not make them notable. Do I agree with the "get in to 1 professional game for 1 minute = notable" rule while players like Angeli are deemed non-notable? Not really, but as it stands those are the rules as decided by Wikipedia users and are the rules we must abide by. Therefore, as I have noted above, I do feel college players may be notable, just not in this case. While I understand your point of view, I respectfully disagree and will therefore not be changing my vote. GauchoDude (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why WebCite is down?

I've never used it before, and for a few days now I've been trying to archive some links (older video game reviews seem to get lost fairly easily, and by my estimation these ones might have one-two years left before they're lost), but whenever I try to archive them (manually or with a bookmark), there's an internal error. Is this just me or is this happening to everyone? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They have been having periodic problems for about 3 weeks now. (It will go down for hours at a time, then come back for 1 hour and go down again.) I was told by the head of the organization that the problems are due too excessive server load and that they are in the process of upgrading their server to address the problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No wonder their servers were having trouble. :) So is that a good thing (more visibility for WebCite because of wider use on Wikipedia) or a bad thing (temporary prevention of manual archiving and expensive sever upgrades)? Anyway, excellent work on the bot... is there any ETA for the on-request archiving of links on individual pages? That would be really nice to have so that you don't need to go through 30 links manually like I did on Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando. (Also, it might be of interest to you... I created {{MultiPageCiteArchive}} for things like multiple-page video game reviews. Not sure if the bot could do anything with it, but thought I'd mention it). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult for the bot to know when to archive multiple pages, but I'll keep the idea in mind. As to archive-on-demand function, I have held off on doing it so far because of WebCite's problems and the resulting immense backlog. Once those issues are resolved I'll proceed with adding the feature, but right now its not worth my time since that would just increase the backlog even more. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. That makes sense. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian lists

Are not useful - fly by Indonesian editors grab stuff of webs sites dump them on english wikipedia in no logical order or context and indonesian spellings and format and never return to cleanup - also many Indonesian eds have limited english so lists are their way of leaving their mark - they never return to cleanup or fix up - if you need examples there are many - removing prods like that is contrary to the general consensus of active editors on the Indonesian project - partial lists of names are of no particular use to the encyclopedia specially when there is no sign of it being either corrected or improved SatuSuro 07:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the Afd - I have a very different opinion - such lists are open to a range of abuse in the Indonesian project and there is no inherent notability to a list of names without some form of check - for WP:V or WP:RS - SatuSuro 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Karađorđevo agreement

Please do something about Aradic-es' constant edit warring, I have already explained the name to him but he's too stubborn and continues with his childish nonsense. PRODUCER (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no special authority to do anything, but I will keep a closer eye on the article and try to reword things to more neutral phrasing when possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Landscape Agency

I was going to put a CSD-A7 tag on the page when I noticed you had contested a previous tag. At the time you said you would speedily put up some reliable sources. That was more than a week ago. Just wondering... Capitalismojo (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, could you be more specific? What is the article's title? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now it is The Landscape Agency. I will see what I can do about sourcing it tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about not linking it. Also the creator is listed on the company's website as its web designer. I have put up the COI tag and warned the creator. Someone else has coatrack tagged it. I still think the article is corporate vanity spam but if you want to work on it I will leave it off the Spam noticeboard. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I gave the article a severe cleanup today. Sources will follow tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Triumphant Institute of Management Education

An article that you have been involved in editing, Triumphant Institute of Management Education, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumphant Institute of Management Education. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cybercobra (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Toddlers and Tiaras

Wasn't aware of that provision; thanks. Perhaps it can be better if you restart with the original text; here's the entire coding in the final edit before deletion. Could you add references before reposting? Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{dated prod|concern = Non-notable tv show|month = June|day = 19|year = 2009|time = 21:45|timestamp = 20090619214538}} <!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" --> '''''Toddlers & Tiaras''''' is a [[reality television]] show produced in the United States about the child pageants. The show follows the child pageant contestants and their families through their daily lives as they prepare for pageants. The show airs on [[TLC (TV channel)|TLC]] since season 1. <ref>http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/toddlers-tiaras/toddlers-tiaras.html</ref> ==References== {{reflist}} {{uncategorized|date=May 2009}}

Trevor doerksen

I prodd'd the article Trevor doerksen on 3 June for being non-notable. On 10 June, you de-prodd'd it, with an edit summary of "contets prod - company is notable & doesn't have an article yet, so I will rewrite & move this page to be about the company rather than the individual ASAP." No other changes have been made to it since, by anyone. It sounds like we agree that the person isn't sufficiently notable, and that the article on him should go. Would you object if I took it to AFD? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here first. I will rewrite the article, as originally promised within 24 hours. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing an issue

You're missing things because of your focus on me. You've jumped into the issue to defend the BAG without reviewing the entire issue-this makes it hard for wikipedia to correct errors: the defensiveness in the face of the most serious mistakes.

