User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

Deletion notice bot

Would you be able to program that deletion notice bot that I proposed? I know the bot request section is much backlogged right now, but it would be an important bot to have. Laber□^T 16:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: I do all my botwork in AWB, which is not well-suited to this task. Another botop will have to help with this. ~ Rob^Talk 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, do you know anyone who would probably do it? --Laber□^T 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laberkiste: Not off the top of my head. There are plenty of potential botops, but I can't think of any who have done very similar work in the past. In the short term, your goal should be to demonstrate consensus for this bot by creating a discussion at one of the village pumps or another appropriate location. No bot operator will be able to do anything until clear consensus for such a task is demonstrated. ~ Rob^Talk 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_that_reinstates_removed_deletion_notices. --Laber□^T 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ISBN message

I'm confused by the "automated" message you left on Talk:Phantoms in the Brain: what do you mean by "appropriate for the infobox"? And what do you mean by "concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists"? Whose concerns? The contributors to the RfC you cited were quite aware that changes on Wikidata don't appear on Wikipedia watchlists; am I to gather that all Wikidata-derived data will now be accompanied by a "concerned" talk page message? That seems inefficient at best, quixotic at worst, since Phase II is moving full-speed ahead. If you want to keep track of pages that use wikidata, maybe add a tracking category to the infobox templates. —swpb^T 23:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: No, that is not something I intend to repeat. There were very specific concerns related to books that editors have brought up at the talk page of {{Infobox book}}. In particular, there are some old books where the original edition had no ISBN (and should therefore have nothing in the infobox, according to past practices), but the ISBN for modern editions is available on Wikidata. Tracking categories exist, but some editors at the talk page considered that insufficient, so I quickly placed around 70 talk page messages in an attempt to address those concerns. ~ Rob^Talk 23:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. You might consider amending those messages to explain the particular issue of first editions lacking ISBNs, to avoid causing similar confusion for other editors about the purpose of the message. —swpb^T 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mastertone/Rington sales

Hi i would like to say that the ringtone for Sugar we're going down was certified Gold on June 16 2006, if you don't believe me you can go on the RIAA website, go to the gold and platinum page and when you get the search bar type in the artist box fall out boy and where it says type click on Mastertone it will show a gold mastertone certification. certification. and for Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" which also has a gold mastertone certification and a gold digital certification which on its page is not shown. could please put the ringtone certification for both sugar we're going down and for boulevard of broken dreams thanks. Also on the List of awards and nominations received by Green Day it doesn't show that green day won 2 "Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards" in 2005 and 2006 for fave music video and for international group if you could make those changes thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkg (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jwkg: I reverted your edit because you changed the sales number to an incorrect (or at the very least, unsourced) value. Please ensure that future edits introducing ringtone chartings are accompanied by a source. ~ Rob^Talk 00:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

kids choice awards australia

on the "List of awards and nominations received by Green Day" it does not show the winnings. the proof they won is on Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards and on Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkg (talk • contribs) 00:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jwkg: Have you edited Wikipedia before under another account, perhaps? Your interest in Green Day and pattern of editing reminds me of another editor. ~ Rob^Talk 01:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Old" peer review?

Regarding this edit by User:BU RoBOT: How is the age of a peer review defined? At what point does the bot decide to archive it? I have little experience with PRs, but I was under the impression that anyone asking for one needs to be prepared to wait a long time until a reviewer steps up to the task. There has been no discussion at all yet in the single month since this review was requested. It seems awfully premature to archive the request already. — Gorthian (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Based on the time period requested by members of the project, the time limit is currently set at 30 days. If you'd like to change the default time, I'd take it up on the project's talk page; it's technically trivial for me to change that. ~ Rob^Talk 04:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't even aware there was an official peer-review project, just assumed that the archived request I was reading was a subpage of the article. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: No worries. If you care to follow up on this, the talk page of the project (actually, it's not technically a project, but I digress) is at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. The regular participants may very well be receptive to extending the archiving time to 45 days. Their original plan was to archive articles after 15 days of no response and at least 30 days since creation, possibly longer. Unfortunately, there's no magic word to indicate creation time, so I can't easily separate the criteria out like that. ~ Rob^Talk 04:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I may or may not follow up on that in a few days. I'm too tired now to be clear-headed. Thanks for your encouragement.— Gorthian (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your assessment of Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?

