User talk:Rick Block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archives: 20112010200920082007200620052004


MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Rick Block,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Union of Ibero-American Capital Cities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PrefectureTOC[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:PrefectureTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If I deleted a talk article on the Denver page it was an accident, sorry

Denver talk page[edit]

If I deleted an article on the Denver talk page it was an accident, sorry

-Hogs555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talkcontribs) 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it, so no harm done. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Denver Climate[edit]

See my post on the "Climate Fairness" Section of the Denver talk page. I am trying as best I can to keep the article to the point, factual, sourced, and not editorialized. I could really use some help from others in this respect. The edits that keep coming through are full of commentary and unsourced conjecture.

Strongbad1982 (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Obviously wikipedia is too political and opinionative to waste anymore of my time on. Whatever, have a great day. --Hogs555 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Rick Block. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI[edit] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls[edit]

Hi Rick Block. Here goes something wrong, I think (after user Negrojimenes). Perhaps you might want to have a look at it? Thanks! Regards, Trijnsteltalk 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. There's apparently a mediawiki parser size limit that's being exceeded. I'm not sure if there's a reasonable fix, but I'll try to figure something out. Actually unrelated, but the number of members in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls has been considerably reduced (currently 69???) since the userboxes no longer include whoever is using them into the category. I'm pursuing why this change was made as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls[edit]

Hi - I run a bot that periodically updates Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls based on the members of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. It apparently hasn't been working for a while. It's not exactly related to the bot's issue, but looking into this I noticed these two edits [1] [2], which basically removed everyone using either of the two userboxes from the category. Can you tell me why this was done? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rick, long time : )
I was attempting to clean up Category:Admin user templates which was a mess. (Templates with vague or misleading names, etc.) As a result, one of the things I eventually did was create Category:Not an admin user templates to try to bring some clarity. If you take a look at the entries in the latter you may find a BUNCH of "hopeful-style" userboxes. However, in looking over each userbox, I wasn't exactly sure on some of them whether they actually want to be nominated for adminship. (And some were clearly copies of a hopeful template where they left the category inclusion in place, but changed the text in the userbox).
So anyway, to try to make it easier find all the various userboxes, I removed the category from all userboxes I found, and kept waiting for the category to shrink (category updating can be slow at times : )
Just now I went through and clicked on a random few and it looks like those that are left are just trancluded userboxes or self-added categories.
I was considering nominating the "hopeful" category for deletion, (after going through all the userboxes and such, I have doubts as to whether it's used much for the intended purpose of actually finding such hopefuls), but if it's serving a purpose populating the list by bot (filtered by various criteria), then I suppose I could see that value.
I hope this helps explain what I was doing. In the meantime, of course feel free to re-add the category to any userbox that you think is appropriate at your discretion.
And incidentally, I think that all the various "hopeful" userboxes should probably be merged. But not incredibly concerned about it atm : )
If you have any other thoughts/concerns on this (or whatever else), please feel free to drop me a note.
Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Howdy Rick. I've chatted with jc37 here and I'm considering putting the category back in the template. What are your thoughts regarding this?--Rockfang (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying.--Rockfang (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble replies[edit]

Hi Rick. I have finally replied (in part, at length) to your inquiry on my talk page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have also replied to your subsequent inquiry there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:1906 Summer Olympics[edit]

Category:1906 Summer Olympics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

MHP Bayes[edit]

Rick, I don't understand, and cannot find arguments on the talk page, why you moved the solution with Bayes away from the start of the article. Nijdam (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It was in response to a discussion with Gerhard, this thread. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Gerhard, and perhaps also Martin, just like to get rid of this formal approach. However the section only describes in formal terms the solution that was directly above it. Actually I've given up discussing with Gerhard, he's friendly, but a nitwit if it comes to probability. Do you have any objection if I undo your move? Nijdam (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How about if you bring it up on the talk page? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Combine FAs for WBFAN[edit]

Hi. I had about 17 FAs when I was Rlevse. I now edit as PumpkinSky. I was wondering if the FAs could be combined all as PumpkinSky for WBFAN purposes. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Just edit the by-year summary lists, e.g. WP:FA2012, and change Rlevse to PumpkinSky. The bot recreates the WBFAN page from these summary lists (from scratch) every time it runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That's very kind. If you remember, could you post a note here or on my talk page when you're done? No rush. PumpkinSky talk 10:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I was sort of suggesting you do it yourself - but I just did it for you. It will be reflected in WBFAN tomorrow. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry dumb me didn't pick up on that, and many thanks, I do appreciate it. I see the FLs are done similarly. I'll do them myself. PumpkinSky talk 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rick Block. You have new messages at User:Sunray/Discussion of Monty Hall RfC.
Message added 08:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Counting GAs[edit]


can your bot do the same with GAs, as suggested here? Regards.--GoPTCN 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg dutiful bots and personal advice
Thank you for keeping "the place running" by your bots who serve daily. and for helping editors, for example the author and photographer of the gem to connect to his past achievements, - in other words: you are an awesome Wikipedian, - to quote you: "see what kind of mood you're in"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 162nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, hope that finds you in a good mood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Email address[edit]

Hi Rick, I send you an email, using the last address you used to reach me, but it was returned. Did you change your address? Mine is still the same. Nijdam (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(Proposed) Request For Comments: "Simple" vs. "Conditional" solutions to the Monty Hall Problem[edit]

(Posted to Martin and Rick's talk page) Please check the RfC below for errors and suggest changes as needed. I did some minor copyediting for clarity, so let me know if you think the old version was better. In particular, look at my solution to the question of the yellow highlighted sections, and double check to see that I started with the correct version. If you wish, I can preload your comments before posting the RfC. -Guy M.

