User talk:T-rex

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

For older disscussions please view the archives


Switchfoot Singles[edit]

Um... those songs were singles on "Christian" radio. Same thing with Head Over Heels (In this Life), a song whose eligibility and validity as a single has gone uncontested. Those old singles (Gone and More Than Fine) just got lost in the shuffle because Switchfoot was all over radio back in those days, and news tends to get forgotten/lost. They were indeed huge hits on the Christian scene, and are still played at Switchfoot shows almost routinely. They deserve their own articles, and deserve to be recognized as such. The Christian music scene may be a minority, but it shouldn't be totally disregarded, (although sometimes I wish I could) because these Christian singles are pertinent pieces of Switchfoot history. Please consider them as such.

single does not mean "they play it on the radio". Although there is often a corolation between the two, simple because some obscure radio station gives a song a few spins does not mean that the song is a single. In fact given the lack of support from the band for Head Over Heels, I'm not too sure about that one either. Also you can't be adding chart numbers without any indication of what chart they belong to. That just makes no sense. --T-rex 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
first off, the charts do say where those songs hit No. 1. CHR is a valid, Radio And Records Christian Hit Radio chart. Secondly, they were impacted to Christian radio, which makes them singles. Even if they weren't think about "Stairway to Heaven." It never was officially released as a "Single" per se, but it is one of the most popular songs of all time. I'm not comparing the CCM singles to Stairway, of course, but they are significant enough hits.Joberooni (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Stairway to Heaven not being a single, while still being popular really has nothing to do with this at all. The mere fact that they are not singles, should be reason enough to not list them as singles. As for this imaginary CHR chart I have yet to see any existence of it anywhere. What you refer to as "sources" are just news articles and best I can tell don't mention the chart anywhere. If this chart really does exist you need to point out a few things, notably who maintains it, and where can it be found. Otherwise you're just making up numbers. --T-rex 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
T-Rex, check the CHR article at the top of the charts. If not, here is the link to those charts. Have fun. [1]
Well the article Christian CHR that you liked to is a music format not a chart. However the other link should be usable. However are there archives avalible anywhere? And that chart seems to indicate that Columbia still had it hand in Head over Heels, which may need a mention on that article. --T-rex 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that they parted ways but it looks as if that discussion as to how it effects Head over Heels may need a second look. --T-rex 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for archives, but several articles have indeed mentioned that Switchfoot swept the No. 1 spot on CHR for all the Beautiful Letdown singles. I'll try to find them again. I think the chart mentioned Columbia on Head Over Heels (In This Life) because it was on an Oh! Gravity. release. But the single was released after Switchfoot parted ways with Sony. Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

T-rex: While I agree with most of what you say, my pre-order of Oh! Gravity. did arrive with a sticker on the front, stating that the album contained the singles "Oh! Gravity.", "Head Over Heels", and "Awakening". I have no idea whether that means anything or not. --3M163//Complete Geek 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Thats interesting, but I'm not sure how much stock to put into that given how that falls on the timeline. --T-rex 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BetterDays.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BetterDays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Information.svg Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Switchfoot has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. HokieRNB (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any edit summaries to that article recently that aren't straight forward. If however the use of a template is preventing you from getting across what you are really intending to say let me know (as I doubt you were really looking to mention the sand box as well) --T-rex 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You've either simply "undone" the editing work of others (see here, and here, for example), without any discussion whatsoever, or used "rv v" (see here) when no vandalism had taken place. You've also violated the three-revert rule. HokieRNB (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That second edit was after you left the message so I doubt thats what you had in mind, and the third edit was vandalism. Sorry about the first edit, that was a few days ago so I didn't think that what you had been talking about but in all fairness I had mentioned it earlier --T-rex 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That second edit was exactly the sort of behavior that I had in mind. Just because you did it after I initially brought it up in your talk page doesn't negate the fact that it's bad editing conduct. You reverted on at least 4 different occasions without spelling out your reasons either in the edit summary or on the talk page. You simply "undid". The time that you used "rv v" there was no vandalism apparent on the page. What you reverted was a good faith edit that was attempting to span the gap between what you thought was "trivial" coverage of an individual concert, and what other editors see as evidence that the band is keeping its Christian slant despite covering a song that might seem to indicate otherwise. It may not be the best way to make that point, but it's a far cry from vandalism. However, removing it the way you did multiple times does constitute vandalism. HokieRNB (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A far cry from vandalism? No, the repeated reinsertion of bad content to the article is vandalism. Just because you want Biola to be mentioned in the article doesn't make it not vandalism --T-rex 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't care one bit about Biola or about its insertion in this article. I do care that you have carelessly reverted other people's edits and alleged vandalism when none existed. Please see Heimstern's comments on what constitutes vandalism in this article. HokieRNB (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't lie to me. Furthermore that is vandalism, regardless of what Heimstern's opinion is. Not blatant vandalism, but still a form of vandalism. --T-rex 01:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quite relentless aren't you? And not terribly civil. Please assume good faith. HokieRNB (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not too civil to accuse me of not being civil, mot assuming good faith, and not knowing what vandalism is. That said I'm not too easily offeneded, and really more ammused than anything. So go ahead and keep it up, you should have figured out by now that I've spent enough time on wikipedia to know better than back off whenever anyone threatens me. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You've admitted yourself that you don't understand the Wikipedia policy about vandalism. (As a refresher, vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) To label those edits as vandalism is not assuming good faith. And specifically to accuse me of lying to you is considered uncivil. Why would you think I'm lying to you? HokieRNB (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never said that I don't understand Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. So I guess you have decided to continue to lie to me (please don't do that). However even by the definition you just provided the edits are marked as vandalism still are. You got anything else? --T-rex 05:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Switchfoot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? --T-rex 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the editor who just reported you for violating WP:3RR. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And then you go and start reverting yourself? That's funny. --T-rex 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning 3RR and vandalism[edit]

Since that noticeboard is not for dicussion, I'm bringing this here. Note that the policy page of the 3RR says this under its "exceptions":

reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself.

Thus, only simple and obvious vandalism is exempted from 3RR. I point this out to you not because I feel the need to win this dispute, but rather because it is important that you realize that this is how blocking works here, that no admin is going to accept your claim that your reverts were exempt for this reason, and that if you do this again, you are likely to end up blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow wikipedia policies close enough to see that. Regardless my assertion stands that it was vandalism. I was never contesting the 3rr anyways as much as I was defending myself against the accusation that may edits were malicious and not "removing vandalism". I guess it really doesn't mater at this point, but thanks for the clarification anyways. --T-rex 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BetterDays.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:BetterDays.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I do this already, like two weeks ago? Whatever, I'll throw something else on there to make you happy. --T-rex 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity[edit]

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that DinoBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz talk 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

no reason to de-flag my bot. It isn't running, but if that account ever is used again it will be for bot activity. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

random threat from annon[edit]

I hate to tell you this, but just because a couple people agree on something doesn't mean no one else can change it. I'm a noob and I know policy better than that. A consensus involving a SMALL amount of ppl really means nothing. You all seem to think that you own the article and no matter what someone else does you can revert away and say" goes against our consensus" "vandalsim, that isn't what we want in our article" and so on. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. You all need to take some time and familiarize yourself with policy. (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry but I do know the policy. Apparently way better than you. A number of people agreeing on something is called "consensus" and is how decisions are made. Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean that they can just delete whatever they feel like. And in this particular case the discussions have been long and involved to come to the current arrangement. Furthermore, for the record, I was never even a part of that discussion anyhow. Also unregistered editors repeatedly deleting what everyone else has agreed upon is the very definition of vandalism. --T-rex 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Vincent languages[edit]

