User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2009, Oct-Dec

Hello

Just wanted to say your the only one with any intelligence on here recently someone has erased the article Mikoyan LMFS i was just wondering if you can make a page linking it to a page on the Fifth Generation fighter Jet Being built by Russia the LMFS you can find tons of information on it just right on google Mikoyan LMFS globalsecruity thanks so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMFS (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was deleted as a copyright violation. It seems someone came and dumped a block of copyrighted text over the top of your humble little stub and the deleting admin didn't think to check for that possibility. I have restored the pre-copyright violation version of the text, cleaned it up a bit, and added it to my watchlist to prevent that from happening again. As far as expanding the article goes, I'll see what I can do but it will probably be a while before I get to it. (Unless one of my talk page lurkers gets to it first. :)) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThaddeusB for the reminder. Cheers from Down Under Buckshot06(prof) 02:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with Tagging Appreciated

I've only tagged a photo once, and that was years ago for my entry on Chung Keng Quee, my great grand father. That one was from a very old source and someone helped me with the tag.

I now have a problem with the picture for Ong Hock Thye, former Chief Justice of Malaya (1968-1973), my uncle. I got the pic from my cousin, the daughter of the late Chief Justice who knows exactly where it's going -- I had asked her for a pic for my Wiki entry on her dad. The pic would have been taken in 1968 upon his elevation to Chief Justice.

I've tried looking at the picture tag page but have come away more confused than ever.

Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyseow (talk • contribs)

I tagged the image File:Image-OngHockThyeChiefJusticeofMalaya.jpg and added some copyright information on his talk page. I don't think there is anything we can do for him until he responds to the issues I mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jefferyseow also posted on my talk page but indicates that he does not want to go to and fro, so I am posting my main reply here and will do so until he resolves the copyright problem. Here is the problem, according to Malaysian law, per Commons:Commons:Licensing#Malaysia, copyright subsists for 50 years after the death of the author, or for 50 years after first publication. If we assume the image dates from 1968 then it will come out of copyright in 2018 but if it was never published before (now) then 2059 will be the date. Your only possibility is to claim fair-use so long as you can comply with all ten non free content criteria as a historic image which might be possible seeing as he is dead. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cutting a long story short

Can anyone tell me what is the correct tag for something that was outside the United States and before 1975. I think that there is something in copyright that says if it was outside the USA and before 1975 it is in the public domain ie no need for copyright permission. Yes or no? As for proof that the pis is before that date, please see my uncles date of birth and date of death in my Wiki essay.

Does any of this make any sense?

As to Malaysia's Copyright act of 1987 --- the act was made in 1987. Part 1 (Preliminary) Section 2 (Extent of application) Subsection [1] Subject to this section and section 59A and regulations made under section 59A, this Act shall apply in relation to works made before the commencement of this Act as it applies in relation to works made after the commencement of this Act: Provided that this section shall not be construed as reviving any copyrights which had expired before the commencement of this Act.

And finally, and this one I really do not understand, is that anything we commission does not belong to us? I mean, say I go to a Professional Photo studio for the purpose of having a proper pic done for use example in my Passport, or a press release that I am handing out... and later on the photographer can sue me? Doesn't copyright refer to creative work? And isn't something I commission and pay for, different from that?

The Copyright act of 1987 grants creators/owners private property rights to control the use of their works in Malaysia including via broadcast and public performance. It follows that the buying of a cassette/CD does not give the buyer an automatic right to broadcast or play the same in public unless consent or licence is first obtained from the copyright owner. But if, for example, I go to a recording studio with my band and we record something and get a CD out of that. Am I the copyright owner? Or the studio whose facilities I made use of?

Malaysia's Copyright Act of 1987 Part IV - Ownership and Assignment of Copyright. Section 26. First ownership of copyright. Subsection [1] Copyright conferred by section 10 shall vest initially in the author. Subsection [2] Notwithstanding subsection [6] of section 27, where a work (a) is commissioned by a person who is not the suthor's employer under a contract or service of apprenticeshi; or (b) not having been so commissioned, is made in the course of the author's employment, the copyright shall be deemed to be transferred to the person who commissioned the work or the author's employer, subject to any agreement between the parties excluding or limiting such transfer.

Look at the pic. Is that a creative work or art? No. It's something you or I would go to a photo studio, pay the guy money i.e. commission him to take a photo for us with full knowledge that we are going to go out and use it in any way we wish.

Because we bought it.

No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyseow (talk • contribs)

I don't work with pictures very often but I am pretty sure there is no such tag. Each country sets their own copyright laws and we respect the laws of each country separately. In most countries, the law is something like 50, 75, or 100 years after publication. Malaysia appears to be 50 years which means the photo is still under copyright.

As to the second part, int the United States and most other countries, it is the photographer that owns the right to the photo. If I go to a photo studio and get a picture of myself the photo studio owns the copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. I see no reason to believe Malaysia is any different.

The "author" of a book, song, or photo is the same in everty case - the person who created it. In the case of a photo it isn't the subject of the photo who created it, but rather the photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But I just highlighted the relevant portion of the Copyright act which shows that "Notwithstanding subsection [6] of section 27, where a work (a) is commissioned by a person who is not the suthor's employer under a contract or service of apprenticeshi; or (b) not having been so commissioned, is made in the course of the author's employment, the copyright shall be deemed to be transferred to the person who commissioned the work or the author's employer, subject to any agreement between the parties excluding or limiting such transfer." That's Malaysian law. The copyright rests with my dead uncle who commissioned the work. Sigh. No one seems to be hearing me. I give up. --Jefferyseow|Jefferyseow (talk)

Well, as a (likely) official picture that would mean his employer (the court) owns the picture. But either way the picture is under copyright until 50 years after it was either published (2018-2023) or your uncle's death (2027). Again, you best strategy here is to claim fair use.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orangutang (band)

Hi, please don't forget that you promised in June to add sources about the band to Orangutang. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orangutang. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I never got to it. Thanks for the AfD notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:S-J-S-F-M-W

I thought I detected a stench from that account--thanks for blocking it. His edits were a problem, but marginal enough to make me hesitant to block based on what I knew at the time. 75.181.10.227 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That above comment was from me ... just as I hit "save," somehow it logged me out ... grrrr, blasted MediaWiki ... Blueboy96 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree that the edits themselves werem't problematic enough for an immediate block - it was the totality of the evidence (collected by others) that did it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Salyut UFO "Sighting" PROD

Hi! some time ago you removed a proposal for deletion in an article (Salyut UFO sighting), stating that there was media coverage about it. If you check the link you put in the comment, you'll see that the UFO thing was a practical joke on metallic foil debris, and then the rest of the story was made up by ufologists.