1) There's an obvious typo near the end "Considering all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do should tye Montey hallProblem page be edited according to Proposal 1, Proposal 2, or neither?" 2) You've changed the Proposal 2 wording (they were parallel constructs, "Proposal 1 is for the initial sections ..." and "Proposal 2 is for the article ..."). 3) Without the date following the first paragraph, my understanding is the rfcbot will include the entire text at WP:RFC/SCI.
Depending on when you might go live with this, I might like you to preload my comments (see below). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ningauble's comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

Hi Rick. I realize that my remarks at Talk:Monty Hall problem#Comments from Ningauble might seem a bit harsh. Spending several years at Wikiquote has made me a little hypersensitive about the problem of taking things out of context or over-interpreting what sources say. I know that this can happen unintentionally, and I have to consciously strive to avoid doing it myself. I encourage you to do the same.

This is not to say the observations in these sources are completely useless (except Grinstead & Snell). For example, I think we both agree that Morgan et al. (1991) is an important source, but we have different perspectives on what is significant about it. Notwithstanding their strident criticism of vos Savant's solution to the question as she stated it, in my opinion its real significance for the history of MHP lies in influencing the evolution of the statement of the question away from what they call the "vos Savant scenario" toward the now widespread so-called "standard" problem. It might be OR to ascribe that influence explicitly, but the paper is so widely cited that we can certainly use it as a prominent example that clearly shows the "vos Savant scenario" can be interpreted in a (frequentist) manner that does not permit a closed-form solution for the probability of winning. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was taken aback by your comments, which do seem quite harsh. I have been thinking about responding, but don't have space within the 500 word limit for a reasonable rebuttal. Suffice it to say that I completely disagree that I'm taking anything out of context or over interpreting. I'm traveling on business and don't have the sources conveniently available at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that (for example) your accounting of Morgan's rejoinder actually exemplifies the problem you're accusing me of but in the reverse direction.
I assume you understand the difference between
  1. P(winning by switching)
  2. P(winning by switching|player picks door 1)
  3. P(winning by switching|player picks door 1 AND host opens door 3)
and that the sources critical of "simple" solutions are fundamentally criticizing them for addressing #1 or #2, rather than #3. This is much the same point Boris made in response to my question to him on the talk page about this (are "simple" solutions sufficient without any mention of symmetry? "In no way!"). Curiously, Boris claims to support proposal 1. Quite honestly, I can't figure out how anyone who both understands the math and Wikipedia policies (which I think may be a vanishingly small subset of folks responding to the RFC, but I think does include you) doesn't see proposal 1 as anything other than naked POV pushing. Believe it or not, I have tried very hard (and have clearly failed) for at least the past two years to keep the discussions about this focused on sources rather than individuals opinions about the problem. Hardly anyone seems to be willing to talk about anything other than their own opinion, and specifically unwilling to seriously talk about what the sources say and how we should appropriately weigh the various POVs they express. I find it perplexing that essentially no one is willing to approach this as a POV issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I do recognize that you have tried valiantly for more than two years to keep the article and the discussions grounded in citable sources; and I respect that you were willing to change your mind about whether conditional probability was even relevant when the Morgan et al. source was put forward. Please don't take the strong words of my rebuttal to mean I doubt your intelligence or integrity. However, it seems to me that you have seized on a mathematical concept that arose in one context (unknown host behavior, allowing for such possibilities as, e.g., slipping on a banana peel) and construed it as applying more broadly in a different context (randomized host behavior with strict constraints), and are overlooking the context and substance of the criticisms you cite.

In weighting the POV that the sources express, we must accurately represent that view, with diligent attention to the point they are addressing. I hope that when you get a chance you will review the sources again in light of my observations in the RfC.

In light of those observations, I think the "Criticism of the simple solutions" section of the article should be completely rewritten and recast as (a) explaining the importance of the difference between the "vos Savant scenario" and the "standard version", and (b) pointing out the versatility of conditional probability analysis. I wanted to rewrite the section myself some time ago, but the contentious environment around this article dissuaded me from even bringing it up. Unfortunately, it does not look like the RfC is going bring peace. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree the "criticism of the simple solutions" section is very bad (I don't think I had much to do with it). How this criticism is represented in the article is really not of much concern to me. What is of concern is the notion that the "Solution" section can be written to include nothing but "simple" solutions, omitting even the most approachable of conditional solutions (like the one in the "Decision tree" section) - meaning Wikipedia's editorial position is that THE SOLUTION to the MHP is to ignore the door 1/door 3 example mentioned in the typical problem statement, and effectively move the point of the player's decision from after the host opens a door to before the host opens a door. Indeed many sources do just this. But many other sources do not, and a not insignificant number complain about sources that do. Please read proposal 2 again. The suggestion is not to include the criticism of simple solutions early in the article, but to remain editorially neutral about them by presenting both simple and conditional solutions (as equally vaild approaches - no criticism). The criticism is one of the reasons to carefully preserve a neutral stance, but the criticism itself would not be presented until much later in the article (this is common to both proposals). Again, how anyone who understands both the math and Wikipedia policies can imagine proposal 1 is NPOV completely escapes me. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