T-rex, can you tell me what I'm doing wrong in the St. Vincent languages section for you to keep undoing it? Everything I've added can be verified with the sources I cite. Do you disagree with the content? Or am I doing something wrong in the way that I'm adding it? I'm new at this, but I've read how to add content and feel like I'm doing it right. Help me out here. (Nrp0450 (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry for not posting sooner, but I didn't notice this was here right away. I've been undoing the addition of Vincentian Creole because it's not remotely close to being true. The vast majority of St.Vincent speaks English and only English. While this might have been different a few hundred years ago, it is not the case today. --T-rex 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What St. Vincent have you visited? Ride a van to Georgetown or sit on a street corner with a group of guys in Sandy Bay and Vincentian Creole all you hear. It's a different pronunciation, different vocabulary, and different grammar. Granted, it's not immediately obvious to an outsider because of the stigma attached to the language. When speaking to an outsider Vincentians will speak their best English. But within their own people it's very definitely the majority language. Would you say the situation is different from Jamaica? Jamaica has a language subheading that describes the situation much the same way I would describe St. Vincent. And Jamaica and St. Vincent have pretty similar histories. Same thing for Belize and Guyana. Why does Wikipedia recognize their Creole languages in the country writeup but not St. Vincent's? (Nrp0450 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
I can't say anything about Jamaica, but as far as St. Vincent goes, it's straight up English. --T-rex 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Where have you lived or visited in St. Vincent? What are you basing this on? --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been to pretty much the entire Island (it's pretty small). I guess I can't speak for the smaller islands, but the main island is still around 90% of the nation's population --T-rex 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So you've been to the entire island and have never heard things like, "Ah pah yu deh?" (Where are you?), or "Me ah cum jus now" (I'm coming soon), or "Ah mek aayu pickney ah-dem na go a school?" (Why are your(plural) children not going to school). These are just examples, you would hear similar phrases in conversations everyday all over the island. Would you say these are English?
Google "Vincentian Creole" and you'll get back several published papers on the language. I have three books that all mention the language here on my desk: "An introduction to Pidgins and Creoles" by John Holm, "West Indians & their language" by Peter Roberts, and the "Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage" by Richard Allsopp. There's also a wikipedia stub article about it (which I did not start). The educated world knows there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. Most Vincentians I met during the two years I lived there readily admit that there is second form of speech too. The majority call it 'dialect', although many call it Creole or Vincy Twang. If you doubt this, call any Vincentian on the phone right now and ask them what 'dialect' is, ask them if it's 'straight up English' as you say, and not one will say that it is. They might call it broken English but every one of them will say it's different from standard English. This is 100% typical of a situation where a creole is in contact with it's superstrate language. The Creole is looked down on and regarded as degenerate, see the 'Creole language' wikipedia article.
I'm probably not going to convince you, but you at least have to admit there is evidence in support of there being a Creole language that is widely spoken in St. Vincent. How can we compromise? --Nrp0450 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've never heard any of that. Like I said only English, every part of the island, every person I saw. I'm not claiming that the language doesn't exist. All I am saying is that it is not regularly spoken in (modern day) St. Vincent. Like I said, not just mostly english, but 100% english. --T-rex 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So how do you explain the preponderance of evidence saying that there is a widely spoken Creole language in St. Vincent? I have explained that the reason you may have not heard it is that Vincentians don't speak it to foreigners, or in front of them sometimes, because of the stigma attached to speaking it. And in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves. --Nrp0450 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no "preponderance of evidence", there is instead just you. I'm really not buying your stigma claim either. Even if you aren't making this all up, above you just said that "in most formal situations Vincentians would always use English even among themselves" if that isn't saying that English is the primary language I don't know what is. --T-rex 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned three books above and I cited two sources when I originally posted the paragraph. That is five saying there is a creole language spoken in St. Vincent. How many have you cited saying that it's 100% English? I believe you are the one that is just relying on your own 'knowledge'. It's fine with me if you want to call English the primary language, it does have the status of being the official language of the country. What I wrote, and what you undid, said that Vincentian Creole is the mother tongue (the first language you learn, usually from your mother) and is used in informal domains (home, friends, sports) while English is used in formal domains (government, church, meetings). That is all I would like to have in the article. I'm fine with you saying English is the 'primary' language. Did you read the wikipedia 'Creole language' article I mentioned above? It clearly talks about a stigma against Creole languages at the end of the 'History of the Concept' section. Read the 'diglossia' article as well, it talks about the same thing. --Nrp0450 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What I said stands. I'm not going to waste my time arguing semantics --T-rex 18:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule[edit]

Hi, I reverted your recent edits on the article since they messed up all of the non-latin characters. I reverted the vandalism you'd removed and removed a misplaced or irrelevant ref, but if I missed something else you had meant to change, please let me know, thanks. - Bobet 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't have too many non-latin fonts installed, so thats probably what messed it up. Sorry about that. --T-rex 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008[edit]

Information.svg Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. We've covered this before... rv v means that you are removing obvious vandalism. Removing a legitimate and sourced edit, regardless of how much you don't like it or disagree with it, is not vandalism. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You enjoy going out of your way to undo every edit I make. Anyhow, I've already posted my defenition of vandalism for you, and it covers this. --T-rex 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, and after that you go and then mark my edit as vandalism? Within a whole minute of saying this. --T-rex 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the same legitimately sourced edit on the following occasions:
However, I am now forced to agree with you that your edits, however poorly intentioned, do not constitute vandalism. Per the page on Edit warring, "content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism." I retract both of my former edit summaries, but maintain that you still are not justified in removing this material, and more to the point, are totally out of line to label the addition of this material as "vandalism". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Three revert rule? Thats 6 reverts over the last 3 months! I barely have one revision in the last 24 hours, let alone four. Can you please just go edit war with someone else, and stop wasting my time. thank you --T-rex 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, for now I think I'll just keep restoring this one edit that you keep removing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, have you utterly failed to read the text of the warning, which explicitly states, "Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." I think it could be just as well argued that you have wasted other editors' time by needlessly reverting perfectly legitimate edits, and labeled them as vandalism to boot. I also noticed that you prefer your own "defenition" of vandalism over the established criteria for what Wikipedia calls vandalism. That's probably going to aggravate other editors too. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
actually you seem the only one aggravated by it. While I know the spirit of the rule is more important then the letter, the fact that you feel the need to post that here is a bit ridiculous. I've been editing here for years now, I know the basic policies. --T-rex 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you will be blocked from editing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, mind if I but in? Using templates on regular users is considered ill-mannered, likely to raise hackles and might be considered threatening, considering the level you've taken them to. In respect of your differences, please Don't template the regulars, but discuss content issues on the relevant talk pages. Involving other parties will allow you both to establish a consensus for your edits rather than indulging in edit wars. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg This is not a template. However, it is a gentle reminder that incorrectly labeling your edits as "rv v" is contrary to civil conduct and assuming good faith. One would hardly find cause to template you if you made your edits after consensus was achieved in the talk page. HokieRNB (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would I care if you use a template or not? What is insulting is thinking that you feel it is needed to tell me that in the first place. I've got nothing against the proper use of templates at all. --T-rex 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Gerbe[edit]

Unless he has played professionally already, and if he's still with BC then he hasn't, he doesn't pass the WP:ATHLETE guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

He should, no problem. He was a Hobey Baker finalist this season, and was named to NCAA All-Tournament Team last season, and AHCA All-America First-Team Honors this season. He had a hat-trick in a victory in the NCAA semi-finalas a few days ago, and could well end up with a national championship by the end of today. Additionally he has been drafted by an NHL team. He won the 2005 IIHF World U18 Championships, and had the second most points of any player in the tournament. If this isn't significant independent coverage, I don't know what is. --T-rex 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable American Presbyterians[edit]

I reverted your edit to PC(USA), see its talk page for the related discussion. Actually, I like your change it's just premature. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a response on the talk page --T-rex 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


RE; [2], i think i've done this once or twice. FYI--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I probably was getting a tad bit too copy-paste happy --T-rex 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

Just a quick note to ask whether there has been any progress on the bot you said you were looking into for the WP:INDIA auto-assessment. It's just that I have managed to code an AWB extension and can file a BRFA later if you haven't got anywhere. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:02, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. It sounds like you will be able to have yours up and running well before I do. --T-rex 14:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

Hello there. With one week allowance, there was no substantial efforts in addressing my comments for Nothing Is Sound to reach GA status per criteria. I failed it; please refer to the article's talk page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello t-Rex. I just read your response in the article's talk page today. Sorry that I forgot to indicate that the article needs sourcing. I failed it, not just because of that, but because there are remaining comments you did not address. If you consider it a mistake, please renominate it in WP:GAN. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on the article page, but I'm starting to wonder why. --T-rex 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.png

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! In your case (because of the edit warring a few months back), I'd be extra careful when going to use rollback. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --T-rex 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't meen to be rude, but it seems you forgot to sign one of your afd comments. Thanks, NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and signed it --T-rex 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't currently have any code for moving or creating pages, which would be needed to complete this task --T-rex 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII characters[edit]

Please note that since your post there, I have made and am still in the process of making a number of changes ranging from grammar fixes to asserting notability to referencing out of universe content, etc. see for the active efforts to improve the article. Please therefore keep in mind Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built can't really apply when the house should have never been built in the first place --T-rex 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I have tagged Image:SwitchfootStars.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of a template is not required. Regadless it appears as if User:AWeenieMan has now added one --T-rex 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. A template is not needed. But at the time I tagged the image, the rationale that was there was incomplete. Hence why it was invalid. For future reference, WP:RAT is a good link that shows what kind of info is needed with rationales.--Rockfang (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
{{Sofixit}} --T-rex 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hindu Literature[edit]

Dear T-Rex, in regards to your opinion in support of 'Deletion' of the article Hindu Literature, the entry being non-OR Hindu text, please consider the following and offer your comments/explanations:
Hindu text and Hindu Literature are entirely two different entities. Texts are partial manifestations of Literaure. Literature involves far greater dynamics than simple Texts. Texts can not have periodization, but Literaure can have. Texts can not be analysed in respect of general patterns and themes, while Literaure is amenable to such analysis. Further, Hindu Literature has a great degree of oral tradition, which can not be classified under Hindu texts. Thus, the two entries possess separate and independent standing. Thus, Literaure must not be confused with Texts. The ways of looking at things are different when dealing with Hindu Literature on one hand and Hindu texts on the other hand. Hence, the current article on Hindu Literature should neither be deleted nor merged with any other entry.
Thanx. -Softdynamite (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA[edit]


Thank you, T-rex, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD[edit]

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

second opinion[edit]

Please have a look at User:LegalFiction/James Sears. This is a second attempt to create a viable article that won't run afoul of WP:BLP and won't suffer from lack of notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm waiting for your opinion on User:LegalFiction/James Sears before I move the page to a Wiki article (this would be my first one). LegalFiction (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD[edit]

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issue Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have make some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left some comments. I think this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Mistakes were made, but I see no reason not to trust you to fix them. --T-rex 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your bot took a dump on my talk page ...[edit]

