User talk:SpellBott

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

SpellBott fixes spelling errors.

There really isn't a point in correcting people's spellings on talk pages. Correct the articles, where it matters! --Jiang 10:29, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you are right! SpellBott 10:35, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you're new here! Welcome!! Anyway, I just wanted to give you a tip: when writing a summary of an edit, it's easiest to just write "sp". I usually give "sp fix" or "sp on..." Leave me a message if you need advice or something, and if you need any help editing this is the place. We're all learning here! --Merovingian 13:06, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Merovingian!

Can the operator please list this bot on Wikipedia:Bots? -- Tim Starling 12:06, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)
It's not a bot. SpellBott is just a user name. It's me doing manual corrections! A bot would be far too crude a tool and would likely "fix" things that did not need fixing.
How are you able to work so fast if you are doing this manually? I think you did 10 corrections in a minute at one point. Anjouli 05:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I type very fast! No, seriously, I have written a program that searches-out required spelling corrections as per Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings. The program presents the proposed correction and I then hit [Yes] or [No] - so the process of finding the errors is automated, but the actual correction is manual. By the usual definition of Bot, this is not a Bot but a manual process. Just saves me a bit of time finding the potential errors. SpellBott 11:15, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Robbot while working the same way (at least where disambiguation pages are concerned) has been registered as a bot while working the same way. Andre Engels 13:22, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
All I am doing is using software to avoid a lot of typing. I am a disabled person and type with a mouth-stick, so I need all the help I can get. List me as a bot if you must, but I would prefer not. We machine-assisted people are still humans and I can't see that the end effect of anything I am doing is in any way different from a manual process.SpellBott 13:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Out out curiosity, did you download a copy of the database (one of the sql dumps) and run your program against that, or are you running it against wikipedia over the internet? --Raul654 14:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm running with an Internet connection, using MS IE6. I have a utility program that reads text off the browser, and another that can insert text and press buttons for me. Just a bit of VB6 to hook it all together. SpellBott 14:08, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As a computer engineer, I'm extremely impressed :) --Raul654 14:33, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Really it is very easy in VB6. Just put the WebBrowser control on a form, then call it to do what you need. This link might help [1] SpellBott 06:30, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You changed committee to committeee. I've reverted. Secretlondon 14:16, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Mouth stick bounce! Was busy correcting, but you got there first. Think I'll knock it off for today. Getting tired and likely to make mistakes.SpellBott 14:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I too am impressed and I applaud your effort. But....

I presume that your automatic arrangements are so set as to not 'correct' colour or honour or grey vs gray. At least I hope so, there being, shall we say, a certain instability in the basement of English spelling. Perot's phrase rings here, just as it did in descriptions of US fiscal policy in recent years (saving a brief interegnum of some fiscal sense). It's a reflection of the tribal willingness of English speakers (as opposed to say, French speakers and legislators and bureaucrats and ...) to accept a certain amount of chaos, and (perhaps the first is even the result of this second) a spelling embedded history of (1) the development of more than intermittent literacy in English, (2) phonemic shifts in English, (3) the assorted linguistic invasions of England (Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, Indian (from India), Indian (from the Americas), (4)... As such, these things are not most reasonably seen as spelling errors, but badges of honor or historical markers or something more than mere misteaks. English spelling being essentially irrational, correction of it must rest on custom, not reason. Thinking about English spelling cannot be more than observing trends, habits, 'biases' (eg, no q without a following u), and so on. 'Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe' is offensive not because it's 'wrong' but because is a mixture of styles -- curiosity would most probably have been spelled differently when 'Ye' and 'Olde' were in common use.

In any case, the reason for this note is that 'cypher' is NOT a mispelling of 'cipher'. The first is current British (and some Commonwealth), and the second is also current British (they have some internal instabilities of their own) and has become the most common US spelling. Both have long temporal roots, absolute precedence (if it matters anyway) is not established as nearly as I can tell, and neither is clearly now THE spelling anywhere. Certainly in the context of the English language Wikipedia which is not exclusively American (in neither authorship nor readership). There has been some discussion of this, with citations from the OED, various article:talk pages.

In each case of your recent 'corrections' on this point of which I have become aware, I would argue that the correction was ill done. I don't want to start any sort of edit war on this, but many of those corrections were my work originally, and the spelling was deliberate. I have adopted the 'y' spelling in my writings on cryptography, both Wikipeidan and otherwise.