List of administrators activity[edit]

Would you consider having Rick Bot change the definition of active on WP:LA from thirty or more edits in two months to thirty or more edits in a month? I have a feeling with the little amount of activity amongst administrators now that fifteen edits a month is considered active anymore. Actually, changing it to fifty edits in a month would reflect better accuracy, but I think thirty in one month is probably going to make enough of a difference for now. Regards, — Moe ε 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a discussion about this someplace? It's been the way it is for a pretty long time. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Stemming from a conversation at WT:RFA, thirty in two months is kind of inaccurate. It might also be helpful to include logs into the equation somehow since the number of edits doesn't entirely mean they are inactive. Regards, — Moe ε 23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying no - but lets see where the discussion goes. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't consider someone “active” if they're not making 30 edits a day. This need to move in that direction. FWIW, there are regular mentions of this at ANI; recently/currently, I believe. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going for a halving of the long-time definition, rather than turning it into a fraction. 30 edits in a day is a bit much to request, considering I'm on here daily, sometimes for hours at a time, and sometimes I don't make thirty edits. It doesn't meant that I can't make more, but simply that someone even half as active as me is going to be hard-pressed to make that many edits just to be considered active. Like I said, 30-50 a month is about a more updated revision that would reflect more accurately where we are at. 30 edits a day or more would just report the very active, not the active. Regards, — Moe ε 00:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

bot is confused[edit]

Hi. I've reverted the bot's last edit. It seems confused about the status of many FAs, having de-listed many that are still @FA status. Gough Whitlam, Vampire, and Evolution, for example. No doubt there were correct bits in there, but something has sent it amok. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't be able to fix this for a few days during which time the bot is on its own. If it happens again please feel free to revert. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries; I've got it watched. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

List of administrator hopefuls[edit]

I'm going through and removing the indefblocked users since the page is broken; is the bot going to revert me, or should it be okay? --Rschen7754 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The bot will almost certainly revert you. I'm traveling and won't have a chance to make any changes to the bot for a few weeks. If you'd like you could protect the page so the bot won't be able to change it. -- Rick Block (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, and feel free to undo once you're back. --Rschen7754 10:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have another suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page listing potential candidates for adminship. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot now ignores indef blocked users and uses . I've unprotected the page. Next update from the bot should be in a few hours. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I re-added a simulator link to Monty Hall page[edit]


You removed an edit I made a few weeks ago. I posted a link to an interactive simulator that I created over a decade ago which is useful for those struggling with the problem. I have looked at the other simulators and I don't see why anyone would see the NYT version as equal, let alone providing an experience superior to the one I my simulator offers. What mine does is allow people to quickly go through a bunch of Monty Hall problem like games in real time while stats are kept for them. 100 games. They can switch or stay or change for every round. No waiting for the next game to load, since all 100 are loaded and visible at the onset.

I am currently in a Model Thinking class on where more than a few people did not get the logic that is obvious to you and me. Graphs mean nothing. If you have known this problem a long time then you know what I mean. They have to smash their heads against something that doesn't allow them to hold onto their erroneous constructs. And it has to be accessible enough to keep them engaged.

According to my calculations, if you run through the problem for 100 games, there is a 95% chance you will wind up with more than 57 wins if you switch every time. And a 99.7% chance that you will get 53 or more out of 100. But with 10 games, there is a about 32% chance that you will get 5 or less wins by switching every time. That is based on my recent learning of standard deviations, so you can correct me if I am incorrect here. If it is correct, that means that if someone goes the NYT version for 10 tries (I found it to be very slow), they may well find it is 50/50, based on their limited experience and be burned out from the transaction time. Simply put, the feedback from my simulation is much faster with no waiting.

Anyway, if you are going to remove a simulator link, I certainly don't think it should be the one I posted.

Reid Reidme (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2012[edit]

The bot seems to have missed several articles. I added Hiram Wesley Evans myself, but others (like Peter Warlock and Percy Chapman) were not added either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The most recent run of the bot seems to have removed a few of these as well. Some of them appear to be causing problems due to being jointly-nominated articles; is there a certain manner that the nomination needs to be parsed for the bot to catch it? GRAPPLE X 14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there's a caching issue of some kind. The update adding these entries (e.g. [9]), is subsequently undone (e.g. [10]). The second update is updating the mainpage appearance dates (done separately from adding new entries), which it does by reading the current version of the page (should be the version just written), updating the dates, and then writing this version back. This read is apparently returning the previous version, not the current version. Any caching is happening on the wikipedia side of this (the bot is not using an interface that could conceivably be returning a cached copy). Writing a new version of a page is supposed to purge Wikipedia's caches - my guess is that this second read is occurring before the purge completes (probably due to some recent change to the mediawiki software). I'll add a small delay and see if this helps. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The position at the moment is that eighteen promotions since 16th October are unlisted at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2012, and have not therefore been added to WP:WBFAN. The edit histories indicate that the bot has been active, but it seems to be cancelling its own efforts. Is there any reason why the missing October items shouldn't be added by hand, per Crisco above? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I made a change yesterday that I thought would help (didn't seem to). I've manually reverted to the version with the additions. I'll increase the delay between the write and the read and see if this helps. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The list is up to date now. Will the bot automatically update WP:WBFAN? (I need this for some statistical work I'm doing). If not, I don't mind doing the updates manually, to save you time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Stumbled across this; it's still not up to date, actually. At the very least, Percy Chapman and Betelgeuse are still missing, and maybe others. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right, these two plus Istanbul were omitted. I have added them. If the bot or Rick doesn't do it first, I'll update WP:WBFAN tomorrow or Sunday. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The bot will update WBFAN. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
And has. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on the close.[edit]