I keep my opinion on that the article should be deleted due to it being a made up story, having no references and being an orphan article.

Regards, Guido.scalise (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed the story was true (and never thought it was). The threshold for notability is coverage in reliable sources, not truth. Hoaxes most certainly can be notable, and the RS coverage makes this one notable. As to not having references, that is a problem that can easily be solved via editing so deletion isn't required (and if we deleted every unreferenced article we'd loose half the encyclopedia, so it is hardly a unusual problem either.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

filter 213

Just want to make sure that the string isn't affected.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elstong

I would like you to look over the block you made to this user. From my perspective, this looks far more like an old established user steamrolling a new user rather than a bona fide case of disruptive posting. Trusilver 01:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I jumped to conclusions based on the edits and failed to consider the lack of proper warnings explanation. User unblocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Dinkytown, who first reverted the edit, explained painstakingly why the edit was wrong. Trusilver, if you're going to accuse me of "steamrolling" please check the edit history of the article first, and have the civility and decency to address your concerns about my edits to me, rather than libeling me without bothering to dicsuss the concerns with me. I have replied to your statement on Elstong's talk page. Had I been aware of this, I would have clarified the misunderstanding, as Thaddeus has now unblocked, which I do not disagree with, but used an incorrect edit summary, which I do disagree with. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I intended to place blame only on myself, not on anyone else. The only judgment I am making is that I personally acted too hastily. I do not believe you "steamrolled" anyone, and your actions did not factor into my unblock. Sorry for creating unnecessary drama. :( --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note I did not ask for a block. However, your unblock summary states, incorrecly, that no one explained what was "wrong" with his edits. This is inaccurate. I wished to ensure you were aware; that is all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of it at the time of the unblock, although I am not sure what you are referring to... in the unblock message I said "Further explanation and/or warnings should have been given before I considered a block" (meaning be me); in the edit summary I just said "unblock request accepted". I can modify the unblock language if you want, but again I don't understand which part is inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the verbiage I see in the block log; I see I acted too hastily, considering no one really explained to this user the problem with his edits - which is why I felt the need to inform you the problem had, in fact, been explained, before I even arrived. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing up where the confusion came from. Next time, I will be more careful to use consistent (and accurate) language... I actually made the unblock after editing the talk page & I guess I messed up a bit on the language. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I'm glad we're now on the same page. I was beginning to be very confused, and know it must have been the same for you. Your patience in sticking with this until we had mutual understanding is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't create any drama at all, don't worry about that. Trusilver 02:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your exemplary work in creating and improving the WebCiteBOT.Blargh29 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the recognition. It is always nice to know my work is appreciated. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:UkFaith

FYI, subject to finding a suitable mentor, and other terms set out on their talk page, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee has decided to provisionally unblock this user. If you are interesting in helping with mentoring, can you please mention this on their talk page? Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 3

I'm still answering the questions... and note that you have tossed in a few with some interesting twists. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did my job then. :) Other than inexperience, copyright issues seem to be the most frequent reason for failure (although oddly many RfAs never get a copyright question issue). This is probably due to generally ignorance of the underlying policies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting test...

Hope Assignment3 does not disappoint. I learned a lot in completing it. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

23000 Dead links

We're in imminent danger of having another 23000 dead links to geocities.com. We need your help to recruit an army to attack the problem in only one week. Please see my detailed request. Sorry for the double post to the BOT page, I'm hoping to catch you today to see if what we need is even possible. Thanks! --UncleDouggie (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

I reverted all of Gotham City's GA reviews and I need some help deleting his bogus reviews. See the ANI thread. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone took care of it (the deletion) while I was away at dinner. Thanks for your help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"reverting after being informed the subject was being discussed at ANI"

Re your block of User:Bali ultimate - is this really a valid reason? Given that page histories and versions are available indefinitely I assumed that editing the page in question would be normal practice, even if there is a current AN/I discussion.   pablo_hablo. 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting while knowing an attempt to resolve the situation is being made (either direction) serves no purpose but to perpetuate the problem. I will happily unblock if he agrees to join the discussion and not revert further. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks - I suppose it is a bit of a wrong version/right version situation.   pablo_hablo. 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

db-g6

You're an admin, right? I just tagged Wikipedia:Linkrot for db-g6 speedy delete. I think we have consensus. Maybe you can delete it?--Blargh29 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Deleted & moved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the sig...see, I'm often wrong! Frmatt (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing with making mistakes - everyone does. The problem arises when one refuses to admit their mistakes, especially if that person happens to be an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind closing an AfD for me?

