User talk:Addshore

			Email Me!
Homepage	Talk	Contributions	Email Me

User:Addshore/scroll User:Addshore/userboxes/talkreply

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

in use articles

Please refrain from marking articles as orphaned that are using the {{inuse}} tag (as you have done twice with the GCT 155mm article). This tag is provided by wikipedia to indicate articles currently under construction, and are not to be modified until the tag is removed. Please consult wikipedia policy before continuing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there thanks for the report. The next bot run from now on will ignore any pages that include the template. Thanks for the message. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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. X clamation point 18:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. X clamation point 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there. This section of the bot (Orphan tagging and un tagging) does not and has 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)[reply]

I can't quite parse the first two sentences of your reply, but I think I get it's gist and I don't like it; if such sentiment were uttered by a human editor, I'm sure it would be followed by counselling. As to your advice to take my question to the WikiProject Orphanage: why then does the link in your edit summaries point to this page? To the matter at hand: I've now added the template {{Surname}} to the article. I trust this will avoid future tagging as orphan. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i guess i was still slightly asleep. The Orphan bot has never taken notice of the no bots tag as there has not been a request and really there should be no need to ignore any articles. If the page has not been re tagged then i presume that the urmname tagged is ignored by the list. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

What you need to do is add links from other articles to this article. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I ADDED MORE REFERENCES. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE. THESE ARE RELIABLE REFERENCES. ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THAT THIS ARTICLE MEETS WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS, IF THESE CHANGES WON'T WORK, DELETE THE ARTICLE AND FORGET IT.

You need links coming in from other articles. You do not acctually need to change Liviu_Cangeopol at all. You need to change other pages to link to it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER MIND. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THANKS FOR HELP -

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for reporting your concern, better to be safe than sorry. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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! -down load \| sign! 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Make sure you all that !xclamationmark also [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there and sorry but at this point in time I do not really have any spare time. I would love to help so if you ever have any questions feel free to ask me here on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the RFA's i had no support what so ever :( Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Staffwaterboy Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Staffwaterboy_2

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was only 2 days after your first rfa ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true i was young and stupid then lol :) but the problem is getting support from other users.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you make friends :) dont self nom and make sure you can answer the basic questions and know as much as you can. Try to spread out over the areas of wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there. Yes per this page you can see that there are now two incomming article links, this does mean that the article is no longer orphaned so feel free to remove the orphan tag, if you dont remove it a bot will get around to it shortly. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, obento musubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, happy early birthday! obento musubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the reason I made your name small was for some people tthat view with smaller resolutions (1024*768). I check it every now and again and every persons name that appears on two or lines gets added small tags to keep it to one line. You are not the only peron this has happened to. Really it is just to keep the page looking nice, I suggest you make your name small again (or shorten it) as it will otherwis make the list look a bit tacky :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle (boxing)

Hi there, you put an orphan tag on The Battle (boxing). Well the article now links to three different articles, so I was hoping you can now remove the tags. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is very hard for editors to understand as the primary purpose appears to be recruiting editors to a WikiProject.

You should edit other appropriate articles and link them to this article. I did just that by adding links to this article in the See also section of Antonio Margarito and Miguel Cotto. Adding links to the The Battle (boxing) does not remove it from the orphanage. Only links to The Battle (boxing) will accomplish that. You should search Wikipedia and think about places where this article should be linked, then add them as appropriate. I also removed the orphan tag.--KP Botany (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for the links KP Botany. As far as I know the tag has had the link to the orphange remove, So is it such an advertisment now? Also a quick note, the bot hs run through all 0 link orphans so now you should see less tags appearing. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot 19

Heh. Right, so when you get approved for operation, I want to be second in the queue:

I want the following message delivered to high profile/active WikiProjects. I did some of them (~200) manually already, could the bot ignore those?

== Milestone Announcements ==

{{User:LivingBot/SignupTemplate}}

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks!  
- [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] <sup>([[User_talk:Jarry1250|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|c]])</sup>

That's assuming that the above falls within the scope of the bot, of course. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep if you give me a list of wikiproject links that you want to send it to i will do it. And I will just set the bot to ignore page that have {{User:LivingBot/SignupTemplate}} on them. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Savage Florida

The article Young Savage Florida does have more than three links. ----DanTD (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. For the ten zillionth time I am having to say the same thing, if you had read the edit notice at the top of the page as you were writing this message you would have recognized your error. An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere. You are thinking the links are in the article but they are not. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Young_Savage_Florida the article is an orphan with NO incomming links from articles. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)Florida, 2)Badfinger, 3)Neil Sedaka, 4)Elvis Presley, 5)Mopar. That's five right there. I can't take the blame for the redirection of Mike Gibbins to Badfinger. ----DanTD (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say again, An orphan article has less than 3 links from other articles (not to other articles). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Tag

Can I ask why you continue to add the orphan tag to the pages, some articles for example Rory Graves played only a few years in the NFL, and there is no article that mentions his name.--Yankees10 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the reason the bot keeps adding the tag is simply as it has no links fro other articles. If there is no article that mentions his name but there could be an article that mentions his name then maybe add some infomation, Or add a see also link to the bottem of a page that is related. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

De-orphaning criteria?