[3] Tinguat (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that. Not quite what was supposed to happen. I'm looking into it. thanks for reporting the bug --T-rex 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou this has now been fixed --T-rex 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama----[edit]

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked it for speedy deletion. --T-rex 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Boogie Rock AfD[edit]

Hello, I'd be grateful if you could look at this again in light of the references added. Thanks BoogieRock (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I still feel that WP:NFT applies --T-rex 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Not with the additional sources! - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion[edit]

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil[edit]

While I completely agree with the substance of your arguments at the AfD, please remain civil during the discussion. Telling Wikidemo that if he questions your civility again to "go fuck yourself" is not conducive to productive discussion. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

probably not, but if he's going to unjustly accuse me of being uncivil, the very least I can do is to prove him right --T-rex 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I really wish you wouldn't. It denigrates the discourse for everyone involved when either one side or the other lets the conversation devolve in such a way. While you were accused of incivility unjustly, in my view, you did act uncivil in the very next post, most likely justifying how Wikidemo felt about the initial post. Pleast try to keep your temper in check, if at all possible. S. Dean Jameson 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I try not to take wikipedia to serious --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What was (slightly) uncivil about your earlier statement is that you said I had an "odd" way of dismissing every argument I disagree with. I was doing nothing of the sort. I take the discussion seriously - but some are simply invalid arguments and I said so. When you tell people they're not arguing well instead of responding to their argument, the conversation goes downhill. I'm not bothered by the F-U and don't want to make anything of it, I know you were just teed off so no offense taken.Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What did I say about accusing me of being uncivil? --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool. Are we all good then? (BTW, would you mind taking Utahredrocks under your wing? I've completely lost patience with him, and now he's accusing me of making personal attacks against him.) S. Dean Jameson 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, please don't respond to Utahredrock's admonishing of you. He's isn't always aware of how things are appropriately dealt with here. S. Dean Jameson 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    After much ado, he finally removed his "response" to you last evening. S. Dean Jameson 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't even seen that. Isn't wikipedia fun? On a related note I really should get around to writing my meta-uncivil essay. Perhaps that will help me be able to get my point across without creating so much drama. On the other hand it did make for an amusing read, and had the unexpected positive result of getting Utahredrocks to moderate himself a little better. --T-rex 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is true. Of course, he went off into the good night with some parting shots at me for supposedly making "personal attacks" on him because he supposedly "shot [my] arguments full of holes", but it's not a big deal, really. I've officially asked him to not post on my talkpage anymore (you should have seen the number of threads he started), so if he abides by that, it's all good. S. Dean Jameson 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


After helping with this software-related AfD, would you be able to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InterModule? Thanks in advance :). Ironholds 10:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article has a very obvious lack of sources. Although I'm not exactly tripping over myself to leave an opinion at that afd either --T-rex 14:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day By The River. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just saying "Keep" with no rationale has no bearing whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(ChirpsClamsChowder) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured I would just keep my comments simple. If you insist I will go back and the comment "it is notable" --T-rex 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary[edit]

"i've found our difference" =) Gave me a good laugh. the_ed17 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(An actual laugh, not a sarcastic or "what is wrong with this guy" laugh. Thanks. =D the_ed17 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I report[edit]

As a courtesy, I must inform you that an AN/I report has been opened for your disruptions in AfD. DarkAudit (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, waste everyone's time then. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a troll. But you know what? I'll give AfD a five day break from my presence here --T-rex 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek/Wars Afd[edit]

Yo T-rex, I've left a comment on your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars vs. Star Trek if you'd like to respond. Regards, Skomorokh 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a response. Simply I think that there is no notability in the comparison and no significant sources for the comparison, while the two are individually notable --T-rex 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies your reasoning quite well. Triviality of coverage seems to be left up to a judgment call by policy, so I think we can agree to differ. Regards, Skomorokh 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to To Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page[edit]

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

I can't really say that I see anything improper in the deletion of this article. Well it was speedied as a copyvio, the AfD was leaning heavily to delete anyhow. --T-rex 03:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists, episodes, and characters[edit]

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

good for you? --T-rex 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Not really sure what this edit accomplished... Pats1 T/C 00:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at it. --T-rex 00:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Did the same thing on the Kansas City page. The obvious similarity is the "." character in the article name. I'm still not sure why that would mess it up though. --T-rex 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, the change to the Kansas City page was correct. Furthermore it left P. J. Pope alone --T-rex 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

T.Rex (band)[edit]

Hey does your name have anything to do with this band? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, never even heard of them --T-rex 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


GO REDSKINS! BOO COLTS!!(even though the score is 10-9: Colts) Gears of War 2 01:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just can't bring myself to root for NFC teams (unless they are playing against the Patriots) --T-rex 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Mohkam Mopping.jpg Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements.

As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed.
Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating - I couldn't oppose my principles :D Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks![edit]

Nash Point West.jpg Thank you...

...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Album(Bijelo Dugme album)[edit]

Regarding that afd: I'm finding no evidence that such an album exists. "New Album" certainly isn't the name though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment is based upon the assumption that it is called "New Album". If not then it does clearly fail due to complete lack of verifiability --T-rex 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Sun (Desert song)[edit]

The act in question does not have a page; Desert is about the dry place, not a dance band. I don't think that the single meets WP:MUSIC criteria for singles, given that the act Desert doesn't have a page, and the single didn't chart or anything. Plus the only sources are track listings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Power however does --T-rex 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

task 6[edit]

Hi. Thanks for answering the request. Looks good but I made two simple suggestions at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DinoBot2 6. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the bot request page. Short version is that it is impossible to anticipate what formatting each article will already have. --T-rex 03:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the best solution is to simply fix the template. I will fix the capitalization myself, but would prefer if someone with more experience tries to implement the if more than one use plural aspect of it. --T-rex 17:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

T-rex, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

All these redirects[edit]

Why have you created all of these redirects for articles that failed AFD? Burning Up Tour, maybe, but High School Musical Phenomenon? What possible use does that redirect serve?
Kww (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It discourages these articles from being recreated and prevents an links to these articles from elsewhere from showing an empty page. --T-rex 18:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed High School Musical Phenomenon as well and proposed to speedy it under R3. A redirect does not make any sense. If someone wants to recreate an article called like this - let them, it can then be speedied under G4. The dead link argument does not count as well - there are no links in article namespace that link to this page - why would they? This can be verified here. By the way the AfD decision was Delete and not Delete and redirect. There was no consensus for a redirect (the matter was actually addressed in the AfD), so none should be created. I see in the preview right now that it has already been speedied. Please do not recreate crap like this. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about internal links, but rather links from non-wikipedia sites. Also there is no problem with the redirect. Why would we want people to create an article just to delete it? The fact that you want to delete this harmless redirect is incredibly annoying, I'll be recreating it, and if you still want to delete it you can take it up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion --T-rex 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you[edit]

Broom icon.svg
T-rex, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008

Category based Bot Tagging[edit]

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with category based tagging. It is not your fault if people add incorrect categories. --T-rex 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing &ndashes[edit]

Please do not remove them from page ranges and other uses required in articles by WP:MOS. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the Manual of Style on this. The long dashes ( — ) are preferred --T-rex 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Not for page ranges, or ranges of any kind. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've looked at the edits you undid, I did not change the dash type in those articles but used the actual character rather than the HTML escape sequence. Please note that ( – ) and ( – ) display the same. --T-rex 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have worked at FAC and this is a firm rule. &ndash it to be used for ranges, including page ranges. Please read the ndash section in MoS. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User talk:Malleus Fatuorum who is an expert on these matters. We will see what he says. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This is his answer: You're right. (meaning me) Here's the relevant section of the MoS, pretty unambiguous. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not change the dash type. Whatever was there before is what is still there now. Please note that ( – ) and ( – ) are the same dash type. Please look at what my edit actually did, rather than accusing me of doing something I did not do. --T-rex 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have over 52,000 edits, mostly mainspace and non of them overiding another editors preference with a script, making it hard for that editor to continue with that article. You have freed me from ever putting an endashe in an article again. There is no reason your "preference" should override mine in an article I have been working on when you are running around with a script. It is a grind putting endashes in and educating editors about endashes in FA and GA articles it a grind also. We spend a great deal of time in FAC talking about endashes. You replaced what I had spent days explaining to them with something that will be unfamiliar to them when they look at the code. Since you can do it all with a flip of the script, no more endashes for me. I will never put another one in an article. You can do it with your script so I will leave it all up to you and advise others to do the same. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't care how many edits you have, and I don't care how hard it is for you to put in endashes. I agree that the proper dashes should be used, and have personally been using a script to make the additon of proper dashes easier and to improve the style of the articles. Personally I think that discussing endashes is a waste of time, so I am glad for your sake that you have decided to stop discussing it (although the many mentions on my talk page beg otherwise). --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw this mentioned elsewhere - in my view this sort of edit is not useful, and similar to those discouraged by the rules of use for WP:AWB, a script that is presumably analogous to the one you are using. I would suggest that you not confirm edits that are so inconsequential. Certainly, reverting to keep your preferred version in place reflects extremely poorly on you. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Cleaning up articles reflects poorly on me? As for usefulness, I agree that editing mass number of articles in this way would be a waste, which is why I am only doing so GA and FA articles (and candidates). --T-rex 14:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that these articles are cleaned up only in your opinion; the changes being made don't affect the reader-visible version and there is no consensus among editors that they are an improvement. I do think that edit warring over optional style issues reflects poorly on you and I expect that others would think so as well. The MOS says on the issue that "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Christopher Parham (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No edits I made went counter to the manual of style. Furthermore – and – are still the same character, so there was no change of style there. If you think poorly of me, that is ok, you are free to do so. --T-rex 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are discouraged by the manual of style passage quoted above since (1) this is an optional style choice - there is no community preference for the Unicode entry over the html escape - and (2) you were edit warring to maintain your preferred version. At any rate, at this point you have been made aware that edit warring over these issues is strongly discouraged and further edit warring on similar issues may result in a short block. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis, infectious mononucleosis etc.[edit]