A well-meaning editor created an article for Kirti Chakra (film) and under that name it went to AfD. I began to research it in thinking to improve it, and discovered that the film already had a much better article under the title Kirtichakra. I wrote the nominator about this and he has not come across this type of duplication before [1]. As the AfD is a moot excersize that need not continue, is there a procedure where it might be early closed as not being neccessary? And then setting a simple redirect from the well-meaning stub name to the actual complete article? I though to do a bold non-admin close myself, but I've already commented at the AfD. Might you look in? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - The AfD close and the resulting page move have been taken care of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice job renaming Kirtichakra to Keerti Chakra and redirecting both film articles to the better spelling. No doubt it was all quite confusing until you found the more phonetic title. There may be similar such in the future, but we can handle them on a case by case. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess there's nothing more to do than congratulate you on your efficiency. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Emu article

Hello ThaddeusB, many thanks for the emu article. Best Regards Burmeister (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AllAfrica.com

In relation to your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#AllAfrica.com, you should know that AllAfrica.com doesn't have original content, I believe, but rather simply reprint articles from other media companies. If you search for the article names, you can often find the original publisher of the content (if the original publisher publishes online). If you need some help, let me know and I can possibly help you to search for articles. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you go with those articles? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. From AllAfricia, one can get the title and date of an article, but not the original source. As far as I know, none of these are available online outside of AA. The articles I need are as follows:

• "Canonising Mediocrity, Uzoatu And ANA/Cadbury Prize" (2004-12-21): "When I read Uzor Maxim Uzoatu's piece in the Arts and Review page of THISDAY, (and later, Vanguard) something in the periphery of anger welled up inside of me. A review of the issues he had brought up in that piece bothers on his personal opinion ... "
• "Eko Ree And Ana/Cadbury Prize: Canonizing Mediocrity" (2004-12-06): "I HAVE had cause over the years to read many new Nigerian writers in manuscript.When I do get these manuscripts sent to my desk, I try as much as possible to be objective and thorough in the assessment..."
• "Honours for the Writers" (2004-11-08): "The association of Nigerian authors, ANA, honours its deserving members..."

Let me know if you are able to track any of these down. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The first article is available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18302668_ITM and is from http://www.thisdayonline.com/. The second article is available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14735711_ITM and is from http://www.vanguardngr.com/. The last article is available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14344580_ITM and is from http://thenewsng.com/. To read articles in full at that site, I simply use 10018 as my post code, and use XXXXX.XXXXXX+(add some numbers here)@gmail.com, and choose the second library. This should give you the full article. Hope this helps. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed! Thank you for your help! --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Within wikipedia?

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Exporting_articles_to_other_wikis

Two very distinct questions please:

1. So as long as I copy and paste the article history to talk, then this will satisfy this largely ignored rule?
2. Does this apply to wikipedia too? i.e. if I were to merge a section of an article, as long as I copy and paste the history to the talk page (say in a collapsible section on the talk page) then this would satisfy this rule?

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes & Yes. Both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require that all "non-trivial" contributors be created in some form. Normally this is done by linking back to the Wikipedia article which has the history for attribution. However, the rule can be satisfied by listing the names as well. Thus, a copy & paste of the history will suffice (plus a sentence saying it came from Wikipedia originally to be safe).

See also m:Help:Transwiki which has instructions (basically the same as what I just said) for copying to sites where you don't have Special:Import access; and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content which has more detailed info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Entry

Hi,

One of my fans doing research on me for a paper he is writing on up-and-coming Speculative Fiction writers for college emailed me to say the Wikipedia.org pages about me had been deleted on the basis I was not noteworthy enough for this amateurish e-publication. Interesting.

I didn't realize having 14 YA novels published, developing and writing the Universal Monsters series, and developing a fantasy series for Working Partners, LTD. were not noteworthy

Then again, I'm a professional writer and not someone who fully understands the workings of noteworthy stuff as defined by high school graduates. I just write and do my best to entertain. Perhaps those who "research" to determine Wikipedia.org "noteworthies" need a refresher course in research skills.

Thank you for helping me understand this unique concept. I referred the researcher writing the essay on me to other sources as well as gave him a personal interview.

Good luck in your bourgeois endeavors.

All the best, Larry Mike Garmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.176.65 (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in short notability and importance are not the same thing. For someone or something to be notable as defined by Wikipedia that person or thing must be covered by two reliable sources in depth. For an author such as yourself, this may include things such as book reviews, newspaper articles, or magazine interviews.

The reason we have this policy is that without third party sources discussing a subject, there is no way for us to verify any information. We don't want to get around spreading untruths, especially about living people. For example if we didn't have this policy, someone could write "Larry Garmon was arrested for selling illegal drugs and soliciting prostitution" in your article. It is out verifiability policy that keeps lies like that off of Wikipedia - and naturally if there is nothing we can independently verify about you, there is nothing we can write about you either.

Now, if you do know of some third party reliable sources that talk about you and/or your work, let me know and I'll see what I can to help you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Inline Citation Help

I'm new to Wikipedia so I thought I'd start with a simple page about my local mall to feel things out. When I look at the Village Mall page I created it suggests that I include Inline Citations...how do I do that? I read over the Help section about Inline Citations but didn't really "get it." I'd appreciate your help a lot, once I've mastered the mall's page I plan on creating others! Thanks for your help! TerriKnight (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I will be glad to help. Adding inline citations can be complicated, but it doesn't have to be. The easiest way is just to do something like: This is a cool fact.<ref>[http://www.example.com News article]</ref> Taking a sentence from the Village Mall article and one of its sources (I didn't check if the source actually back the claim), you could write something like: The mall has a gross leasable area of 527,000 square feet.<ref>[http://web2.sys-con.com/node/1057878 Web2Journal.com Article]</ref>. The stuff in between the "ref" tags will appear as a footnote where ever you put {{reflist}} (normally as the first line in the references section).