Please take this into consideration when your automatic arrangements make you too officious a suggestion. Hesitate, just a moment longer, with the yes response in this instance.

ww (in this, reluctantly, non-Shavian, and less reluctantly a Burkian)

Dear ww,
In the perhaps vain hope of avoiding any argument, I am simply working from Wikipedia's own list of spelling corrections at Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings. This currently includes entries such as decyphered (deciphered). It is arguable that an American spelling should not be listed here as a "correction" for a British spelling or vice-a-versa - but it is not an argument in which I wish to become involved. You are of course quite at liberty to edit that page, or to revert any spelling correction I have made on any other page. In deciding whether or not to change a spelling to British or American (not to mention Australian, South African, Irish, etc. etc.) I attempt to determine the base language of the rest of the article. This is much harder to do "on the fly" than simply correcting gross spelling errors, particularly since many articles use a mixture and do not address a subject that has any particular nationality. It is easy to get it wrong. However I have corrected over 400 gross spelling errors in the last week; so if a few words have changed nationality (whilst retaining correct spelling) I think that is a small price to pay. SpellBott 06:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Old Versions of TH[edit]

By the by, the Ye in Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe would never have been used in times of yore. Ye was the second person singular, never the definite article. This particlular Ye derives from the fact that the word The was once written in such a way that on superficial examination the linked T and H resembled the letter Y. It would have been pronounced something like the modern "the". Victorian sign-writers simply mis-drew it out of ignorance, when making "quaint" signs. A modern equivalent may be the frequently-seen "Fish and Chip's". SpellBott 07:08, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you'll consider my information inconsistent with yours, but in any case there is some more interesting stuff to be said: our articles Eth (letter) and Thorn (letter) describe two of the three Old-English letters that are no longer in the English alphabet, and the source of the typography you describe.
I'm inclined to assume, from the lack of contrary data, that the parallels between the pronouns thou and you, and between thee and ye, do not have anything to do with these typographic connections among TH and Y and Thorn/Eth. (But i keep it on my mental knick-knack shelf: i.e., i take it down every now and then, look at it, and then put it back on the shelf.) --Jerzy 20:35, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)