An explanation of your comments is welcome on the article's talk page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls and Rick Bot[edit]

Apparently that page has been protected from editing because the bot is malfunctioning. Would you please look and see what the issue is? Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is adding a new feature to the bot (avoiding indefinitely blocked users). Should be done soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime, if you give me the table row you want to add I can just add it in the meantime. --Rschen7754 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Bot will update the page soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, the page has been unprotected and the bot is working again. Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My name[edit]


could your bot merge my old name, GreatOrangePumpkin, with the current one, Tomcat7, in list such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is to just change the name in the by-year summary lists (e.g. WP:FA2012). You can do this yourself if you want - or if you'd prefer I could do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you do that please? Thanks. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Done (see [11] [12]). WBFAN and WBFLN will be updated the next time the bot runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

bot issue[edit]

This edit removed legitimate admins including one ArbCom member.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The bot seems to think they're only semi-active [13], which looks right [14], [15], [16], [17]. [18]. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense now. Thank you for explaining and sorry for the false alarm. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Soooo, it's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested in running for Arbcom? : ) - jc37 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not this time. Real life is keeping my pretty busy. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Nod, understood. Thanks for thinking about it : ) - jc37 02:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The bot and WP:FA2012 (etc)[edit]

Hello, a couple of questions / comments for you if I may. (1) Does your bot still add main page appearance dates to WP:FA2012, [[WP:FA2011] etc? I can spot several on the 2012 page alone that have appeared recently but have not been marked as such: HMS New Zealand (1911), Charles Villiers Stanford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark to name but three. (2) The main page appearance dates are in wikilinked format, which hasn't been the way that things are done for some time; I don't know if this is still how the bot adds dates, but if so, would it be possible to change this? And if the dates are manually reset to non-wikilinked format, will the bot accept or revert this? (3) Your bot is fighting with GimmeBot about the new name of this featured artice; GimmeBot correctly updated the link to avoid pointing at a dab page, but your bot didn't like it... Thanks, BencherliteTalk 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, the bot still adds (it least, it's suppose to add) main page appearance dates. 2) The bot uses wikilinked dates, which can be changed (in the bot). I wouldn't be surprised if the bot undoes a manual reset to non-wikilinked format (but don't know for sure offhand - I'll check). 3) The bot doesn't keep up with name changes as well as GimmeBot - I'll look into this as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The bot should update all the dates to non-wikilinked format the next time it runs. Updates haven't been working since November 1st when somebody changed the format used in the TFA blurbs - I've updated the bot accordingly. Not sure what's up with the GimmeBot tussle - as far as I can tell the bot shouldn't override any changes GimmeBot makes. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's still doing it. So now my wife is asking why I'm laughing so hard and, to be honest, I'm not sure how I can get her to understand the idea of blocking a bot for 3RR (drawn in a 300 style). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    I looked harder and found a bug - it should be fixed now. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    Fingers crossed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

confused about admin list[edit]


Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O#G doesn't list User:Gimmetrow who apparently is an admin? NE Ent 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a filtered list. It only includes admins who have (I think) 30 edits in 2 months from their admin account. See Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Semi-active. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. NE Ent 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured picture contribution[edit]

Hi Rick Block.

Not sure if you remember this page, but it hasn't been updated in years and I wasn't sure if you had forgotten about it or just didn't have the time to update it regularly. If you could clarify that would be great, so that if need be I can mark the darned thing as an archive or the like. Thanks. ceranthor 02:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's one of several things I mean to get back to eventually - the intent is that this will be maintained by my bot. Creating the necessary by-year summary lists (like WP:FP2006) turned out to be a massive job. I completed 2004, 2005, and 2006 through April, but haven't completed these (and apparently haven't worked on them since 2009 - how time flies). As I recollect, I solicited help at WT:FPC, but no help was forthcoming. If you'd like, we could move the WP:WBFPC page to my userspace until the by-year summary lists are complete (which, at the current pace, will be never), or mark the page indicating that it is based on contributions through April of 2006. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations[edit]

Could someone please tweak so that "Schrodinger's cat is alive" is now relisted as "SchroCat" and also lists ther John Le Mesurier FA? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to find your FAs at WP:FA2012 etc and change your username (I've already done the John Le Mesurier one for you at WP:FA2013, then the next time the bot runs it will regenerate WP:WBFAN with your new username. See User talk:Rick Block#Combine FAs for WBFAN for Rick's comments to another user after his name change. BencherliteTalk 14:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Great - many thanks for that and I've tweaked accordingly already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Rick Block. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

-- SamuelWantman 08:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


In the nest of articles about Tokyo, I hope it is clear that my goal is to be a follower, not a leader. --Ansei (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review Tokyo (disambiguation). --Ansei (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Three cups versus three doors[edit]

I had hoped that comparing methodical / systematic / principled approaches to modelling the three cups problem and the three doors problem would bring out a difference between the two problems. In the three doors problem one can *deduce* that the door identities are irrelevant and hence that the three doors problem can be solved by solving the more simple three cups problem. However, a clever person like Marilyn vos Savant - used to solving problems by genial flash of insight rather than by a plodding systematic analysis - did not see any difference at all, and nor do people who think like her. There is no way any of the "regulars" on the Monty Hall talk pages is ever going to change their ways of thinking. Probably better to quit being active there for a few years and hope for some new blood.