Please note than in medical articles, per this guideline, all articles should be named by their official scientific names (i.e. poliomyelitis, infectious mononucleosis), not laypersons terms (i.e. polio, mono). Poliomyelitis and infectious mononucleosis are the official names given by the international standard. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. Kind regards —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then the manual of style should be changed in this regard to give the common name preference --T-rex 00:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why? The 'common' (may I also state incorrect) name is also mentioned in respective articles, and these names also redirect to the correct medical name. Common names are often misleading, and we don't want people learning incorrect names for things then being baffled when they hear terms like infectious mononucleosis in real life. That is, of course, the purpose of an encyclopaedia—to promote education. The scientific name is the correct name in these circumstances. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no issue with the full medical name being included in the article (and really it should be right up there in the lead section), but I still think that making exceptions to the common name principle is a mistake. Furthermore by deffinition the common name can not be incorrect, so that argument is just silly. However wikipedia should reflect real world usage, istead of trying to change real world usage. You can not argue that "Poliomyelitis" is better known than "Polio" --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring formatting[edit]

I notice several articles that you used your script on, the editors reverted and "restored formatting". It is a preference and you should not override the preference of an editor who is actually working on the article. Please stop overriding editor's preferences with your own. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You still don't understand do you? ( – ) and ( – ) are the same dash type. I am not overridding anyones preference by cleaning up the articles. Neither is this really a preference issues, but a style issues, based not on preference, but on the MOS. Furthermore I really do not appreciate when other editors undo my hard work. --T-rex 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that in the edit window I cannot tell the difference, so you messing with an article I am working on effectively prevents me from putting in endashes. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean the difference between – and — ? They look different to me (might be related to why we have a MOS on it). Regardless that does not prevent you from doing anything, and I personally removed any other type of dashes from that article myself so you don't have to worry about that. Furthermore after looking at the history there were not other editors reverting my work as you claimed, but rather just you. --T-rex 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kind of Blue. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Editor437 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am not engaged in an edit war. Nor am I about to be blocked, but thanks for the note anyways. However, in the future you may want to use a more descriptive heading then the current month and year, as that information is already conveyed in greater detail in your signature. --T-rex 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You are in an edit war with me because you insist on messing with an article I am working on. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You call that an edit war? Give me a break. I am not "messing" with anything, just running a simple clean up script on an article that you just so happened to have edited before. Please read WP:OWN and leave me alone already. --T-rex 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Can y'all take this to the talk page, rather than continuing to revert each other? Mattisse has indicated a willingness to do so; can you do the same T-Rex? Thanks--Editor437 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but Mattisse hasn't shown the willingness to do anything besides blame me for doing things he still doesn't seem to understand. --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The editors working on that article have discussed changes on the talk page. You should do the same. You do not have the right to over ride other editor's preferences without consulting first. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a coplaint take it up with the MOS not the individual article talk page. --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a complaint with you doing mass changes to an article without discussing it on the article talk page first. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Removing some whitespace and cleaning up some HTML is not a "mass change" --T-rex 15:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You need to get consensus from the editors working on the article. You did not do this. Please note [4] comment from Chrisopher Parham on your talk page telling you to stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You kindof already dedicated a whole section to telling me this below. Furthermore I do not need to ask your permission to edit the article. --T-rex 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note comment from Chrisopher Parham above to stop you mass script removal of endashes[edit]

Please note [5] comment from Chrisopher Parham to stop. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I responded to that message isn't an indication that I noticed it? Are you really so vain you have start yet another section on my talk page? --T-rex 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 3[edit]

Please do not remove others' comments on RfAs, as you did here. It's expected that people will comment on your support or oppose. GlassCobra 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One response was ok, but now it is just trolling. The removal of the comment was an attempt to calm down the discussion. I'll respond to it instead, but don't expect it to be pretty. --T-rex 04:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If your response will add nothing productive to the discussion, I would advise you to refrain altogether. GlassCobra 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A little too late for that. However, I was not going to allow such accusations against me to stand unchallenged anyhow, so as deleting it was not accepted (and I understand why) then I felt a response was needed --T-rex 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith[edit]

I was confused by your comment here. Do you know what "assume good faith" means? It means we assume people are trying to do the right thing. It has nothing to do with assuming they're successful at it. Teenagers should not generally be admins, but not because they don't try. It's not about good faith at all- children just generally have less wisdom and judgement than adults. Good faith alone does not produce useful work- competence is required as well. Friday (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting with the blanket insult that teenagers are unfit to be admins, makes me seriously doubt the intentions and the objectivity of anything else that editor has to say. And while children generally do have less wisdom and judgment than adults, high schools do not generally make bad admins. To jump from one to the other is idiotic. --T-rex 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? Don't you think that good judgement is one of the most important traits for an admin? Teenagers almost always have noticeably worse judgement than an adult. Friday (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that potential admins should be evaluated on their judgment. I do not think that they should be evaluated on the judgment of other people who happen to be the same age. --T-rex 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I think any reasonable person is willing to be persuaded by evidence of unusual wisdom and maturity. Lacking compelling evidence, it's generally useful to assume a teenager will act like a teenager. That's why they call it "acting like a teenager." I'm willing to change my mind if I see good evidence of unusual maturity. But, a bunch of kids shouting "he's mature, I swear!" is not useful evidence. Friday (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered looking at her contributions? And what she has said and done, rather than her age and what others have said about her? The thing is most high school students are very mature. Also most wikipedians do no divulge their age, and as such using that as admin criteria is just silly. So far JamieS93 has proven to have far better judgment then you do --T-rex 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Endash and emdash[edit]

Hi. I was curious about this edit. What has the tool done, and why would it do it? Yours curiously! --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It replaces the HTML escaped – with the actual endash character – . This has been confused before, so please note that – is (technically) different from the - the — and the − characters, even though they look the same. --T-rex 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, they all look different on my screen. Although curiously not when I'm editing. So, are you telling me that when I'm preparing an article for FAC I can just use those symbols instead of all that – rubbish? And if so, how do I access them? --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can use those symbols instead. However, besides that script the way I usually access them is via copy paste (that said a better way probably does exist). --T-rex 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Weird. Why doesn't nowikimarkup work on –!??! --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know. I just changed my comment to use & instead and that appears to work --T-rex 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm being nosy, did you target Bradman's article because it'll go on Main Page tomorrow? --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason I saw it. I can't say that I follow cricket all that closely --T-rex 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. NB You guys should compare notes --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm not the only one doing this. Technically my version of Advisor is a personal fork, so there are a few small differences between the scripts --T-rex 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:-) --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I'm normally a big fan of DinoBot2, but on one of my pages I put {{bots|allow=Cluebot}} which I thought meant that the only Bot who would look at that page was Cluebot. Did I get that message wrong? because I seem to have wasted some of Dinobot2's time and had to roll him back and wouldn't want to hurt his feelings. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DinoBot2 doesn't look for the bots or nobots template so it won't avoid this page. However, if you can give me the exact page I can add it to the whitelist to prevent this from happening in the future. --T-rex 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
User:WereSpielChequers/Cribs Please. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll fix this. Hopefully that page won't be edited again. --T-rex 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting up another bot run now, hopefully this error has been taken care of. --T-rex 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop bot from doing these edits on my talk page: [6] [7]?

SkyBonTalk\Contributions 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates should be substed --T-rex 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any guideline or rule about that? Anyway, that is my talk page so I have to decide whether to substitute the template or not. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 12:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TNX-Man 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--SmashvilleBONK! 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad bot edit[edit]

|Your bot broke something. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it. --T-rex 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now fixed this. --T-rex 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up {{Hs}}[edit]

Well done. I thought of posting something cool here but it seems I am too much of a nerd :-(

--Yecril (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll get the other suits this week. --T-rex 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, there is one. The bot should only replace where the template is embedded, e.g. not within nowiki or comments. See what it has done. Does it use a full parser? --Yecril (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that one, but the idea was to remove all instances of {{Hs}} anyways. I'm not sure what you mean by a "full parser" --T-rex 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. My idea was to move all inclusions of {{Hs}}, disregarding all hyperlinks to Template:Hs and all occurrences of text {{Hs}}, including within comments, scripts, stylesheets and math islands. I planned to examine those occurrences by hand because I do not know how a bot could deal with them. --Yecril (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, why are you altering the usage of this template? Abtract (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are listed at the bot request page, at my talk page and on the pages for the templates affected. --Yecril (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The {{Hs}} {{Ss}} {{Cs}} and {{Ds}} templates are being moved out of usage. --T-rex 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As in the original proposition, {{Hs}} is being repurposed and the others should undergo WP:RfD. --Yecril (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is quite annoying ... just give me a some simple answers as to the reason for the change, the justification for it and the authority for it ... please do not be dismissive. Abtract (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the annoying part, see Wikistress. As for the rest, see above. I am sorry you feel dismissed and that was never my intention but I have no explanation beyond what you already have. --Yecril (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You have never given me an explanation in language that I can understand ... try again please. Abtract (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk to Yecril about it if you must. Fact is you are the only one that showed any objection to this what so ever, and continuing to harass others does not help, as you have given no reason that these should not be depreciated. --T-rex 22:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No-one has given me a reason for it ... surely it is for the person doing the damage that needs to give a reason? Abtract (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.png Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr Miles is vandalizing the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous Again[edit]

this guy wiki games the three edit rule to get other editors banned. and has been called out by Adminstrator Seicer for removing all the info that could be constured as negative from the Alcoholics Anonymous wiki page.