You have given my yet another reason to be offended by Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe, for which thanks.
As one whose spelling is less than ideal due to mechanical and memory failure reasons, and whose proofreading is also less than ideal apparently for brain vacation reasons, any assistance in fixing thier and throguh is greatly appreciated.
The point of my note was that cypher is not such a mistake, at least in my writing, and that this spelling is used by many, though certainly not all. Removing cypher in favor of cipher is a price that need not, and should not, be paid in the interest of killing all the thiers out there.
If there is a Wikipedia 'standard' spelling on this question, it should be changed. There was a minor edit war on this -- see Talk:Cryptography. It may be interesting to review it.
If you know how to change the Wiki's position on spelling of cypher and cipher (or derivatives thereof) to make it neutral as between at least these options, I think doing so would be a useful service. Having now learned that there is such a facility, I suppose I will be looking into it myself when I can find time.
Since you seem to feel very strongly about this, why not just change the spelling back? I'm not trying to force any particular spelling on anybody. I'm just trying to correct errors. SpellBott 07:39, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see, SpellBott never changed cypher to cipher, but only decypher to decipher. This is a completely different matter. Every dictionary I've looked in lists cypher, but none lists decypher. --Zundark 17:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. SpellBott 07:39, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mecca is not a spelling error. Please stop 'correcting' it. Salsa Shark 11:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is listed as a spelling correction on Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings. Is that not what we should work from?
It isn't now and isn't going to be. (Please tell me you're not feeding that page into your bot.) Salsa Shark 12:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps I should change my user name. For the last time I am not a bot! I'm making all changes manually, although I have some automated assistance with typing since I am disabled.
When I decided to get involved with Wiki, I thought fixing spelling mistakes would be a nice way to get started without upsetting anybody. Boy, was I wrong!
Your viewpoint of "isn't now and isn't going to be" does not seem to be shared by everybody. I see you are having an edit war over this with another user on Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings. This is not something I want to get caught up in, so I will not make any further changes.
I would like to say that before starting I did do a Wiki search on "Makkah" and "Mecca" and it seemed about evenly divided. Having it listed in Wikipedia:List_of_common_misspellings seemed to confirm "Makkah" as the proper spelling (as per Beijing / Peking). On the basis of using the spelling that suits the article's nationality (c.f. color/colour) I think "Makkah" is right for Islamic and geographic articles and "Mecca" for the others. But I'm not going to get into a war over it. I just fix spellings. SpellBott 12:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You can find a lengthy discussion about the naming of Mecca in Talk:Mecca - it is maybe comparable with the Beijing/Peking case 20 years ago when the change of spelling was first suggested. So far almost everyone uses Mecca, so it is the currently accepted english spelling - however some muslim activists try to enforce the name change as they consider the name Mecca being insulting to muslims. This argument isn't new to wikipedia, some time ago there was a moving war of the Mecca article.
Your effort to correct spelling mistakes is of course a very good one, you were just a bit too fast with this one case. But maybe you should request your username to be changed, as you already noticed it creates some confusion. andy 12:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Andy. I can see that there are good arguments in either direction for Mecca/Makkah. I have asked for advice at the Village Pump, but I think that as a newbie I will stay out of things until I get a better feel for how things work around here. Perhaps just stick to voting on deletions etc. and doing the really obvious spelling errors. SpellBott 12:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget there is much more to do here then "just" fixing spelling mistakes. Creating new contents is even better then doing minor fixups of existing one - so if you need ideas on what articles you could write, there is the Wikipedia:Requested articles, or just read the articles on those topics you are interested in and look for red links... But if you enjoy the tedious task of spelling checks which most editors here avoid, just continue it :-) andy 13:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I do intend to write some articles. Just want to gain a bit of experience first. I have noticed that there are a lot more people watching and commenting on what others do that there are actually producing anything - so I want to be sure of my ground before I launch into anything. Typing is hard and painful work for me, so I don't want to waste time doing something that is going to get deleted. deleting things on the slightest pretext seems to be a hobby round here! (I don't mean you personally of course.)SpellBott 13:36, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Much more to do, and many more editors than this one! Many thanks, SpellBott! SpellBott, please keep an eye on my work! ;-) -- Ke4roh 13:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please don't get discouraged - Salsa Shark should have known better than to jump all over you like that. We have a policy - Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As a tip, on your user page, you might want to mention that you are not a bot. It's an easy mistake to make given your username. And for the record, I completely support using Wikipedia:List of common misspellings to correct typos. →Raul654 13:24, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. You seem to have messed-up my talk page somewhat. I am sure this was not intentional as I know you have trouble typing. I have reverted to the last edit before you started entering information. Hope you don't mind. I have not restored your comments as it was not clear what your intention was in some cases and it would be unfair for me to guess and then edit accordingly. Please feel free to re-enter them. Just a small point: If you want to have a dialogue with Dieter, it would be best done on his or your page, unless it involves me. If it involves a Wiki article, then on that article's talk page or in VfD as appropriate. Anyway, no harm done. Have fun!! Anjouli 11:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would have fixed it. I do not have "trouble" typing. Just my Internet connection went dead at a bad moment. Note I have fixed a few of your typing errors above. It was just a comment to Dieter about Circumpunct and to ask you what a Brianist House is. Nothing too important.SpellBott 11:59, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It was not my intention to insult or patronize. If I have done so, then I apologize unreservedly.Anjouli 14:09, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And I'm happy to talk Brianism any time. But it might be better if you e-mail me as it looks as if Brianism is going "off-Wiki" pretty soon. I like your idea of keeping a journal of your Brianist experiences on your user page, but you should expect some fierce opposition, both from within and without. Good luck! Anjouli 14:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry if I snapped at you. I'm a bit sensitive on that issue. SpellBott 06:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disputed the factual accuracy of Brianism because the only information was from their own website. If it can not be verified externally from there, you can not prove it is accurate. If it was to stay, anything that can not be verified should be removed. Until that is done, I feel it should be mnetioned that it is not necessarily accurate. However, as an alternative, it could be reworded to say "this is what the website says about Brianism", rather than making it look like this is necessarily true. Feel free to change the wording and remove the notice if you want. Angela. 23:53, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well maybe we are splitting hairs here and it probably doesn't matter since even Anjouli seems to think the article is about to go, but I think you are wrong. The article says Brianists believe X. You say that is not factual, but it would be factual if it said "this website says Brianists believe X". If we go with the deletionists and accept that the website and Brianism are the same - that is to say it is the sole representation of Brianism, then there is no difference between the factuality of the two statements, because website = Brianism. By disputing the accuracy you are in effect saying that there is such a thing as Brianism, but the article/website does not represent it properly. If anything, that is a pro argument to say that Brianism exists independently of the website! Do you agree? Just an exercise in boolean logic which I doubt many here (present company excepted) would have the intellectual resources to grasp. But I must say I'm having fun here. Wiki is GREAT. SpellBott 06:54, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Arggh. Too much logic for this time of the morning. Remove the notice if you want to! By the way, in reply to your edit summary on your user page (Can't seem to get single para. Wiki gives two or none. Better be two then. Somebody fix/advise please?) - you can use <br> to get a single line break. Angela. 05:22, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks you! SpellBott 11:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: **An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. Kind regards, Anjouli 13:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Boy are they upset. Whose hacking them I wonder. Not me :) SpellBott 11:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Editing tips[edit]

I noticed your edit comment on your regular page and wondered
if you might be looking for <br> to put a line break
without a

paragraph break. -- Ke4roh 02:03, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ke4roh. (How do you say that?) SpellBott 11:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I pronounce each letter and the number. Sometimes I say it "kilo echo four romeo oscar hotel." It's my amateur radio callsign. Using it for a login on various web sites saves me from having to think up various pseudonyms at the price of a little bit of anonymity. -- Ke4roh 18:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. That's interesting. Did look at amateur radio once and some guys came to visit me - but it's not practical for me. SpellBott 08:13, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I saw the stuff over Brianism. I haven't heard of it previously, and it sounds to me like one of many attempts to make a skeptic "religion". I'll vote to keep it, because I don't think there is any good reason to remove it, no matter what the guys at the Brianism web site say. One of the benefits of is having many articles on many topics, even if some of those topics are obscure and unknown to many people. I can understand deleting pages such as "Gaylord Focker" or *cough* "Seagulling", but something like Brianism deserves its own page.