I do think the article is much improved now though still needs a lot of polishing and trimming and sourcing. The dull kind of work which converts a rag-bag of contributions of different people into one coherent article. Richard Gill (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cook's list[edit]

Hi, List of international cricket centuries by Alastair Cook was promoted to FL status on February 25. I don't know why Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations and Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2013 show this as a former featured list. I made the corrections twice but you you reverted them. Hope you'll have a look into the matter. Regards, Zia Khan 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was accidentally dropped from WP:FL by this edit. Since it didn't show up in WP:FL or WP:FFL the bot didn't quite know what to think (it's best guess was "former"). I've re-added it. The bot should fix the lists the next time it runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Active/Semi-active/Inactive administrators on[edit]

Hello, Rick! I am an administrator on and I noticed your bot updates the lists at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Some users on would be interested in having such a list for admins. Can you configure your bot to update an equivalent list on Thanks, Razvan Socol (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a little resource intensive (fetches a contribution list individually for a fairly large number of admins every time it runs), so I'd rather not expand it to other wikis. But I'd be happy to help someone else get it running. If there's a local botmaster who might be interested let me know. The source files (not absolutely sure they're the most current versions) are already posted at User:Rick Bot/scripts. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
We only have 23 admins at, so I don't think it should be any problem for this wiki. If it is a problem, we would be happy to have an update only once every week (or even once a month). We don't have any local bot running automatically (as far as I know), so even if we find a person which is competent enough in Python scripts, I'm not sure he would have a machine available to schedule the job. Razvan Socol (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of what it does doesn't require being a bot - i.e. it fetches the current list of admins and contrib lists using wget (or curl), and then figures out what the page content should look like for the active, semi-active, and inactive lists using various Unix/Linux commands (mostly awk). Anyone running a Mac or Linux machine with basic familiarity of Unix shell commands (no Python required) could run it on demand and manually post the content (I run it as a scheduled job on a Mac). The getadminactivity script is the only piece that would be needed. I assume it would need language updates, since it currently expects the pages it fetches to be in English. Also, the split of active admins into A-F, G-O, P-Z wouldn't be necessary. I would much rather help someone else get this running than run it myself. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Another option might be to see if anyone running a toolserver account would be willing to turn it into a toolserver tool. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rick Bot[edit]

Rick Bot appears to be down, is there a chance of this being fixed soon? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Should be better now, but some pretty big changes were required. Please let me know if you notice any issues. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I still see my name on the lower section of the hopeful admin page even though I've made well over 30 edits in the past couple days even. Maybe the criteria the bot is looking for works differently than I'm expecting? cliffsteinman -- Discuss 19:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The bot only updates the page twice a week (early Sunday and Wednesday mornings, US time). The last update was this past Wednesday Oct 2, at which point you hadn't been very active in the prior 30 days. It should move you to the upper section tomorrow morning. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As expected - see [19]. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

About my post from years ago[edit]

Hello Rick. About my post from years ago: of Mergers and Dissolutions of Municipalities of Japan: Re-Verification, what I was trying to say if there were any info related with some mergers and dissolutions of certain municipalities of Japan between April 1999 and April 2005. And however, I couldn't even find anything specific related with those. Hope this helps. If not, feel free to message me back. jlog3000 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - Are you asking if there's info related to mergers and dissolutions that occurred between 1999 and 2005? The sources I was using for the updates I was doing were the Japanese Wikipedia and I don't know if they have information for the time period you're asking about. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. And yes. Anyways, I'll go try out your suggestion to figure it out myself. Because as far as I know, 1999 was the beginning of the Great Heisei Merger Consolidation Era, if I remember correctly. But about you using the Japanese Wikipedia, did you use a translation machine or something? jlog3000 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes - Google translate is good enough to get a general idea. Nearly all villages/towns/cities have their own home page as well, frequently with an English version. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
True. Oh, I did found this link However, there wasn't an English version of that page, otherwise it would be more simple. Oh, I even tried Google-translation, but still it shows the results in its original Japanese version. Any other ideas or advice? jlog3000 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The query results from the link you found (Japanese Geographic Data Center) are done in a way that Google translate doesn't seem able to understand. The result page is actually text, so one possibility is copy and paste the result page into a separate Google translate window. You lose the formatting doing it this way, but the results seem to be fairly comprehensible. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of administrators[edit]