Check this out:

A separate page had to be created for the Effectiveness of Twelve Steps that became renamed the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Both Scarpy and Mr Miles did not allow the other studies to be readmitted to the Alcoholics Anonymous Pagen, hence a separtate page was created to contain the studies and perserve them for the wiki.

he has constantly inserted POV in the George Vaillant section and he constantly attackss the study I have submitted below, which has recently been reworded to be more accurate. By the way the the study below uses much the same methods as Project Match, where therapists trained in twelve steps deliver the treatment to the study subjects.

Ståhlbrandt, Johnsson, Berglund Sweden 2007- A two year study of 556 University students. The subjects were assigned to one of three groups that being a brief skills-training {BSTP} alcohol-intervention program, or a 12-step-influenced alcohol intervention program {TSI}; or to a control group that received no intervention. The Brief skills-training program was composed of lectures and discussions which was derived from the University of Washington's Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students program and based on cognitive-skill intervention and motivational techniques. The 12-step program provided lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach. All participants completed a baseline assessment, as well as follow-up questionnaires one, two and three years following the baseline year. The study indicated that all three groups significantly reduced their scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) from baseline assessment to the two-year follow-up. Stahlbranndt indicated maturity could be a factor for this. However, among those students deemed to engage in high-risk alcohol consumption – defined as AUDIT scores of eight or above for men and four or above for women , and in greater danger of having negative consequences from alcohol consumption, the Brief Skills Training Program was more effective in that they decreased their alcohol comsumption more than the twelve step group and the control group. [36]

-- (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)MisterAblert

Mr Miles didn't even edit in the diff you provided. Furthermore he has not appeared to have reverted any more than you have either. --T-rex 00:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot replacement of deprecated coordinate templates[edit]

May I please remind you about your offer of help? Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete rating template change[edit]

I noticed that in this edit, DinoBot2 converted the 5 out of 5 rating template, but failed to convert the 10 out of 10 rating template. Just thought I'd let you know. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The out of 10 templates are going to changed over in a separate run. --T-rex 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Thanks for explaining. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Footnotes[edit]

The footnotes appear to be missing from Nineteen Eighty-Four.

They should probably be added then --T-rex 14:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Switchfoot - The Best Yet[edit]

Ok, I'd like to wonder why you keep reverting the article even when it's obvious that the information you're removing is important. Let's discuss this, shall we? =) Joberooni (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the information is wrong --T-rex 04:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What part of it? The version of "This Is Home" on the upcoming album is the radio version, which previously has been unreleased and only been played on radio. The rare music videos have never been released to the public, but have appeared as exclusives on other rare, limited Switchfoot releases, but not generally available to the public like they are now. I don't see how that's "wrong" information. Joberooni (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Every single music video has been previously released. To refer to them as unreleased is flat out wrong, and to refer to them as rare is pointless. Their inclusion on the special edition of this album isn't going to make them any less rare anyhow. Also the mix for this is home is trivial. There are no significant differences between this version and the one that has already been released, to make a big deal out of it is dishonest. --T-rex 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying the band is being dishonest when referring to several of the music videos as "unreleased" previously? Are you saying the band is lying when they say that the "This Is Home" mix (which is actually drastically different from what has already been released previously) is the unreleased version? Look, here's some proof: Official Message Boards post by Tim Foreman himself and a Press Release. Look closely for "(full band version, not soundtrack version)" on the first link, and "* Rare, never released videos" on the second link. Hope this helps. Joberooni (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is dishonest. Every single video listed there was released two years ago or even earlier. It's still a weak before the album's release and yet what is this? --T-rex 18:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, yes, those are on youtube. Are they available for general purchase? No. That's the point here. And you essentially agree that the "This Is Home" version is different enough.
Have you considered how they got on youtube? Do all the other means of purchasing these videos suddenly not count? How much a market really is there for music videos anyhow? Being available on youtube is pretty much the most released that a music video can be anyways. Also no, "This Is Home" is not "different enough" it is essentially the same song, and you are the only person to ever claim otherwise. --T-rex 20:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Airport[edit]

Could you reply to the issue I raised at the above link when you have time please. Cheers — Realist2 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am giving the link the benefit of the doubt. If proven to be a hoax then I may change my mind. --T-rex 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written[edit]

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was never written poorly, just about a non-notable subject --T-rex 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How to Have Articles Rated?[edit]

I am currently running the Kenny Rogers Discography project (a.k.a. creating missing pages, adding missing info I find to other pages, and eventually polishing everything up), and I have found your bot responsible for converting pages to a rating system, which is what I presume the discussion page for the article in question references. How does a user have an article rated? I just finished editing the Kenny Rogers Greatest Hits album and I think it's worthy of being rated at this point...mind, I don't have a good understanding of how an album article is rated.

If I misread what your bot does, please accept my apologies. Otherwise, how does this work?

CycloneGU (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to you at...[edit]

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 23#Need help filling in data

The Transhumanist    05:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one more place to geocode in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[edit]

Diamond Village, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is now the last article about a place in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to lack geographic coordinates. I can find references to it in docucuments, but I can't find it on any maps; I'd be very grateful for any help you could give me to find its latitude/longitude coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's on the east side of the island, but the article already says that. Unfortunately I don't know that side of the island as well. Tomorrow I'll check one of my maps and see if it is on there. --T-rex 04:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Country outlines[edit]

You mentioned you got the task approved. The task was already approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Worldbot. They said in that discussion that we don't need to get approval to run a bot on this set of 247 pages.

I went over your population work, and I'm impressed.

I can't wait to see how well your bot handles the size entry.  :)

By the way, have you gone over the other tasks on the list? Do you need more details about the various items that need to be filled in?

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist    01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long, but Thanksgiving has had me a little all over the place this past week. I'll be able to take a look at the rest of this in a few days. --T-rex 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I hope you caught up on old times with old friends, over fine food and excellent vintage. Don't forget to do plenty of sit ups and jumping jacks to work off the extra pounds you just gained.  ;) See ya in a few. Cheers. The Transhumanist    01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

The Transhumanist    23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot tasks on the country outlines[edit]

Thank you for filling in the population figures. That helped a lot.

Could you do the same thing for the size figures? The size statistics are in the infobox of each country's main article (the "name" article on each country).

The bot needs to grab the statistics from the country articles and then insert them into the corresponding topic outlines in a specific format. Here is an entry in the standard format we've been using. (See the wikicode):

There are several other things that could probably be filled in by bot, which would save the project's volunteers a lot of time I'd rather have them spending on tasks incapable of being done by bot.

  • Form of government:
  • Head of state: (title, incumbent)
  • Head of government: (title, incumbent)
  • Commander-in-chief: (title, incumbent)
  • Currency of x: (where "x" is the name of the country)

The "Form of government" can be found on the country's "Politics of" article, in the opening sentence of the lead paragraph. In some cases, it is in the "Government of" article.

"Head of state" and "Head of government" can be found in List of current heads of state and government. See also List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence.

"Commander-in-chief:" can usually be found in the "Military of" article for each country, though there is no standard format in which it is displayed (that I'm aware of).

"Currency of x:" is displayed in List of circulating currencies.

The hardest one above appears to be the Commander-in-chief. I may have to make a list of all the commander-in-chief articles, so that you can more easily extract the commander's title and the name of the incumbent.

Please let me know when you can work on these. Your assistance would certainly speed this project to completion, and would make the pages more presentable for when they will be moved into article space.


The Transhumanist    00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Progress report: Country outlines[edit]

Development has been slow but continuous:

Penubag has done a fantastic job on the images for the awards we'll be using for our project's collaborations and contests. We now have 3 awards: a medal, a trophy, and a race ribbon. They all look tight. The trophy needs a small adjustment, but other than that, all 3 awards are complete and ready to use.

Spartaz has warned us of (threatened to take) G4 (speedy delete) action if we run a competition that resembles the previously deleted Awards Center page. So whatever we do, any contests we run must differ substantially from the methods used there.

One type of competition I've been exploring is edit racing. I'm in the process of working the bugs out of this concept - the first race didn't work as expected - you see, because we only had an award for first place, the opponent didn't think it worthwhile to continue once it was clear who the winner would be. And since editors are in different time zones and usually need to start the race at different times, we need to base winning on personal start times - he who completes his assigned edits in the least time (rather than first), wins. And last but not least is quality control. What good is winning if your edits are ripe with errors? So I'll be exploring possibilities such as using a referee (whoever is overseeing a particular race), having participants watching each other for errors to knock them back, etc. I'm not sure yet.