Hi, and thank you for your uneasy work when making the assessment. Nevertheless, I claim that you made an error. I do agree with you that opinions of Nouriel Roubini and Eric Pozner can be called "scholarly", however, as the cited sources confirm, neither Eric Pozner, nor Nouriel Roubini actually claimed that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Eric Pozner, in fact, claimed that bitcoin is not a real Ponzi scheme in his article. Nouriel Roubini was miscited; his original Twitter post, on which two news articles based their claims, was that "bitcoin is a Ponzi game". Since there is no doubt that Nouriel Roubini knows the "Ponzi scheme" term, it is not hard to observe that when making his post, Nouriel Roubini wanted to make a distinction between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin. Thus, there are no scholarly claims stating that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, in fact, making such a theory WP:FRINGE. That holds, unless we misrepresent the available sources. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your message. Ponzi game and Ponzi scheme are equivalent terms; see here. The term "Ponzi game" emphasizes the connection to game theory and is generally preferred by economists. I could dig out the game theory textbook from one of my PhD courses to source the equivalence as well, if necessary. While Eric Posner's article later draws distinctions between a "regular" Ponzi scheme and Bitcoin, he starts with the provocative subtitle "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", which leaves little to the imagination. He later says that "More than anything else, it resembles a Ponzi scheme". Please note that my close did not say Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme but rather stated that the section should be kept. As I called for in my close, edits for neutrality are needed to ensure that the section matches what the sources actually say. For instance, I just made a small edit here to that effect. ~ Rob^Talk 08:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thank you for the additional explanation and edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in knowing that the edit you made was reverted. To discuss it, I added a talk section here: Talk:Bitcoin#Edits against the consensus established by the RfC Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Ladislav Mecir: Yes, I replied there a couple minutes before you posted here. ~ Rob^Talk 06:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Email

I replied. It's a clunky old Yahoo account, so check Junk and Clutter folders if you still haven't received it. BrineStans (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. BrineStans (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Marcus Adams (Canadian football)

On 17 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcus Adams (Canadian football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football player Marcus Adams left the Rough Riders to join the Roughriders? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Adams (Canadian football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marcus Adams (Canadian football)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Please be very mindful of WP:BLP. The "source" is a op/ed piece slamming Trump because it's in fashion. "Wee! Trump's a big jerk! Let's shame him!" Yawn. It's not encyclopedic at all to use sources like that. Even it it's lots of fun to read. Doc talk 07:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Coverage by major newspapers is not a BLP violation. It's well-sourced. BLP specifically applies to "unsourced or poorly sourced" contentious material. ~ Rob^Talk 08:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Both "sources" are op-ed pieces. They are not news articles. Doc talk 08:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: That's false on the face of it. The Washington Post article was in their Politics section, not an editorial section. The author is a senior editor and journalist, not an opinion writer. The New Yorker article is written by John Cassidy, a staff writer who writes a column for their politics section. Again, does not write opinion pieces. I've provided many other links to non-editorial stories on the talk page, which is the appropriate place to continue this discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem. They are all opinion pieces. The use of "I've" in the Cassidy article gives that away. Fluff. No respectable news item goes into the first person, ever. Or an encyclopedia. You got some sources to show fleeting notability for this, but the sources all suck pretty bad if we want a decent article. Unbiased as much as possible, as well. Hah! Doc talk 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tony Akins (Canadian football)

On 18 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tony Akins (Canadian football), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian football player Tony Akins returned two punts exactly 65 yards for touchdowns in 2000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Akins (Canadian football). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tony Akins (Canadian football)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Collaborate

I'd be willing to collaborate on Jerry Rice if you do start working on it. On a personal interest note, I'd also appreciate if you could look at Ron Estay. I know relatively little about the Maple Syrup Football League, but it looks like he was a pretty significant contributor. Plus I think it's pretty cool that someone from my hometown is in the Canadian Football HOF. Lizard (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Lizard the Wizard: Estay would be able to reach GA status if someone found the appropriate sources. Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to access sources that old from regional and national newspapers in Canada. For instance, LexisNexis Academic (where I get most periodicals for recent CFL biographies) only goes back to 1990 or so for regional papers. It's part of an unfortunate systemic bias toward modern article subjects. It's possible sources could be found, but it would be a bit tricky to find those. A six-time Grey Cup champion is of high or top importance, and Canadian Football HOF is certainly top importance. I'll get to him eventually. I found a source recently that has stats tables for literally every CFL player from 1946 to 2012, and I'm using it (and various academic databases) to expand our coverage of CFL players.