Oh, and If you're bored, so check the Atheism fiasco, with User:JackLynch. He tried to butcher the page to fit his theistic agenda, spurring a slight war between me and a few others vs. him. Oh, and if you saw my user page, be aware of any changes made by Grizzly, he's a wacko with his own psychic-power agenda.

Other pages I've edited include Occam's razor and James Randi, among others. - Lord Kenneth 22:59, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hello milord :) Thank you for the support. My brother and some of his friends have been in a skeptic group for years and recently said they had become Brianists. That's how I found Wikipedia the first time, by doing a Google search on "Brianism". I became a Brianist last week and am now swapping e-mails with other Brianists. They seem like nice intelligent people and the "rituals" are just a bit of a fun (well they would be with a name like "Brianism"). Really, they are serious skeptics looking for a better "brand name", plus the idea that we have a big responsibility to preserve and spread the intelligent life of earth, since it may be the only example in the universe. That goes a bit beyond the usual skeptic message. There is a fierce battle from a few users to get them off Wikipedia. I think that is a shame, since they seem to be a better idea than much of the rubbish that is allowed to remain. The anti-Briaist battle now seems to be more about personal attacks than Brianism. One of the participants has even attacked Circle with a point at its centre on its talk page, even though it now has nothing to do with Brianism. I think this is probably more to do with who created the page (Anjouli) than what is on it. It is all a great shame. Good on the James Randi page! SpellBott 05:21, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The idea that it has to be put in the form of a religion because that's what people are used to reminds me rather strongly of Greg Egan's Church Of The God Who Makes No Difference, from his novel Permutation City...very much the same idea in that sense. Worth a read. --AW

naming conventions[edit]

Perhaps you are not aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization)? --mav

Oh dear. No I was not. Better fix it. Sorry. SpellBott 13:01, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeti disagreement[edit]

Brother, I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)


No brother, I haven't gotten an email yet. I'm feeling rejected. I like your ritual signature idea, though! - UtherSRG 13:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Still no email, brother. - UtherSRG 13:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hang in there brother. It took them a few days to get back to me. That was on a Saturday. Maybe they are volunteers who only work weekends. SpellBott 13:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh for sure! I'm more curious, though, how they'll respond to my question I asked after joining: "What does Brianism think about Unitarian Universalism?" (No link in my question to them of course.) - UtherSRG 14:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Weeks and weeks and still no email! :( - UtherSRG 15:18, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Still no email! :( - UtherSRG 18:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Brianism, Earthseed -- Where to now?[edit]

Hello SpellBott,

I clicked about a week ago, but have yet to hear back anything from [[2]]. I read through your talk page and your contributions to the VfD discussion concerning the Brianism wikipedia page and noticed that you had somehow finally attracted the [[3]] people's attention. I am curious whether you've become more involved with the Brianists or let the connection wane?

I've been reading every scrap about them I could dig up, and in the process I think I've figured out who Brian is :) It isn't really important, and I'm not going to reveal my guess as to his identity, but it has been fun to play the detective!

I've been a part of Unitarian Universalism for about 4 years and appreciate the sense of community I've found there. I value very much their ethical and social justice contributions to society. I want more though. As I mentioned on UtherSRG's talk page "I'm actively seeking a community of rational, forward thinkers to pour my energy into. I want to use my life to contribute to a grand purpose that is bigger than any one person can be. To learn from and instruct others who thirst for knowledge and improvement of themselves and our species." I appreciate the ethical and social justice community I've found in UUism, but I need a destiny to work toward!

I find myself repeating basically the same thoughts that I dumped on UtherSRG's talk page. Perhaps it is time to refactor them onto my talk page, or put them somewhere similar? I've been using personal wikis for some time now, but haven't really joined or contributed to a large community wiki like Wikipedia yet, so I guess I'm still getting a handle on the group norms and "best practices" that the community has developed. Please feel free to offer corrections and suggestions. :)

To repeat my bit from UtherSRG's talk page again :) I'm inspired by the bits and pieces of "The Book of Brian" and "Earthseed: The Books of the Living" that I've managed to collect. If I cannot find a group that has a compatible purpose and organizational focus, I am going to be part of starting one.

I welcome any information about your experience and similar search that you'd care to share.

Earnestly -- NimbleTurtle 23:09, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)