If you have any further questions, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ThaddeusB - Do you mind looking at my page and telling me if I configured that correctly? I appreciate your help and time. TerriKnight (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You formatted correctly, but I have made a few tweaks to make the formatting a bit better. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks! TerriKnight (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

ThaddeusB ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linkrot

I have expanded the Wikipedia:Linkrot to a decent length. Would you take a look at it before I go any further? Also, we are going to have to figure out where this page exists in the Wikipedia cosmology, as compared to WP:DEADREF.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have completed a major rewrite of Wikipedia:Linkrot, an essay that you commented on in the past. Would you be interested in reviewing it for grammar, comprehensiveness, and clarity? In the next few days, I will place notices of the rewrite at the Village Pump and maybe the signpost.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good overall. I did some copyediting and clarified a few points. As the page currently stands, it is largely duplicative of DEADREF, but with more in depth information. That is perfectly fine for now. Ultimately the page should be expanded to include what it did before (specific deadlinks in need of repair), but of course that will require up to date information, which in turn requires me to get off my butt and finish the program to generate said information. (Well really it isn't a question of being lazy, just of being pressed for time due to real world concerns.) --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication

Hi, do you think you might comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication? I tried to sketch a system that might address some of the concerns you raised on userfication, so far with no feedback on that despite it being on WP:CENT. :( Rd232 ^talk 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Input requested...

I've done considerable work on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Reed Cowan and wish it to be evaluated for possible return to mainspace. He has numerous awards and nominations as a TV journalist that push at bringing him in per WP:ANYBIO. And even if some feel regional Emmy Awards are not notable, that the "regions" being covered represent such a large portion of the US, is indicative that their notability as awards is reasonable to presume and easier to source. Further, and since the death of his son, Cowan is a newsman who is now making the news. He is now himself the subject of news coverage as an activist and filmmaker, thus allowing him to exceeds the requirements of WP:GNG. Any thoughts or advice would be most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to take a look at that one. I'll try to get to it tonight. (And hopefully evaluate your assignment as well - these darn website closures have been eating up all my Wikipedia time lately.) --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon

Thanks for your input on Heather Harmon. I agree with your argument. This is only the first out of 7 days for discussion on this. I would appreciate your opinion later on in the discussion. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I always watch every AfD I comment on and follow up when I feel it is helpful. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you handle it?

I noticed you patrol the Proposed deletion page. So I went and looked around. I found Medallion of Merit prodded, so I propose it be merged to Phi Sigma Kappa as a reasonble solution to put the information where it has context. Then I came across a real quandary. I found that an anonymous IP had prodded Wonder Camp with the explanation "This charity isn't notable. Google News and Books searches show nothing if one looks with "Skin Disease" or any of the names of the people listed in the article". But in my own doing a search with the actual name "Wonder Camp", as well as a search for the founder, I found all sorts of stuff... so I added a list of potential sources to the talk page, deprodded, and moved it to the correct title. Then I decided not to simply leave it as I found it and so did some cleanup, expansion, and sourcing, turning THIS into THIS before coming to yourtalk page. Do many anonymous IP prodders make such claims about unsuccessful searches when searches are actually quite fruitful? Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'd be happy to give such advice. First, I normally wouldn't propose a merger at all, and certainly not on a PRODed article. Unlike deletion discussions and requested moves, mergers don't have any centralized forum and as such they usually aren't commented on at all except in rare controversial cases. As such, the article will just be deleted at the end of 7 days and you'll have wasted your time.

When I fell content is worth merging, I just do it. Now in this case, I don't think there is anything worth saving. The article basically just says it is an award given by the frat. Additionally, I can't justify redirecting that generic title to the frat's page. There are 150k Google hits for the phrase, but only 1k of those are actually about the frat's award.

Now as to the second question, when I was patrolling prods regularly (haven't had the time for the last month+), I would usually pay little or no attention to the rationale given. It is not at all uncommon to find notable subjects proded as "not notable." IPs can't start an AfD so they do tend to be over represented in PROD nominations, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are less accurate as a group.

I did every now-and-then find a fraudulent PROD - either with a faked date or a dishonest rationale - but those are the rare exceptions. Most bad prod noms are a combination of different philosophy ("is crap now=delete" vs. "can be improved=keep") or carelessness ("don't look notable to me"). In short, the same attitudes that cause bad AfD noms.

Certainly there is are a tons of articles that could be saved on PROD (and AfD, and even CSD). Many are even improvable to GA status - Household Hacker had to be saved from both PROD and AfD, but is now a GA. The question, as always, is finding the people and the hours to do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Something to ponder....

This diff shows how a move often breaks references. I have myself created articles in a sandbox and moved then to mainspace only to discovver that many of the cites were damaged in the move... Example 1, Example 2

Now, while this does not happen every time I've moved from sandbox to mainspace, why does cite breakage happen at all? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a new one to me, but I was able to dig up the answer... The errors already existed before the move, but were the error messages were suppressed until the move. It seems that when a page is loaded cite.php, among other things, is called. This particular php converts the <ref>s into html and adds a special temmplate: {{broken ref}} to the page. This template generates the error messages, but outside of certain spaces the template purposely doesn't display anything. Page in wikipedia space (and thus the incubator) don't generate error messages and until very recently user space didn't either. Both of the moves from your userspace occurred before the change.

This seems like a really annoying "feature" to me, but apparently before it was enabled people would constantly complain about getting error messages on talk pages and such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Another notice

I just created {{IUCNlink}}. The documentation might need a little more depth, but at least it works. Ucucha 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just about to get to that task. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a lot of work anyway. ;-) Good luck with the bot. Ucucha 03:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

you have some gall

How dare you accuse me of sockpuppetry you stupid idiot?Kingroodney (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Janet Allison

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuation war

Thanks for the, er, warning, but the guy is yet another obvious sockpuppet of the permabanned yet ever prolific user:Art Dominique, whose sole purpose of being here consists of doing what he is doing (same mindless edit, disregarding everyone else's opinion). You may want to review this talk archive, the various sockpuppetry cases for background information, or just ask the other regulars at the article page. He was a significant threat in the olden days, but now is mostly a household pest. --Illythr (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've made Checkuser request. I'm not familiar with the new procedure, but it might make sense to reopen the case with Art Dominique as the master. However, his latest confirmed puppet is some 10 months old, so positive results are unlikely. Guess after two or so years of almost constant practice, one does get a knack at this kind of thing. --Illythr (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be against policy: CheckUser should not be requested to investigate canvassing or meatpuppetry, or if the account(s) suspected have not edited for many months. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if they cause enough disruption to be blocked per WP:DUCK.