Rich Farmbrough has been applying his bot expertise to filling in blanks in the country outlines (the population and area entries). I'm amazed at the number of edits he pumps out each day on a myriad of projects - ours makes up but a small time slice of his activity, and yet he has saved us many hours of manual work. Perhaps we should look into how he gets so much done.  :)

Zlerman has chosen to work on one outline at a time, and is taking on Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. He also has been keen on noticing and reporting design issues pertaining to the whole set of country outlines. Keep up the good work!

Highfields has been filling in the names of capitals, and is our first race winner. Check out the award on his user pages.

As you probably know, this project has expanded to include working on any and all sets of pages that are linked to from the country outlines. Once the set of country outlines go live (in article space), traffic will likely increase for all the links included on them. The quality and usefulness of those pages will reflect heavily on the country outlines (the outlines, which are essentially lists of links, are only as good as the links they present), and therefore we've branched out to solve the biggest problems with those as well. So far, we've taken on:

  • The creation of disambiguation pages for country adjectivals ("German", "French", "Taiwanese", etc. About half done.)
  • The clean-up of the CIA World Factbook statistics on the "demographics of" country pages. We've been renaming those sections to provide a key string that AWB can use for targetting (for skipping and filtering). Once that's done, we'll be able to break the clean-up down into simple AWB search/replace tasks, because we'll be able to target just those pages that include the CIA stuff.
  • Renaming the "Cuisine of" articles to their adjectival forms ("Chinese cuisine", "Italian cuisine", etc.)

Blackadam2 and Thehelpfulone have been helping out with the "demographics of" pages mentioned above.

And we have a couple speed addicts (addicted to wiki-velocity, not drugs)...

Both Robert Skyhawk and Thehelpfulone prefer (and excel at) simple AWB search/replaces. Robert hasn't actually joined our team yet, but he has been helping out quite a bit from the sidelines (via the WP:AWB/Tasks page. Unfortunately, there has recently been a non-AWB chore that has been holding things up on the AWB front - an edit to all the the headings which had to be reverted before too many new edits were made, because any new edits would make the reversion more difficult. The headings have been restored, so now the way is clear for AWB operations, and there are many search/replace tasks in the queue. AWB assignments have started again!

There's a similar bottleneck on the "Demographics of" pages (the "keying" mentioned above), but that's almost cleared too.  :)

With my internet access somewhat crippled, I've been finding it difficult to keep up with you guys. However, I expect to be accessing a Linky-capable workstation on a faster server (I'm on it right now, as you can probably tell from my contributions list for today), and so I should really pick up speed. Feels goooooood.  :)

Recruiting has been a bit slow (but steady), due in part to my crippled access, and because we've been waiting for the images for the awards to be completed. I expect the team to grow more rapidly as the bottlenecks are removed.

Well that's what's been happenin', and here's what's in the pipeline...

I'm about to begin work on a set of lists that corresponds to all the standard links on the country outlines, and these will be presented on the Topic outline of countries which will be organized exactly like the country outlines. Aside from being an extremely useful navigation aid, it will allow editors to easily see the state of country coverage on Wikipedia. I'll provide you with a link once I get up to speed on this.

In the meantime, keep up the good work!


The Transhumanist    05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

elementary schools[edit]

What we usually do with them if there is minimal information is to merge & redirect into the school district/town/diocese, whichever is appropriate. Saves a lot of trouble.DGG (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --T-rex 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Country outlines project update - 2009/03/08[edit]

Things have been slowing down again, so it's time for a big push...

We've gone live[edit]

This project needed a shot in the arm. Also, its draft pages have been littering Wikipedia's categories for months. The time seemed right to move all the country outline drafts to article space.


Well, the drafts had been sitting in Wikipedia space for a year.


Development has been moving at a snail's pace and we could use the help of the Wikipedia community at large (who are more likely to find these if they are in article space).


Yes, we've gone live.  :)

This puts pressure on us to get the blatantly incomplete elements of these outlines done. The only glaring problem is the government branches sections. These need to be corrected ASAP.

I've mentioned THE GOVERNMENT BRANCHES SECTIONS many times to many people over the past year, but the problem just doesn't seem to have been taken seriously. So let me put it another way:

HELP!!! I need your help on this now. Almost all the countries have a government with an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The links for these branches need to be completed for each country outline:

Here's a convenient list you can use WP:LINKY on to access and edit these quickly. Please copy the list's link to the top of your talk page so that you can access it easily.

If you spot any standardization in links, and ways we can automate parts of this process, or for groups of countries that have links in common, please let me know!

Administrative support for outlines[edit]

There has been growing pressure on me to write up the administrative pages for outlines - their instructions, guidelines, etc. Therefore, I'm now in the process of composing these. Fortunately, it is mostly a matter of gathering material from messages I've written to you guys over the past year. Still, this is taking up most of my time, and I will be buried in these for the foreseeable future.

Traffic control[edit]

The next big task after the government branches sections are cleaned up is link support for the outlines.

There's quite a list of links and notices that need to be put in place around Wikipedia, providing access to them to readers, and alerting editors to the need to develop and maintain these pages. This will keep our bot people very busy (and happy).

But the most important thing right now is to get the government branches sections completed. So please, put your bots aside, roll up your shirt sleeves, and start typing.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    02:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently my bot is having problems and can not be used. sorry. --T-rex 16:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

George Foreman Grill[edit]

Hi T-rex. I noticed that you reverted the merge of George Foreman Grill to Grilling#George_Foreman_Grill. The article has been a stub since 2004 and has no potential for growth as the topic is in itself un-encyclopedic. Under guidelines such as Merging #3 Text and WP:PRODUCT, the article would serve better in a parent article. I think there is room for a discussion as to which would be the better parent article, Salton Inc., George Foreman, or Grilling, and I could as easily accept either Salton Inc. or George Foreman. I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for wanting to keep such a stub, especially as a redirected merge keeps the content on the same search terms, and would allow for the content to be later broken out in WP:Summary style if and when there ever grew enough material to justify such a break out into a standalone article. Another option, and one that other people have suggested, is merging into contact grill, as the George Foreman Grill is an example of one of those. I'd be happy to discuss any of these possibilities with you if you wish. I will, in the meantime, restore the redirect to Grilling#George_Foreman_Grill as there is no point is having the same information in two places. Though I will consider the possibility of the redirect pointing instead to contact grill. Regards SilkTork *YES! 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the product is notable based on it's incredible sales and all around icon stature. Also it's a stretch to call it grilling, so adding it to that article makes little sense. Reading WP:PRODUCT supports having this article --T-rex 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge project summary, and future direction[edit]

In response to a friend on Wikipedia who was wondering about how I've been and what I've been up to, I got to spewing about our little endeavor, and well, I got so carried away I pretty much told him everything.  :) The message turned out to be a pretty good summary of what we've accomplished so far and the overall plan.

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist    23:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009[edit]

While surveying libraries, their outline-related resources, and our coverage of them, I came across something funny...

What subclass is the Bible in the Library of Congress Classification?

Do you think they'd like this one at WP:DYK?

(Nope. They didn't.)     :)


For months, I've been sitting at a terminal in one of the largest libraries in the country, and I haven't even looked around at the available resources.

Until a few days ago.

I'm overwhelmed.

When compared to libraries, Wikipedia is small. (See Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 7:Libraries and Educational Technology Libraries, and turn to page 617).

But is that a fair comparison?



Because we have growth potential.  :)

And we cover everything, including libraries!

Guess what else I found?

Hunting for outlines[edit]

I began to study libraries and librarians, since they are experts in organizing knowledge. And of course I turned to Wikipedia to see what we had on the things I came across...

And while doing so I kept running into outlines on Wikipedia that are not (yet) part of the Outline of knowledge.

When I come across non-OOK outlines, generally I rename them, and reformat them to our standard outline format. But there is the occasional exception.

Here are some outlines I just added:

  1. List of energy topics --> Outline of energy (it converted great)
  2. List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
  3. Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge[edit]

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them?  :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines?  :)   :)   :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK[edit]


What can you find?[edit]

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin![edit]

The Transhumanist    20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hurricane[edit]

Ok. Explain what grounds, what rules you have in claiming authority over this article like that? Who says you can't have a list of songs that have been confirmed? The way I see it, it is rather informational to have a list like that, especially if there is citation involved. Give me hard rules and facts. Inform me. Whatever it is though, you can't just DELETE an article because it doesn't go the way you want it to. Joberooni (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An unorganized listing of song titles that are likely to be on the album doesn't help anyone. Especially because none of these songs have been previously released nor have they been confirmed. Because this topic does not meet notability guidelines, deletion is an option. --T-rex 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that your only justification? Because I would contend it helps fans have a reference. Joberooni (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It gives fans speculated, unverified, and possibly misleading information. --T-rex 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
but what if it's directly from the band? Joberooni (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
your sources are blog spot and twitter... --T-rex 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The blog is a reliable website that reports Switchfoot news accurately. The twitter page is the official page from the band – as in, Switchfoot officially announced the very title of this album on that Twitter page. It's not really that difficult to figure out. Joberooni (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge WikiProject update 05/10/2009[edit]

Development is moving steadily forward. We haven't created any new outlines lately, but a lot of editing of our existing outlines is taking place. Take a look at Buaidh's contributions.  :)

I'm impressed.