I am interested to know how an article gets "de-orphaned" like this. It had no articles linking to it before and it has none now. — AjaxSmack 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Disambiguation pages should not be tagged as orphans, As the bot has been improved it has noticed that this page has should not have been tagged and has removed it. I hope this makes sense :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had just added the {{disamb}} template to the article when the bot removed the orphan tag -- makes sense now. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Done ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned article - Marion Harding

Hi Add - have added more links to article and one back from new article. Is article to remain orphaned until another two links can be created back from other articles? If this is not possible does the tag remain permanently or is there a further process? ThanksErnstblumberg (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if the article has one incomming link you can probably deorphan it as i think they are the current criteria. The bots will also go around de tagging articles if it finds them. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For seeing the orphan tagging project through to completion despite bugs, mass confusion, and angry botanists. JaGa^talk 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your support through all this. BTW I took the / articles out of Untagged orphans. --JaGa^talk 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry botanists? How petty, give someone a barn star and then use it to make a nasty personal attack on another editor. Maybe it wasn't worth giving a barn star in the first place. --KP Botany (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaga :) How are the uncat pages coming along? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delay for new articles?

Could you please add a delay to the bot so it doesn't tag new articles? Say, give a new article three months or so before complaining that it's an orphan. Linking from all over the place to a very fresh article can be a bad thing, since it can take a while for an article to become refined enough to be worth linking to. Remember, complaint tags are annoying, so please post them only when there's a problem that really requires immediate attention (ahead of other problems). --Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan tag is not a complaint tag, it is a maintenance tag. I do not see any good reason for a delay as personally I would tag an article as orphan if I saw it in new pages and it fitted the criteria. The tag is just there as a point that can improve the article and its links. Wherever the problem is there will be a tag. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that: the amount of time the article has been around is really of no consequence. I guess what's bothering me is the nuisance/distraction/confusion created by putting the tag on the main page rather than the talk page. I think there is some discussion about this here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has also been a talk on Template talk:Orphan. I think the end result was it should stay where it is. Ill be happy to come and talk a look at the discussion, and anyway the bot has already tagged all the 0 link orphans and it not going to tag the 1 link orphans. It continues to remove probably around 500 tags a week (from what I have seen). The tagging of zero link orphans as far as I can tell should have no dispute if the location of the tag is agreed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Orpaned" Entry

Can you please tell me why you are marking my entry on Dan Hubbert as "orphaned"? I am not abandoning the entry, but rather working with some the record labels to get the information up online. All the sources are print media, such as FMQB and entertainment industry insider rags. Can you please take that tag off and any others that are no longer relevant because I am still working on it. Thank you, 76.90.103.71 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The tag does not show if someone is not working on the article. The tag is simply saying that now other articles are linking to the articles, We want to build a web of links on wikipedia and per Special:WhatLinksHere/Dan_Hubbert there are no incomming links from other articles. I hope you understand what the tag means now :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged uncats

Hi Addshore, here's the untagged uncategorized articles page: http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_uncats.php

And here's the caveats:

It lists redlink categories, but that seems to be OK.
Very rarely (twice so far), I've seen categorized articles in the list. It may be due to this bug or a variant.
Hidden categories are ignored.
Articles with a / in the title are ignored. (Figured I'd beat the rush. Transcluded articles aren't given a free pass this time, though.)
I would suggest doing a small portion (there's over 20,000 total) at first, just to make sure there aren't bugs.

Check it out, let me know what you think! --JaGa^talk 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I will probably do a trial of a few hundred articles. I will make the bot perform its own checks looking for cats as I dont think I would want it to tag articles that have red cats either, They can be done by humans. Where is the referesh link? :) Thanks lots and is there a posibility of doing a page for articles that are tagged but that have cats? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to give you the refresh. Here it is: http://toolserver.org/~jason/data/trigger_uncat_file.php

Shamrock Rovers players

Why are you adding orphan titles to Billy Dixon, Eamonn Darcy and Brian Tyrell when they already have 3 or more links. That is vandalism.

Secondly no offense but do you not find it a bit sad to be orphaning hundreds of pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The pages that you listed in your message above have not been edited by my bot or myself; one of the articles doesn't even exist. I do not find it "sad" orphaning the pages that my bot does as they are already orphaned just nobody knowns it. The tag is simply making the fact visable. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You orphaned Billy Dixon (footballer) and Eamonn Darcy (footballer). Turn off your bot then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.4.58 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Billy_Dixon_(footballer) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Eamonn_Darcy_(footballer) the two articles are orphans, If you read the tag it says "This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.". ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anf if you read the links you will see that they refer to the two players concerned. NOT orphans if they have 3 or more links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.4.58 (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow this link and this link you can clearly see there are no incoming links from the article(main) name space. The links in the orphan criteria are only links from articles not user pages and other name spaces. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substing user talk page templates

Howdy. When your bot made this edit I assume it was working on this task. Does that task cover only templates listed here, or are other templates covered by this task as well? The reason I ask is because the template substed in the diff above doesn't appear to be on the list.--Rockfang (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The list has moved to User:Addbot/Subst.css. No brfa is really needed for this as the task remains the same (substing user talk templates) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations

I have been writing stub-like articles on foreign relations between states, such as Holy See–Lebanon relations ; the articles will not always have links to them, and the Addbot should probably not add a tag on any article title that ends with relations. ADM (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]