I was just looking at WP:LA and tested having the list of active administrators on one page again and there was no transclusion problem like in the past because there is so little admins considered active. It would probably be safe to merge the A-F, G-O, P-Z pages into one again and have one solitary list. In fact, listing all the active administrators on the main WP:LA page might be beneficial with it being so small right now. If it ever grows back to the size it once was, we could split it back up again. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more likely the use of {{user3}} vs. {{admin}} or a change to the transclusion limits in the mediawiki software than the number of admins, but as long as it fits on one page it's a reasonable idea to remerge. Before doing this I might figure out exactly how many fit on one page to make sure it's comfortably more (>50%?) than the current number. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I ran a few test edits without saving and it appears user3 can transclude over 2,500 times without maxing out, which is well over the total number of current number of administrators, including semi-active and inactive. Maybe all of it on one page now is a possibility. (Addendum) It appears the limit is 3,336 with user3. One idea I had was a table with admins with user3 in one column and their status (active, semi-active, inactive) in the other column and it be sortable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Rick Bot appears to be down again by the way, hopefully this can be resolved soon. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't stay logged in like it used to. Something has clearly changed (in either pywikipediabot or the mediawiki software) but I don't know what. The temporary fix is to run it manually after the login expires. I'm looking for a more permanent solution. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Confused About Photo Permissions and San Francisco Library Offer of Photo Use[edit]

It's been a while since you introduced yourself, but I have a complicated question on Photographs for Submission, and thought that you would be a good starting point. If my question is beyond your knowledge base, could you possibly refer me to someone who can answer the question and give guidance about the procedure? I tried to read Wiki's page on permissions for photographs but left confused. I will soon to create a new article which will involve a historic event which took place in San Francisco near the start of the 20th century. San Francisco's library has a large stock of digitized historic photos, and I thought that it would be great if I could include a few of them in the article. Can you please give me your take on what I need to in getting this to happen for my article?

When I emailed the Photo Curator at the San Francisco Public Library with my desire to include some of there digitized photos, this was her response.

You may use images for the Wikipedia article. Please email me a filled out Permission to Publish form listing out the image(s) and the article title. The use fee noted on the form will be waived. You’ll need to use the credit line, SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. It would be great if the credit line linked back to this page,

And this is the legal jargon on the Permission to Publish form, along with web links to the document.
I understand that the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or of other reproductions of copyrighted materials. It is not my intention to publish or otherwise reproduce any of the materials listed on this form which are possibly subject to copyright without first having obtained written permission from (a) the copyright owner, the heirs, or assigns and (b) from San Francisco Public Library, owner of the original materials. Subject to all specifications and conditions stated above, one-time permission to publish the designated materials owned by the San Francisco History Center is granted. Repeat use of these materials is not permitted without written consent. Permission to publish is granted only in so far as the rights of the San Francisco Public Library are concerned. The Library can claim only physical ownership of the material; responsibility for identifying and satisfying copyright holders must be assumed by users wishing to publish this material. The applicant agrees to send the San Francisco History Center one complimentary copy of the work containing the reproduction. The credit line should read. SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY.James Carroll (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The image use policy is at Wikipedia:Image use policy, which says (among other things) any image published before 1923 is public domain (any copyright has expired). This pertains to when the image was published, not when it was taken. You can get further assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Very Frustrated[edit]

Your statement from your user page,

"Wikipedia's newcomers are undoubtedly ignorant of many local rules and conventions, but some of them are experts and we desperately need them. Don't piss them off. Most of them mean well."

seems like it was written directly for the difficult individuals I'm dealing with on the Lap Dance article. When you get a chance, please look at the Talk Page for Lap Dance, and tell me on my talk page how or where I should go to resolve this mess. Thanx.James Carroll (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Need to Report Vandalism by Candleabracadabra[edit]

This is a few hours later, and I would like to report VANDALISM to the Lap Dance article by Candleabracadabra. In the late evening, and with no discussion on the article Talk page, Candleabracadabra tore out half of the article -- specifically the parts that I had research and written. I have reverted it back to the state before he started cutting. Please advise me.James Carroll (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have undone James Caroll's reversion of Candleabracadabra's edits, since they are very clearly not "vandalism" but simply a difference of opinion, therefore a content dispute which needs to be dealt with on the talk page. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And James Carroll just reverted me. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You should all take a deep breath, and read WP:DR. Try to assume good faith (i.e. accusing folks of vandalism is generally not helpful), and try to work things out on the talk page rather than edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You or one of your admin associates needs to look more closely at the incident. These guys ignored the article for years, and it stagnated. After doing much work cleaning it up and adding research, Candleabracadabra without any discussion on the Talk page and during a late night hour, removed the majority of my work, cutting the article in half. His friend, Beyond My Ken who also has deleted the same work has received many complaints from users about his excessive reverts, his use of profanity in his comments, and has even been disciplined many multiple times for Edit Warring (see link below). I will not work on this article, or any other articles, unless Candleabracadabra and Beyond My Ken are banned from the page, in order to preserve the much researched and referenced work that I have invested in. Do you really think that any volunteer would continue with this type of treatment?
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion to Beyond My Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Carroll (talkcontribs) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rick Bot[edit]

Just a friendly note that Rick Bot is down updating pages. Thanks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's running again. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