I can safely say we now have another fanatic working on the project.

Importance of watching[edit]

A big danger to new pages or pages that have low traffic are prods. These are deletion proposals that don't have to go through AfD. If a prod sits on a page, any page, 5 days without opposition, the page can be deleted without discussion.

Such pages can be undeleted without discussion too, but there's usually a delay, especially if you don't notice the page missing right away. Prods create undesirable gaps in the subject coverage of list sets.

I just caught one the other day, so keep an eye on the outline pages!

Tangent: Indexes[edit]

One of the benefits of reverse outlining is the discovery of problems (gaps in coverage, etc.) with the publication being outlined. We've come across several and have been fixing those as we go. Because hypertext tables of contents are only as good as the pages they link to, we've been cleaning up large sections of Wikipedia. This was something I did not foresee when I started this project.

One of the sets of pages we link to on the outlines is the set of indexes, formerly called "List of x topics". Unfortunately, the lists of topics were divided between 2 different sets competing for the same article names, and this impeded development of both sets. One of those sets were indexes, and the rest are outlines (more about these below).

So I set about splitting up the 2 sets, by renaming the indexes to "Index of x articles" or "Index of x-related articles".

All 450 or so of them.

Nobody has complained about the new names, but 2 or 3 people thought I was way too bold to attempt this without a proposal or discussion first. Just 2 or 3 people. That's about as much opposition as you could expect for moving a single page.

Not bad for a move of this volume.

There are many more indexes out there, but our main concern are those which are provided links on the outlines. Many of those are redlinks (gaps in coverage as mentioned above), and so we need a way to track these and direct editor attention to them so that somebody creates them...

So, I've created a page for the set, that parallels the OOK list:

See Portal:Contents/Index.

The complete list of "Index of" articles can be found at User:The Transhumanist/Index, and this list needs to be gone over to make sure each article index listed is included on the portal page above. If you help with this, please put - placed after each entry that you check and place.

Thank you.

To further support the development of index pages, and provide a central place for people to go to find out more about indexes and what needs to be done, I've created the Index WikiProject.

Hidden outlines[edit]

There are outline pages hiding all over Wikipedia. They aren't in OOK's formats, but we can fix that.  :)

Converting existing outlines and absorbing them into the OOK is a lot easier than creating outlines from scratch, and it avoids unnecessary duplication of effort. But before we can convert them, we have to find them...

A hunt is underway for non-OOK outlines. So far, User:Gimme danger is in the lead and has found the most. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#The hunt for hidden outlines for more information.

Please don't rename any non-standard outlines you come across to OOK's standard naming until after you reformat them. Renaming them only after they are reformatted helps us keep track of which outlines have and have not been converted.

Thank you.

Converting outlines[edit]

The way I usually do this is by substituting the relevant outline generator template at the beginning of the outline, which forces the existing outline to the bottom of the page. Then I add an "under construction" tag, and then move all the links from the original outline to the relevant sections in the standard structure. It is important to finish the conversion quickly, so as not to create confusion. Then I scour Wikipedia for missing links (using Google to do a site-specific search of Wikipedia), to make the upgraded outline more comprehensive than the converted outline. Be sure to check all related categories too. Add a lead paragraph, add external links, and voila!

Better than before.

Where we're heading[edit]

The next phase in the evolution of this project is to increase participation by expanding the Wikipedia community's awareness of the Outline of knowledge, its purpose, and what needs to be done for any given subject.

This will entail placing banners on the outlines' talk pages, the talk page for the WikiProject associated with the subject of each outline and of each planned outline, and on the talk page of each article corresponding to each outline and to each planned outline.

Then instructions on improving subject access, including the creation and development of an outline for each subject, will be posted on every related WikiProject page. (There's a WikiProject for the subject of most outlines).

We will also be sending notices to every member of every WikiProject associated with the subject of each and every outline and planned outline.

But before this happens, the outline guidelines and the article draft for the topic "Outline" must be completed. Without these, many editors will not know what an outline is, or what to do to build and improve them.

And that's our current bottleneck.

Once those are ready (the guideline and article), we can take this project to the next level.

Keep up the good work[edit]

Well, that's all for now.

Until next time,

The Transhumanist    00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions for you...[edit]

What are the benefits of a tree structure?[edit]

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question.  :)

What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?[edit]

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers on my talk page.

The Transhumanist    04:35, 14 May 2009

WPOOK Update - 05/17/2009 - Blockbusting![edit]

This project needs another shot in the arm.

So here it goes...

Countries WikiProject Collaboration - Contests![edit]

I've contacted all 59 members of the Countries WikiProject to help in designing and conducting contests for the further development of the country outlines.

You are invited too.

Houston, we have a problem[edit]

The guidelines and outline article still aren't complete.

Which means you will be needed to help explain to the newcomers mentioned above what outlines are and how to develop them.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Hosting country coverage contests.

The Transhumanist    22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An idea for a contest[edit]

To promote work on the country outlines, maybe a contest between country WikiProjects could be run, to see which WikiProject could develop the best country outline.

What do you think?

(I look forward to your reply on my talk page).

The Transhumanist    23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the shit hit the fan? - WPOOK update, 05/25/2009[edit]


We've started the next phase[edit]

I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.

I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.

So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...

Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.

This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...

Administrator noticeboard incident and Village Pump policy discussion[edit]

It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!

He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.

It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".

His primary argument is that outlines are content forks of articles, and violate WP:CFORK.

But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.

Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.

The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.

But the dab's discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.

Now what?[edit]

Am I disheartened or deterred? Hell no. I say "full steam ahead!"

But we really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.

In a week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once.  :)

The Transhumanist    22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT   04:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have outlines in addition to...?[edit]

Wikipedia:Outlines was growing so large that I split this section off as a separate page.

I look forward to your feedback and improvements.

The Transhumanist    22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Good news and bad news - 06/08/2009[edit]

The big push continues.

And it seems to be working!

The good news is that there's growing support for outlines, and there are more editors than ever editing them!

The bad news is that the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages. While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes. Fortunately, barely enough supporters have been watching those pages that no consensus for moving or merging the outlines has succeeded. So far...

Big problem: ignorance of what outlines are for and their benefits[edit]

Most of the opposition seems to be unaware of the complete range of what outlines are used for. They just don't get it.

This is why it is important to complete the outline article draft. An article with a comprehensive treatment of outlines would be the perfect place to refer anybody unfamiliar with outlines to.

Opposers also don't seem to understand how outlines differ from some other page type that they prefer. Some think articles are good enough as an overview, others think portals are more in-depth, still others think categories or navigation boxes are the most efficient and useful way to organize and present topical information. Some have simply never seen an "Outline of" page before and think they are a new type of page (they've been around under other names since 2001).

If you run across anyone who doesn't understand the role of outlines on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? might help reduce their misconceptions or uncertainties about outlines.

On the bright side, you've got to see this...[edit]

To add the outlines and related support pages to your watchlist (takes less than 30 seconds), cut and paste them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist. For a way to improve the display of your watchlist - by namespace (very useful) - see Watchlist sorter, or use the "super fast upgrade" at WP:OTS.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes (currently without the talk pages) and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on the sidebar on the left side of your screen.

The big push[edit]

The big push started with about a thousand banners and notices being placed on article talk pages all over Wikipedia.

But it didn't stop there...

Welcome our new members...[edit]

The following Wikipedians have joined the OOK team.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and introduce yourselves.

Enter the mentors![edit]

I asked a bunch of mentors at WP:ADOPT for advice. Several of them answered on my talk page. Most of those who replied were happy to help, and posted some very good ideas. A couple even joined the project.

Here are their ideas, and what is being done about them. A few of the tasks still need volunteers:

Linking to outlines has begun[edit]

To the tops of about 30 subject articles, I placed a test batch of hatnotes leading to the corresponding outlines. The hatnotes look like this:

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of X.(Hidden: <!- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE because it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Wikipedia's overall coverage of this subject. Thank you.-->

The rationale for the hatnotes is that each outline is a topical guide for its subject, and since tables of contents go at the front of a book, a link to each outline should be placed at the front of its subject.

Unfortunately, not all editors agree. Some of the hatnotes have already disappeared.  :(

Some past discussions pertaining to the existence or location of outlines[edit]

Note that the "Lists of topics" are of two types, including outlines and indexes, so discussions to remove, move, or merge those are usually relevant to the OOK. Also, outlines are a type of list, so discussions that affect lists in general also pertain to outlines. We've got to be on our toes!

I've excluded links to live discussions, out of respect for WP:CANVASS.

Table of contents to OOK-related stuff[edit]

Here's a directory of outline support pages:

Keep up the great work![edit]

The Transhumanist    04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK advert banner under development, here's the beta...[edit]

Thank you to those who suggested WPOOK have an animated advert banner. Penubag got working on it right away. Here's what he's come up with so far:

Penubag needs feedback.

I've posted a few changes for him to make to it.

Please post additional comments and suggestions for him at User talk:Penubag#Chocolate banner.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration![edit]

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist    21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK's advert banner is done![edit]


Is it perfect? Can it be improved?

Penubag loves feedback. Please let him know if it can be further improved.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Full Steam Ahead! - 06/18/2009[edit]

Several members of the WikiProject have been hard at work.