To your latest question: Art Dominique was obsessed specifically with the Continuation war - almost all his socks were single purpose accounts that pushed the same POV with single-minded focus into that one article. He also edited some topic-relevant articles like Battle of Tali-Ihantala, but the primary article is his main haunt. The latest one seems to be a significant upgrade from the usual - he actually made a valid point before reverting to the usual mantra. --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Harmon

You made the argument: You are comparing a website to a person. According to policy, entertainers are explicitly notable based on part on their popularity ("cult following"). No such criteria exists for websites. That is the crucial difference here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My response is: I would like the argue that Ideepthroat.com's popularity is almost entirely due to Heather's presence on the site. While there were occasionally other women (and of course her husband Jim), Heather is the undeniably the star attraction and therefore fans of the website are by proxy fans of Heather Harmon. -Stillwaterising (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillwaterising (talk • contribs)

Please help me undelete my page?

Hi ThaddeusB! I imagine you probably get some angry notes asking you to undelete pages, so I want to preface this by assuring you I am a friendly commenter and, when in doubt, please put a friendly spin on your interpretation of all the following sentences. (I am new to this collaboration thing, so sorry in advance if I mess anything up, but at least I signed with a timestamp!)

Could you please un-delete the Lozenge and Hampshire wikipedia page? It's HERE Apparently, it was deleted because it failed to demonstrate the "...achievements, impact or historical significance" of the Lozenge and Hampshire browser-based point and click adventure game (which is no-longer online).

While I respect the fact that the moving party generally bears the burden of proof, I feel that I have a slight amount of unfair bias to overcome in establishing the significance of a browser-based game that was never aggressively marketed and distributed commercially. Sometimes, the measure of something's worth is not in the money it makes, but rather in the impact it has and its innate quality, and, that being said, despite the inherent difficulty of establishing said characteristics, there were several cited references in the original page to websites, blogs, and internet records which demonstrate the popularity and the appeal of this browser-based game and indicating people's sorrow that it is currently offline.

Moreover, a new site has recently come to my attention which calls attention to the enduring popularity of this game. the site is at the url here. It is called the Lozenge and Hampshire Preservation Society.

For your convenience, after the text of this comment is the text of the Lozenge and Hampshire wikipedia entry as it existed prior to deletion (recovered from this site--this site

Thanks for your consideration!

--Sirbennet (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lozenge and Hampshire

Lozenge and Hampshire is a browser-based adventure game [2] series for all ages.

The game series was created by James Evans and was hosted at the site http://www.frontiernet.net/~adani/lozenge/mystery [3] . While the site is no longer in operation, it can still be found using the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, although the games are no longer playable [4] .

Series Description

Here is a description of the series, taken from the Lozenge and Hampshire Fan Forum [5] :

Randolph Lozenge and Archibald Hampshire, the RGDs (Really Good Detectives) solve mysteries from their flat in Baker Street, owned by Mrs. Bunson. Accompanied by PC Fudge and assigned their missions by Inspector Bungham, they've encountered everything from a foreign chef to a murderous Santa! However, they always keep their cool, and, depite the eccentricity of their universe, they continue to solve any case that crosses their path. The characters and setting are inspired by the Sherlock Holmes novels by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.Fact|date=October 2007 Despite being offline for several years, the series is missed for its droll sense of humor and solid adventure gameplay.Fact|date=October 2007 Its current absence from the Internet is discussed in online forums [6] .

List of Lozenge and Hampshire games:

The Case of the Dead Person

The Case of the Curious Odor

The Case of the Baronial Stiff [7]

External links

The Wayback Machine Internet Archive of Lozenge and Hampshire's Homepage:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20020803051153/www.frontiernet.net/~adani/lozenge/mystery/

Forums discussing the games and game sites listing them:

• http://www.network54.com/Forum/112216/login?action=signup
• http://justadventure.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?action=print;num=1091898783
• http://www.gamesover.com/adventuret.htm

Hello,

Since the page was deleted via the proposed deletion process I was able to restore it for you without any further question. However, that is no guarantee it won't be deleted later. If someone so chooses, they can send it to WP:AfD where it will be up to the community to decide if it is notable or not. An article deleted via AfD is much harder to restore, so I suggest that you add any reliable sources you can find to the article as son as possible. That might include newspaper articles, magazine reviews, or well-known third party websites. Fan generated material and forum posts normally won't work.

Let me know if you have any questions or require further assistance, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

email

Hello, email me Michal.Manas@tiscali.cz the source, please. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Email sent. Please let me know if there are any problems with the document. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuation War: No opposing views presented so far for the newer proposal

Cheers Thaddeus. Please take a look at the newer version, and my related text on the Talk:Continuation War page. In the newer version a sub-header was given for the last portion of the segment, where the Soviet offensive is discussed. There hasn't been opponents, Thaddeus - not in writing anyway. May we leave it there, unless someone opposes and explains their reason for opposing on the talk page ? I believe this version is more agreeable to all, because no longer are we suggesting to alter the segment's main header. Thanks. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi, Thaddeus. Regarding that copyright discussion a couple weeks ago, an editor has tagged the Chesty Morgan article as a violation, because it was imported from Boobpedia. I was the significant author of the original BP article, as can be checked at that project, and the BP version was finished a couple weeks before I imported it here. My understanding is that this permits me to share the work with BP. Perhaps you can clarify over here? : Talk:Chesty Morgan Thanks! Dekkappai (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Threat

As evaluated, I am seriously having my anger and depression get ahold of me. I am a big mouthy, cheating idiot to most people, so I may as well just ignore this situation entirely. Works much better than arguing crap about someone who hates my guts for a stupid article writing belief.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 01:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if I didn't have peer pressure, the comments may have been worse. I am on a couple medications for alternative behavior issues, and basically, when something becomes a basic part of life, it kind of gets to you. I lost interest in his bickering over my GAs a couple years ago. I am expanding another stub so its better to keep my time there.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ANi Q

Thaddues, I am genuinely perplexed why Hesperian and you seem don't consider Shot Info and Basket of puppies to be "actually neutral editors" with respect to the Australian Vaccination Network article. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with both the article subject and the involved editors; so can you tell me the backstory, since there is nothing in the current history (that I can see) that supports this assumption. Abecedare (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Basket most likely is a neutral editor, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Shot is questionable.