D'oh, and back down again. I wonder why it keeps doing that.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping! Bot still down. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
And, it's running again. The issue has been that the bot's login expires (I think in 30 days), which it never used to do. After it expires, I have to run it manually and provide its password, creating a new login that then expires in another 30 days, etc. I have added a step to the automated script that now does the equivalent of a manual login (providing the password), but I'm not sure this is working yet. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, that's strange, it only ran on the 23rd. It might not be the expiry date of the login. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you've been inactive, I don't suspect you ran the bot manually on the 30th. Is it possible you set it to only update once a week? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem definitely has been the login expiration, but there seems to be a new issue where the machine I run the bot on is not invoking the automated script that runs it. Looks like it should be working again now, but we'll see tomorrow. I've been (and will continue to be) traveling quite a bit and not able to access the machine the bot runs on very often. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It successfully ran today (automatically). We'll see about tomorrow, but if it stops running I won't be able to do anything about it until next weekend. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
And nothing. See you next weekend :P Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It updated today on the 9th, again, exactly 1 week after the last update.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes - I'm watching it. Trying to figure out what the issue is. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Two days in a row now. Thanks, you must have found the solution :) Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's what happened. The bot's login has been occasionally expiring (for 6 months or so), and when it doesn't run I've been running it manually which refreshes the login. In addition, I fairly recently (about a month ago) changed the time that it runs. When I did this, I forgot that I also have to change the settings on my Mac so that it wakes up shortly before the scheduled time. So, if I was using my Mac (Mac not sleeping) including trying to figure out why the bot was not running, it would run fine (see Heisenbug). I've been traveling a lot lately, so the machine has been sleeping (and not waking up when it's time to run the bot). I think both of these issues are now fixed - the machine should wake up at the appropriate time and the login should be refreshed every time the bot runs. Sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A reply has been posted to your comment at User:Scottperry's page[edit]

User:Scottperry has posted a reply to your comment on his talk page at: LA sublists. Please feel free to erase this message if you prefer.


I've had a username change from Truthkeeper88 to Victoriaearle - both are the same person, both are me. But at WP:WBFAN they show up as two different people. I don't really mind that much but seems that it would be nice to be accurate there. Is there any way of making the bot consolidate the two users? It was done manually here but then the bot changed it back here. I think there are other editors, too, who have had user name changes, but presumably the bot can't know unless notified? Anyway, I thought I'd post this query here. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do this by changing the name in the by-year lists (like WP:FA2014, WP:FA2013, etc) that the bot uses to generate the WBFAN page. Every time the bot runs it reads these by-year lists and regenerates the entire table at WBFAN. If this is not clear, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, it is clear. I think it's best to leave it as is so that the names on the year-by-year records match the archived/transcluded FACs. Just thought I'd ask. Victoria (tk) 00:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You could edit just the user link portion in the by-year summary, so it would continue to display as the original nominating user (the bot ignores anything following the "pipe" in the user link) - so, for example, in WP:FA2010 the nominator for Ernest Hemingway would be [[user:Victoriaearle|Truthkeeper88]] which displays as Truthkeeper88. The bot will understand this to mean the nominator was Victoriaearle, not Truthkeeper88. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Another possibility is I could change the bot to look for redirected user pages. In your case, this would do what you seem to want. I'm not completely sure this is the behavior everyone would want - but it seems reasonable. I'll think about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oddly I noticed this because elsewhere an editor whose name I didn't recognize posted about having written FACs so I peeked at WP:WBFAN and then got curious (I don't have that page on my watchlist). Basically it's not a big deal to me, but yeah, I set up a redirect because I thought it would be helpful (it's not really, always, I've discovered, and does't work at all for notifications). I think for a situation like this where the transcluded archives maintain the Truthkeeper88 name, it's best to leave it as it is without too much fuss. But others have had name changes, so maybe it's worth bringing up for discussion on WBFAN page? I dunno. Anyway, thanks for your responses. Makes perfect sense to me. Victoria (tk) 19:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rick Block. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations.
Message added 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vensatry (Ping) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Department of Energy National Laboratories[edit]

Category:United States Department of Energy National Laboratories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wadewitz input merge from Awadewit[edit]

Is there a way to merge into User:Wadewitz, the prior contributions before the user-name-change, of User:Awadewit -- at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations ?

Thank you for your maintenance of the page Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations,

Cirt (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Per just above (#Query), the easiest approach is to change the name in the by-year nomination pages, e.g. WP:FA2010. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, will do, thank you! Do I also need to change the name in the individual WP:FAC subpages? — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Changing the name in the by-year lists is enough. The bot regenerates the entire list at WP:WBFAN from these lists every time it runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, in that case I think I should be done. I changed "Awadewit" to "Wadewitz" in all instances on pages WP:FA2007, WP:FA2008, WP:FA2009, and WP:FA2010. — Cirt (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Okay, it updated a bit, but some are still missing. User:Wadewitz is co-credited at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2007 for Mary Wollstonecraft, but not listed at WP:WBFAN, any ideas on how to fix that?
  2. Also at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2007, User:Wadewitz is listed for Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, but not at WP:WBFAN, can we correct this somehow?

This would bring her total WP:FA count correctly to thirty-six (36), which correlates both with User:Wadewitz and Los Angeles Times which stated: "She also was the author of 36 "featured" articles, the highest distinction bestowed by other Wikipedians based on accuracy, fairness, style and comprehensiveness.".

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are 34 listed, so if there are supposed to be 36 two are definitely missing - but it's not these two (if you look at the source for WP:WBFAN it's a little easier to see which ones are there). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll place the ones of the 34 already listed, here, and try to figure out which two are missing:

Now we gotta compare that with User:Wadewitz to see which two are missing.