If you neutrally evaluated what happened you might contribute new insight into preventing this on wikipedia in the future. This is why I discuss the issue: I don't want this to happen on wikipedia again.

I can't respond any more to your posts, they would require me to repeat myself too much more than I already have: you're off target.

I'll assume you mean your apology in spite of your posts remaining and accept it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan's Next Top Model

Can you take a look? I unPRODDed with some refs, but I'm still not sure if it's the same show! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a hoax. One source says only 4 contestants took part. The only source that lists names doesn't match anything in the article. The supposed winner's name doesn't even get a single hit on regular Google.

All the references date from October 2007, so it is possible the show expanded the next year or something; or that this is about some other show, but the most logical explanation is that it was a hoax article.

That said, the TV show the references point to is clearly notable. (Although it probably has a real name that is different than "Afganistan's Next Top Model", that title should be acceptable unless you can find a real one since that is what the English language sources dubbed it.) My advice would be to drop all the contestant info as unsourced and stick to what the sources say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the original version of the article accidentally included text copied from America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, so it definitely was a hoax originally. I am cutting all the junk now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Thanks, I guess I should have looked more carefully. I guess there's another hoax in by the same author - Oceania's Next Top Model. It might be a candidate for G3, let me know what you think of that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So tagged. Appears to also be a sock puppet issue since another editor actually created the Oceania one but the Afgan person edited it. The weird thing is that person also created Benelux' Next Top Model which appears to be a real show.

It is actually good that you goofed though because the show you found is pretty interesting and very worth including (IMO). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, I found the refs interesting too, coverage in India is expected, but Australia, UK and US for this was a bit surprising. I think some clean up behind these two users is warranted, the entry on Balboa_Island,_Newport_Beach,_California is a bit absurd, I'll see what I can find and fix that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

An IP (Special:Contributions/71.138.119.143) also edited the Oceania article and is presumably the same person. I wouldn't try to hard to verify anything these three wrote since they have already shown themselves to not care much about being truthful. I have to get some work done now, but I'll check back in later, so let me know if any of the 3 still need checked up on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I pretty much cleaned up, so we should be good now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

adding references

I need to add refereces to my page Neil Lazarus - but seem to get an error any simple directions for doing so - any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.72.152 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For help on properly adding references see Help:Footnotes. You should know, however, that it isn't your article - no one owns articles on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aster Data article (spam)

Hi Thaddeus,

The Aster article has been an eyesore for a year now and it has had a "commercial, written like an advertisement" designation for nearly that whole time.

The company itself is a typical startup with little to no proven record and most all of it's press is derived from press releases or paid analysts.

Let's send the message to the author (probably the companies' PR person) that they can't use WP for advertising and delete the page. They can (and should) rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.145.54 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My research indicates that the company is notable, as defined by Wikipedia and the current article doesn't qualify as blatant advertising. The article's problems can be solved via editing, so there is no need to delete it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 28 June 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)

HellinaBucket

This is very much vandalism, and not only that, but HellinaBucket has been warned multiple times for making this exact same edit to this article.

HellinaBucket is a vandal. The HellinaBucket account was created to circumvent vandalism protections regarding this article specifically and possibly a couple other articles.

HellinaBucket has repeatedly, over many weeks, attempted to make the same changes to the Operation Repo article. HellinaBuckets actions have gotten the article protected at least once, and has almost gotten HellinaBucket permanently blocked.

The only reason that HellinaBucket was not permenetly blocked from editing is because he promised to not repeat his vandalism to the Operation Repo page, and because he promised to stop following my contributions.

Although maybe I should have requested a permanent block of HellinaBucket due to this edit, I chose to give HellinaBucket a "only warning" instead, since he seems to be attempting to make a good reputation for himself.

HellinaBucket is a vandal and has been since his conception. He existed before that as an anon IP vandal.

ThaddeusB, please research this issue further if you wish to be a part of solving it. Please pay particular attention to which edits HellinaBucket has made to Operation Repo, and to the portions of HellinaBucket's talk page that were deleted without being archived.VegKilla (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The reason I have not edited very many articles in the last couple months is because of HellinaBucket. By practically only editing the Operation Repo article, I have been able to defend myself against Hellina. The fact that this is the only article I am editing is a symptom of the problems that Hellina has caused, and is in no way evidence that no one is watching my contributions. By editing only one page, I am defeating anyone watching my contributions, since there is nothing to watch.VegKilla (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)