That isn't really the issue though. The protection is warranted to force people to calm down and work out their differences, possibly through the help of neutral editors like Basket. There were something like 20 reverts in the last 24 hours and I see no reason to believe that would stop just b/c one of the parties is now blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have tweaked my ANI comment to add the word "more", thus implying some of the existing editors are indeed neutral. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article history I don't see two parties in a content dispute: I see an IP and Corruptioninmedicine blanking sourced content without explanation, and others reverting them, giving the appropriate warnings and inviting them on the article talk page. So I still don't understand why this is being regarded as dispute between two (more or less) equally culpable sides. I would agree with you that "Repeatedly reverting to a highly biased version is an implicit endorsement of said version" if the other editor was removing material while indicating (through edit-summary or talk page discussion) that it was being removed due to bias concerns; else one is simply undoing vandalism without necessarily supporting the status quo in toto (cf my revert from a few hours back at an article that I think is in horribly poor state, though it is nominally an FA).

PS: I am dicussing this with you not because I have any interest in the article or the involved editors, but bacuse I know you to be a thoughtful editor through our earlier interactions at H1N1 related pages. Abecedare (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any party acted completely wrongly here (well maybe the guy who first wrote the biased article), but certainly no one was acting ideally here. Yes, Corruptioninmedicine should have used an edit summary (although it isn't actually required by rule). I will point out, however the he received only 1 accurate templated warning (the second was for "malicious redirects") and no attempt at personal communication was made. Shot info might well have just been trying to revert a blanking, but when it kept happening he should have bothered to actually read what he was reverting too. Two or three sentences in he would have realized it was horribly biased.

I can't speak for Hesperian, but for me the protection is the correct action, not because everyone involved was wrong, but to prevent further reversions. There is no doubt in my mind that if it wasn't protected it would have been reverted back by now. Ignoring Shot since he is likely good faith there are 58.174.33.170, Exazonk, Greengiantjolly, & Turlinjah all trying to push the "AVN is evil" POV. All are SPAs or socks interested only in this article. (Hmm, seems it is time to open an SPI.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read the deleted parts of the article, and don't see the "horrible bias". The content Hesperian pointed out at ANI is actually sourced to this secondary source later in the article. Parts of the article rely on primary sources and borderline synthesis (an understandable newbie error by User:Exazonk), but other sections like "AVN Comments on Swine Flu", "AVN Comments on Swine Flu" etc are well sourced and neutrally written.
Of course the article would have been reverted back if it had been protected; in fact, it should be from the current unsourced and biased version and then the problematic sections can be culled and improved. Can anyone argue that,

"The organisation provides a vital community information service by critically examining and questioning the validity of the position of the powerful, lucrative and self-regulated phamaceutical, medical and scientific establishment, in their production, aggressive marketing and sale of vaccines for an ever increasing range of diseases under the deceptive guise of "evidence based medicine" and a "peer review" system which is seriously compromised by entrenched ideological and financial conflicts of interest."

is less biased (or even "equally bad") version ? Abecedare (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore my above rant. I just realized a more productive direction; I'll create a sourced stub based on the earlier version and then ask for unprotection if it looks ok (should have thought of this earlier instead of discussing meta-issues!) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The temp page is here in case you wish to lend a hand. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The protection was never about which version was superior - Heperian protected the version that existed when he encountered the page. It is unfortunate that we all got distracted on arguing that point instead of just fixing the darn thing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look here when you are back online ? Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As soon as a couple editors voice their agreement I'll make the move/history merge. I don't want the current version to stand very long, but I don't want to make the move without giving a chance for additional input either.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Batebi

I've been participating in the discussion about unblocking this user (User talk:Ahmadbatebi). A couple questions and a comment:

1. How can I contact him by email to let him know about the unblock request, while still remaining anonymous?
2. If he's banned, I'm wondering how we tell whether it's him requesting to be unblocked, since he wouldn't be able to use his banned username. (I'm obviously not him, and I personally know User:CordeliaNaismith, who is also not him.)
3. I hope he has not left Wikipedia out of disillusionment with the system. In my opinion, the system really seems to have let him down. --AFriedman (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Special:EmailUser/Ahmadbatebi would be the way, but he doesn't appear to have supplied an email when he joined.
2. He isn't banned, just blocked, and has the ability to edit his own talk page.
3. The situation is unfortunate, but he may return someday. If he does, I'm sure he will be comforted to see that two users have come to his defense.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If you really think the situation is unfortunate, why don't you also leave a comforting note for Ahmadbatebi? I think having 3 users instead of 2 standing by him would help. Being an Iranian political prisoner, as Ahmad Batebi was, is a serious matter, and so is having one's own biography become a WP article. Batebi is not the only living person whose WP biography page was abusively vandalized--as a former notable Wikipedian, I can attest that mine also was. --AFriedman (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I like AFriedman's idea. Perhaps another useful place to leave a comforting note might be the talk page of the Ahmad Batebi article. Unfortunately, it looks like this talk page was extensively vandalized by banned user Joaj and his various confirmed sockpuppets. One big problem on this talk page is that Joaj etc. makes insulting comments about the subject of the article (not just the wikipedians involved in updating the page). There are some nasty comments on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lily_Mazahery page as well. Is is possible for Wikipedia to fix this by deleting the libelous postings? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ahmadbatebi