As for Rice, I plan to work on that over the summer. Probably in mid-June or so, since I'm traveling a bit in early June and need some time off after graduation (yay!). ~ Rob^Talk 06:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ditto to both. I graduated from Nicholls State last week and I'll be going to Disney World at the beginning of June. I really wish there were more active participants on WP:NFL, at least for discussions. Did you see I recently purged the member list? Over half the users who were on the list hadn't edited Wikipedia at all in the last two years. Some of them hadn't edited since the Bush administration. And I used a very lenient grace period for "inactivity." I realistically could have shaved off about 50 more. But anyway, if we can get those 3 articles to GA by January it'd be a nice starting point for upping our biography standards. Lizard (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: The state of WP:CFL is even worse. I think I'm the only editor actively working on new content. There are 2-3 other editors doing gnomish tasks and maybe one other editor occasionally working on content, but no-one is improving what content we have. There are stubs on current players who have been starters for 3+ years. That's pretty bad. I'm more a contributor there than at NFL, since I see it as an area with very high need. ~ Rob^Talk 07:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That may have something to do with there being more moose than people in Canada. And how hockey is to Canadians as football is to Americans. Maybe I'll start using AWB to simplify my life, so I can focus on other areas of need. I haven't a single automated edit to my name though, so it would kinda hurt my pride. (P.S. I've got your talk page watched) Lizard (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It's a habit to ping everyone. Canadian football is still a large sport worthy of coverage. NFL games average around 20 million viewers in the regular season, while CFL games average 600,000. Adjusted for population, the NFL is only 3.6 times more popular per capita than the CFL, which is a surprisingly low number. I'm currently using AWB to fix all the stupid hyphens in infoboxes, and it's definitely better in my opinion to get the gnomish tasks out of the way so I can focus on the real deal - content creation. ~ Rob^Talk 07:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand, but have an old Edmonton Eskimos shirt when I feel like being an outcast. Cake (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very bizarre play, and not at all typical of Canadian football. Canadian football has an extra method of scoring called a "single", where a team gets one point for either kicking the ball out of the endzone entirely or kicking the ball into the endzone if the other team doesn't return it. In American football, if you kick a field goal wide and it misses, you get nothing. In Canadian football, it usually results in a single. Singles are usually bad, since they're usually the result of missed field goals. In this case, the kicking team needed only one point to win outright, so a single is a perfectly good scenario for them.

Additionally, Canadian football has a bizarre rule where you can punt at any time. In this situation, when the receiving team received the ball in the endzone, they would have given up a single and lost the game if they had been downed in the endzone. The only remaining option was to punt it away, which they did. The original kicking team (now the receiving team!) received the ball and could have either chosen to return it (low probability of ending in a scoring play) or kicked it (could result in a single). They kicked it. The original receiving team made a last-ditch effort to kick the ball out of the endzone, but they didn't make it out. The original kicking team grabbed the ball off the ground in the endzone, resulting in a touchdown.

Absurd play, and hardly the norm for the sport. The only situation where this would ever happen is on the last play of a tied game where one team is within field goal distance. ~ Rob^Talk 14:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. A field goal missed wide and going into the stands gets a point? What a country. I guess it's like a "behind" in Australian football. In American football terms, it looks like an old onside kick from scrimmage (like a quick kick) mixed with a safety. That Alouettes kicker ruined my favorite season of my favorite college team, so of course he is there on that play. Cake (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't we get that guy on Russel Wilson for WP:3RR? Not too familiar with the rule but I'm not sure how he wouldn't qualify. Lizard (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot Task 16

You recent bot task request has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Significance RfC

Thanks for closing. I've had it on my conscience that it was still open so many weeks later. Given that most votes, either way, came with a "but", succinctly summarised. for (;;) (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@For (;;): You're welcome. Most people were talking past each other in that RfC. I don't think there was much actual disagreement. ~ Rob^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot Task 15

Hello BU Rob13, your Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 15 task has been approved with conditions - please see the request page for details. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not so fast on the primarytopic grab

I have taken issue with your close and action re Paisley. The RFC does not really restablish consensus for a new primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: The discussion went on for a month and was unanimous. I see no reason to re-evaluate my close. If you have a specific question about how I assessed consensus or would like to follow the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you're welcome to do so, but it doesn't get more obvious than no opposition over a month with four editors agreeing on the change. ~ Rob^Talk 22:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You missed the "or dab" bit. This was not a legitimate venue for a new primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not. A single editor stated he or she was indifferent toward a disambiguation page or primary topic. Three editors stated they believed primary topic was the appropriate outcome. That is clear consensus, with zero editors disagreeing with the outcome of primary topic. The talk page of one of the pages being considered for a move is the standard venue for a move discussion. It should have been a requested move rather than an RfC, but per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, a venue concern on the basis of the header put on the talk page section is a bit silly. This is not a legal arena where an uncrossed T requires a refiling. ~ Rob^Talk 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually only one person mentioned primary topic, saying "It seems clear that the primary topic is the design not the town in Scotland" in apparent ignorance of the possibility that there are a bunch of other articles that matter. A previous section entitled Primary Topic on that talk page makes it clear that no topic has a majority of the traffic. And the thing about an RM is not just a heading, it's a central notification to people who know and care about such things. Anyway, thanks for re-opening it. It looks like it's getting a fair amount of opposition to the primarytopic grab, as I would expect. Hopefully the previous respondents will come back and say what they think now that the right question has been raised. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And the point of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is that we should try to get a good or best outcome, not just follow a silly vote on a silly question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Doon Consulting

I have lack of independent references to support my article. Although, I have mentioned a few. If you could guide me what to do in the same.