Cirt (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The missing ones seem to be
List of works by JP is a featured list, not FA. Not sure why The Lucy poems doesn't show up, but I'll look into it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
She's missing The Lucy poems from her list, not the other way around. Which means there are two more not in WBFAN. They are:
These are also featured lists, not FAs. So, she has 34 FAs, and 3 FLs. At WP:WBFLN the FLs are attributed to Awadewit, not Wadewitz (if you want to change this, you can edit the by-year nomination lists, e.g. WP:FL2008). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've changed to Wadewitz for WP:FL2007 and WP:FL2008, I think that's all the adjustments to make? Except maybe an edit-protected request to add The Lucy poems to her userpage list. — Cirt (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll make the change to her user page. It's clearly one that she simply overlooked. -- Rick Block (talk)
Agreed, and thank you! After you do that, I could remove User_talk:Wadewitz#Edit_protected_request. — Cirt (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably cleaner just to leave it there as a request that was responded to. -- Rick Block (talk)
Sounds good, thank you for all your kind help and advice, — Cirt (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

dutiful bots and personal advice
Thank you for keeping "the place running" by your bots who serve daily. and for helping editors, for example the author and photographer of the gem to connect to his past achievements, - in other words: you are an awesome Wikipedian! - to quote you: "see what kind of mood you're in"?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 162nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft Monty Hall Re-write[edit]

There is a draft of a significant re-write of Monty Hall here. I'd appreciate your comments especially as regards WP:NPOV and with an eye to referencing or removing what content remains.SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand you've been burned by this article before and so understand if you'd rather step back but I really am keen to start getting this article back to FA status and it needed heavy pruning and then fixing line by line. I'm not even half done with working on this suggestion before I try and win people over at the page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to help get this article back to FA status, but I won't be driving it (and it will take a considerable amount of effort). Regarding your draft it would be helpful to see a diff relative to the current state of the article. To do this you could replace your draft with the current article contents and then undo this change. The "undo" diff will then show changes relative to the current version. Based on a quick read it comes across (to me) as fairly NPOV. The referencing is a mess, but work on this should probably wait until you're done pruning (anything you prune doesn't need to be referenced). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, i've made that diff now for ease of comparison. Although it's a little convoluted because of everything that's been moved around. I'm fuly aware there's a lot of effort both in the re-writing and the winning minds of editors involved in getting this article back to FA but I'm willing to give it a good go. SPACKlick (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Men/small[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Men/small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SFB 11:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x400 m Men/script[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Footer Olympic Champions 4x400 m Men/script has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SFB 11:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations[edit]

Hello, Rick:

I changed my name a bit ago from "Albacore" to "Seattle". I'm wondering if you can combine the two for Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations, for attribution reasons, and change the one article under "Albacore" at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations to my current name; if you could, that would be great. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the entries in the various by-year lists (like Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2013). The bot should update WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN tomorrow. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing Star[edit]

Hi there,

About a month ago, 59th Academy Awards, which I nominated, was promoted as a featured list. However, I am missing a star over at List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations. How can this be fixed.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This edit will fix it (the next time the bot runs). I'll look into why the bot is occasionally missing entries in the promotion logs. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bot problems[edit]

1 and2 - an intermittent problem that you may not have seen, so I thought I'd let you know about it. Cheers, BencherliteTalk 11:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion[edit]

A case (Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured topics error[edit]

This edit in June was really screwed up. Nergaal (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's the same problem Bencherlite pointed out above. I'm looking into it. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned as nominator[edit]

Hello Rick Block! Could you please help? I only just noticed that the feature article Tintin in Tibet that I nominated and ensured promoted has not shown anyone as the nominator here Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2014#Promoted in September 2014, even though I am the primary nominator and I also invited my fellow editor Midnightblueowl to share the credit. Can you help us both receive our additional star for this article on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Maybe I messed things up by adding a second person as nominator. Thanks so much! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit will do the trick. The bot didn't know how to deal with {{usert}} (it should know now). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Was there a reason the bot did this? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The list was deleted from WP:FL, here. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That would explain it, although the deletion was by a vandal in this instance. I've undone the strikeout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with old FLC set[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. There was an old set of universities of Canada series which were separately named based on their province or area which now all redirect to universities of Canada. I changed the names of the lists back to their original names when promoted so we wouldn't have the nonsense of five or so former featured lists all called "universities of Canada" but was reverted by the bot. [[20]] Any way of rectifying it? Cowlibob (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of admins[edit]

This edit by Rick Bot broke the list of admins page. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls[edit]

Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Snowager-Talk to Me! 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick Bot and Wikipedia:List of administrators[edit]

Rick Bot seems to have gotten confused somehow. Yesterday, it reported 596 active admins [21]. Today, it's reporting 447 active admins [22]. That's an enormous, unprecedented (by more than one order of magnitude) drop. Something's not working right... --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot fetches the current list of admins every time it runs. Today it only got a partial list (apparently only the first 1000). My guess is it will be fine tomorrow but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for letting me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Rick_Bot down[edit]

user:Rick_Bot is not currently working. I'm attempting to figure out why and will fix it as soon as I can. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's working again. If anyone notices any problems, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)