Buaidh has been building and refining the outlines on the U.S. States, the states' historical outlines, and the Historical outline of the United States. Lately, his edits have dominated the project's watchlist readout. (I think he's overdue for a barnstar or two. hint hint)

Penubag has been working on medals for all the main branches of the OOK, and has completed the OOK WikiProject's animated advert banner (see below).

Highfields has been filling in the currencies for each country on their respective outlines.

NuclearWarfare and Thehelpfulone have been busy with WP:AWB, posting banners and notices, and helping our sister project, the Index WikiProject, get established. Indexes work hand-in-hand with the outlines and are prominently linked to from the top of most of them. And the outlines, which serve as tables of contents, are only as good as the pages they link to.

Since we started integrating (linking) the OOK and its support pages into the encyclopedia and into the Wikipedia community, activity on outlines has been increasing. Though there's still much left to do.

But I digress. There are a couple more...

Welcome our new members! Stefan and MacMed[edit]

Stefan is building the Outline of sharks.

MacMed has joined our advanced wiki-tools team, and is currently adding links to outlines in the corresponding subject articles' see also sections.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and say "hi".

WPOOK's advert banner has gone live![edit]

Penubag has finished this WikiProject's animated advert banner, and it is now being displayed on the Wikipedia ads template which in turn is displayed on about 2000 user pages. Each time someone access one of those pages, there is a 1 in 184 chance of them viewing this:

If you'd like to display the banner on your userpage locked-on to the ad as above, use the following code:

{{Wikipedia ads|ad=184}}

(By the way, it's been awhile since we've barnstarred Penubag).

Watchers needed![edit]

If you haven't already, please add the entire project's watchlist to your watchlist. Here's how:

From the edit window, copy and paste Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist.
Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu in Wikipedia's sidebar on the left hand side of the screen.

Check the watchlist every time you log on![edit]

I forgot to mention this step above.  :)

The OOK is in 5 other Wikipedias?[edit]

I can't make heads or tails of 'em, but these links were on Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge:

Resurrected from the grave yard...[edit]

I discovered an AfD discussion on possibly the first article named "Outline of", which was called Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics, and which was created 4 years ago. Of course they deleted it. But now it has many friends, and so it has risen from the dead.  :)

See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 7#Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics.

A diamond buried in project space[edit]


Recruiters needed. Drop me a note if you are interested.

Advice from the mentors[edit]

  • Astatine-210, Strdst grl, and Willscrlt - link to the outlines from the corresponding subject articles' see also sections - this is underway by MacMed (non-country outlines) and User talk:NuclearWarfare (counry outlines).
  • Astatine-210 - add a link to the outlines to the disambiguation pages of the corresponding subjects - good idea. Since "Outline" is just the type of page, not the subject, I think these might qualify for inclusion on disambiguation pages. We need someone to look into the relevant guidelines on this.
  • SimonTrew - provide a badge (userbox) for WPOOK members to add to their user pages - Penubag will have one for us soon.
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - create a card explaining outlines, and send it to everyone you know, and make it viral (by including a request for the recipients to send the card to everyone they know) - this task has been split in three:
  1. Creation of a "thank you for your interest" card which introduces (explains) outlines, to send to queriers, new participants to discussions, those who seem to be confused about outlines, etc.
  2. Creation of a thank you card / invitation to the WPOOK, to send to users we see working on outlines, including a request for them to invite others whom they think might be interested
3. Creation of an invitation to Wikignomes, with a brief rundown on the types of tasks there are for them to do on the outlines. The invitation will include a request for them to invite anyone they think would enjoy working on outlines.
  • weebiloobil - add examples to Wikipedia:Outlines - more examples will be added as suitable outlines are completed
  • weebiloobil - add a picture to Wikipedia:Outlines (it doesn't have to be relevant), to provide atmosphere and to break it up visually and add a splash of color - will do, and we'll add a caption to make it relevant, with a link to the outline on that subject. Thank you for the idea.
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - ask Jimbo Wales to bestow the award(s) for the country outlines contest, once you get it going first - we'll give that a try
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - ask everyone in the project to inform their acquaintances around Wikipedia about the OOK - will do, as soon as the cards
  • UzEE - collaborate with all the WikiProjects you share scope with - we've placed a banner on their talk pages, and have placed task notices on some. We'll be posting more tasks, and plan to create a section on contents system development and maintenance for each WikiProject page itself.
  • SriMesh - if you can't get outlines added to next year's WikiCup, then create your own WikiCup-like contest - there's 6 months left to this year to address reservations and work out the details at WikiCup. In the meantime, there's the 200-WikiProject contest, which needs input.

More outline tasks[edit]

New outlines in article space[edit]

New outline drafts[edit]

Main discussion pages[edit]

Keep up the great work[edit]

I'm impressed with the level of enthusiasm and work going into the outlines. I'm proud to be working with each of you.

The Transhumanist    23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration #2: Outline of Gibraltar[edit]

This outline is approaching completion.

I added a bunch more links, finding them with the following Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia:

(You can use the wikicode for the links above as the basis for new searches - just replace "Gibraltar" with any other country or region name).

Request: please redirect the redlinks! (bluelinking...)[edit]

The redlinks need to be bluelinked where possible. The most useful way is to create redirects leading to the material (which is usually included in a section of an article - see Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects to page sections. That way, when the redirect pages are replaced by the actual articles, the links will already point to the right places.

Please take a crack at it, and bluelink a few.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist    01:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: on an unrelated matter, where should the Outline of chocolate be placed on the OOK? -TT

I finally got to whack somebody with a trout![edit]

That was fun.  :)

The Transhumanist    23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Push push push - 06/25/2009[edit]

Work is proceeding apace...

New members

The current consensus is that we can't place a hatnote leading to an outline at the top of a subject articles unless the outline being presented is of at least the same quality-level as the article.

What's next...

Improve outline quality by completing them.

Place hatnotes for the outlines of high enough quality.

Guidelines pertaining to outlines need to be updated. Outlines emerged as a class of pages only a few months ago, and most of the relevant guidelines don't cover them specifically. For example, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is incredibly out of date.

Invite wikignomes, wikielves, and wikifairies (all 2500+ of them) to help on the outlines .

Identify 600 more subjects with coverage extensive enough to justify outlines, create rudimentary drafts for them, and post notices to the corresponding WikiProjects and subject talk pages to help build them.

Convert outlines titled "List of" to outline articles, and add them to the OOK. There are a few hundred of these. Conversion instructions are needed.

Add a description of outlines to About Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Basic navigation, and add tips about outlines to the WP:TOTD and Tips library.

Keep up the great work!

The Transhumanist    20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback[edit]

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and let Minnecologies know what you think of it on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Outline Update - Exhausted - 07/10/2009[edit]

I'm sorry that I haven't been available to assign tasks lately. For the past 3 days (not including today) I've been almost totally consumed in discussions concerning the location and very existence of outlines. Today I finally broke free and got back to work on outlines. Felt good.

A great deal has been happening with outlines and behind the scenes. I just don't have time to tell you all about it this time around. Here's the best I can do...

How to watch what's going on with outlines

If you'd like a bird's eye view of everything that's happening with respect to outlines, see this page:

  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format:

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following one have been recently merged:

The Transhumanist    01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Exhausted - 07/10/2009[edit]

I'm sorry that I haven't been available to assign tasks lately. For the past 3 days (not including today) I've been almost totally consumed in discussions concerning the location and very existence of outlines. Today I finally broke free and got back to work on outlines. Felt good.

A great deal has been happening with outlines and behind the scenes. I just don't have time to tell you all about it this time around. Here's the best I can do...

How to watch what's going on with outlines

If you'd like a bird's eye view of everything that's happening with respect to outlines, see this page:

  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format:

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following one have been recently merged:

The Transhumanist    01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can your bot do this task?[edit]

Task. Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 20:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day![edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedia, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009[edit]

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members
Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:
News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD
The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.
The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. [Outline of Palestine]. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.
Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.
To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.
Who's active on Wikipedia this summer?
Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).
It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!
Who's been up to what?
  • Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
  • Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
  • Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
  • And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines
Recently created outlines include:
Recently converted to outlines
These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:
Recently merged into outlines
There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:
Outlines that have been tagged
Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).
I can't stress enough the importance of watching
With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.
If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:
  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.
Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):
  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist    01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We're working on something special...[edit] award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OOK collaboration: Outline of knowledge (eom)[edit]

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk at 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Always (Switchfoot song)[edit]

Hello T-rex, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Always (Switchfoot song) - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, and really meant to do a prod. --T-rex 00:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day![edit]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If only that meant that I actually had today off... --T-rex 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cross linking song and album categories[edit]

Hello. A little more than a year ago, DinoBot2 crosslinked the songs and albums categories see this example if you don't remember. I was wondering if you could run it again on the many categories that have been created since. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Actually, maybe this is already being done regularly but I don't think so.
Wikipedia changed their backend code, so DinoBot is not working anymore. Sorry about that. --T-rex 01:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween![edit]

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving![edit]

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello T-rex! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3,397 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Oronde Ash - Find sources: "Oronde Ash" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing pol[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SatudayRockAction.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:SatudayRockAction.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2015 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Kirk of the Hills for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kirk of the Hills is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk of the Hills until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, T-rex. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)