It may be worth contacting him by e-mail if this is enabled as having been blocked for so long he might not be logging into his Wikipedia account. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, scrub that, I see he doesn't have an e-mail enabled. Maybe he has an external website which could be used to contact him? Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT thread on ANI

I unresolved it since it's clearly not resolved; if it's to be moved away from ANI to WT:NEWT it would be better to shift the thread as a whole to that page so as not to split the discussion (because this will inevitably re-appear at ANI anyway). Black Kite 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." What admin action do you feel is warranted here exactly? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that it has not yet been decided if any admin action is required. More importantly though, if the thread is to be "resolved" whilst people are still commenting it should be moved wholesale to WT:NEWT or at least to WP:AN. Black Kite 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't have the power to shut down or admonish the project, so there is really nothing an admin can do about it. However, I did already move it while you were writing the above as the discussion is likely helpful, and certainly can/should continue. Such discussion is best done outside of the "drama board" if you want anything productive to come from it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Black Kite 22:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy ThaddeusB's Day!

User:ThaddeusB has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as ThaddeusB's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear ThaddeusB! Peace, Rlevse 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am truly honored. Thank you for the recognition; it means a lot to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How appropriate. Many thanks for the trouble to which you went to track down those articles for me, too. Just what I needed. Regards, and congratulations! Bencherlite^Talk 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! That's a very nice award. --AFriedman (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Very well deserved. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot

Hey ThaddeusB :). Since we've both offered to write a bot to take over from CSDWarnBot, we need to figure out which one of use should actually write it. It doesn't really bother me, one way or the other, but my code is pretty much done. Let me know how you feel :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish ST47 had just been straight forward with us and not claimed he'd get the original back up, as the bot could have been long running by now if he hadn't. Obviously that didn't happen. If you've spent time writing new code, by all means feel free to take over the task. I was just going to reuse his code w/minor changes.

I saw that you arranged of someone to run it "for a while." Great! If that ever falls through, let me know and I can probably help out in that front. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, with SDPatrolBot the bot should be good to go just as soon as the BRfA finishes (i.e. 1 year ). Sodam Yat is no longer going to run the bot, and as you said above to speak to you about it, here I am :D - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The AVN article

Hi Thad, Thanks for taking the time to explain about the AVN article, that was very nice of you. I am new at editing wiki. Relying mainly on secondary sources rather than primary ones is really tough for me to get my head around but I will try. I'm a virologist (which explains my interest in this topic). Nothing we do in research can cite secondary sources, and most of the time the media garble the outcomes of research.

I've noticed that a lot of other articles mainly concerned with science and/or medicine cite primary sources, usually in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. I wonder if there is something to be said for these wiki articles perhaps being better served by including both primary and secondary sources? Regardless, I will try my best to stay inside the wiki rules.

Thanks for writing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengiantjolly (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind if I answer your question. Secondary sources means sources are one step removed from the subject while Primary sources are a sort of "inside view". Primary sources are OK , Quote: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Secondary sources are interpretations/analyzations of primary sources. Get it? Its kind of hard to describe, but I did my best. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them-either at my talk page or by placing {{helpme}} on your talk page (including your question as well). If you want, you may read the introduction to using wikipedia. There are a lot of policies here, but they can all be summarized by these two- always cite what you add to an article, and try to keep a neutral point of view. Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another helpful point may be to remember that AVN isn't really a scientific article. Sure the organization is related to science, but its content should mostly be about the organization, not attempt to discredit their um, unusual views. Certainly scientific journals are top quality sources (and normally are secondary) and can and should be used, but I doubt their are any scientific studies that even bother to mention AVN. When I said primary I meant AVN's own writings.

It might be helpful to read WP:FRINGE. By policy, an article such as vaccines should be almost entirely about the mainstream view and only mention fringe views if they've garnered significant interest. However, an article about a fringe topic should primarily about the fringe view with an appropriate amount of disclaimer. It is a tough line to walk. Certainly we don't want to let their views stand unquestioned, but at the same time we don't want the article to be a hit piece. People interested in the mainstream view will go to the mainstream article and people interested in AVN should be allowed to learn what AVN thinks without excessive disclaimer. Hopefully that makes sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that makes sense. Greengiantjolly —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

I added a couple of references which I think should be OK. Let me know if not. Greengiantjolly —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

DYK for Australian Vaccination Network

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian Vaccination Network, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaddeus, thanks for adding my name to the AVN DYK credits. The article is shaping up well, and does a good job of presenting the facts neutrally. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome & thanks. After I'm done I might nominate it for GA status, after getting feedback from a FRINGE regular. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Fiske-Harrison

I am trying to withdraw now from Wikipedia as media interest grows in my forthcoming book on the controversial topic of bullfighting (a subject on which I try to be impartial, inciting anger on both sides). As a result, I closed my userpage and blanked my talk page. However, I notice someone has vandalised the page about me, Alexander Fiske-Harrison, with information which is untrue, and, more importantly, unsourced. In the spirit of my withdrawal, and the avoidance of COI, please could you revert this. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the notice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Australian Vaccination Network

Little confused about your removal of the references to the No Compulsory Vaccination Blog, citing that they are the views of Dorey not the AVN, but then you added a link to the blog as an external link?

As you pointed out, the blog is now hosted in-house, and so most certainly an official AVN view. Also the older hosted blog states "The Australian Vaccination Network, Australia's nationwide pro-information and pro-choice vaccination organisation, has established this blog". Seems to me that the views on this blog are those of the AVN, and therefore appropriate to be included in the article.

You also removed the line "The AVN presents information restricted to an anti-vaccination viewpoint". Again, this is an accurate and referenced piece of information. Any reason why was it removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the first part, my edit summary was inaccurate, as I realized as I looked closer. However, I stand by the removal. What you had done was read what Dorey had wrote and draw conclusions based on that. For example, you wrote "Dorey has displayed support for David Icke's conspiracy." That may be true, but the link you provided doesn't mention Icke, so drawing that conclusion is original research. The use of primary sources in general is discouraged, and using them to draw novel conclusions (things not reported by third party reliable sources) is forbidden.

Same reasoning for the "AVN publishes material restricted to an anti-vaccination viewpoint" line. The link you provided - a list of materials they've published - requires one to interpret the list to draw that conclusion, they resulting in original research. That statement is undoubtedly true (and I plan to find a RS to support it, as noted), but Wikipedia can't draw conclusions that our sources don't. It is our job to sum up what other people have said, not determine what is true. In any case it is already quite obvious they are anti-vaccine from the content of the article, so very little is lost by not explicitly stating it.

I hope all that makes sense, but feel free to ask follow up questions if it doesn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate. OK with part 2, but the blog article I linked to (Flue not biggest danger, it's the vaccine), is a David Icke Article. No original research required. Here's the link to the original Icke article: [8]. As you can see, the AVN blog quotes it verbatim: [9] Cruiser-Aust 03:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruiser-Aust (talk • contribs)

You are correct and I have restored the material accordingly. Thank you for informing me. The microchip post probably isn't worth mentioning. That is, they link to stupid opinions all the time. Unless it ties into an actual action they've taken, the linking isn't a significant enough event to warrant mention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for fixing all those IUCN links! (And good luck with correcting the wrong IDs.) Ucucha 12:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the positive comments you left on my talk page regarding my edits to Ethan Peck. (Sorry, I never know whether to reply here or there!) I really appreciated the feedback. That is the first time I've 'overhauled' an article/stub and was a little nervous about doing so. Thanks again. Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting that ill considered sub-page I made. -- allen四names 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil comments posted by an anonymous user on Talk:Ahmad_Batebi

Hi ThaddeusB, An anonymous user at IP: 83.170.113.97 has posted an uncivil comment on the talk page of the article on Ahmad Batebi. From this user's talk page, it looks like they have previously been using their account primarily to vandalize the page on Langhorne, Pennsylvania. Would you be willing to look into this? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Most likely it isn't actually the same person as the one who vandalized (i.e. it's either a public computer or a dynamic IP). Nonetheless I left the IP an appropriate warning. Let me know if there are any further problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Will Viner article

You deleted this article because he was not a professional athlete but this is not the case he was a profesional in Cyprus during the 2008 season and is a profesional soccer player with Barnet FC see http://www.barnetfc.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10431~49853,00.html

Please reinstate this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefaulds (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the article was deleted via the proposed deletion system, it was eligible for restoration upon request. As such I have restored it. This doesn't protect it from more permanent AfD deletion, so I suggest you improve the article if you can.

I didn't check the specifics in this case, but please note that to qualify under WP:ATHLETE a person must have played in a fully professional league. If Mr. Viner doesn't meet that mark, he must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Undo Rapid Delete Curtis Grubb

Will someone please tell me what is going on??

I got a Rapid Delete notice for Curtis Grubb for some reason unknown to me. I objected with a hangon, as instructed, and left a note on the Curtis Grubb talk page. Apparently you have reversed the RD notice because my hangon is gone.

Please help me understand! LynnSGrubb (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nigahiga

Hello ThaddeusB. I'm currently discussing what to include in the Nigahiga article here with Laudak, with whom you talked to earlier this month. We are currently discussing whether or not YouTube and its videos are reliable (primary) sources. May you please take a look? Thank you. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 06:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Zoltan Mesko (American football) prior prod

Thanks for the appreciation. Since I do a lot of college athletes, at the point when their notability has become clear, this situation happens. Michigan has a very enthusiastic fan base and not all of them are expert at WP. Thus, many articles get created without properly establishing notability. I do my best to create the most encyclopedic article possible for athletes who have clear notability or a little bit prior to clear notability. It is great to be noticed for it. I always accept Tigers on my user page as a sign of appreciation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Violent Acres entry?

You deleted the Violent Acres entry in August. I disagree with this decision. It's a well enough known blog to have a wiki entry. It has thousands of followers and gets hundreds of thousands of hits per month. I've seen several of its articles on the front page of digg.

I understand that you can't just put up any person's blog on wikipedia, but Violent Acres is a legit, well-known blog with hundreds of entries, not just some guy's rant about the poor service at Taco Bell. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I ask you to visit the blog and reconsider.

Please note that I am not in any way affiliated with Violent Acres. I just really love the blog. It's easily my favorite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.163.33 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are in luck, as the page was deleted via the proposed deletion process. Another editor nominated it for deletion and no one objected for 7 days time, which meant it could be deleted. I merely pushed the button to delete it after the requisite 7 days. This process allows the article to restored at any time no questions asked, so I have restored in to Violent Acres. However, this doesn't mean it can't be deleted again. Any editor can send it to article for deletion (AfD) at anytime. If that happens, it will be up to the community to decide if it stays or goes and deletion via that process can't be easily undone. The best way to avoid that happening is to add third party references to reliable sources that talk abut the blog in depth.

I won't immediately send it to AfD myself, but I can't guarantee no one else will. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting and Removing

Some weeks ago I asked on Village Pump re this and referred to the Gospel of Pilate! You said I was mistaken re this! On the article page Acts of Pilate, you will see the first line: "Sometimes referred to as Gospel of Pilate". So I was right agter all.

How about a uniform policy on Removing and Deleting? Human error must be eliminated! How about a shooting at dawn!? Seriously, though, and all joking aside, do you need an input to this valuble article page? How valuble is it? Well the witness of Pilate to The Christ has got to be of immence value where someone is looking for independant witness of the existance of Jesus including: Pliny and Pliny the Younger. I have not looked if there is an article page here, and too, Jonathan.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

help requested with two issues

Hi there, you'd helped me in the past so I'm hoping you can help again on two completely different topics :-)

1) A user coming from the IP 86.6.75.106 has so far done nothing but vandalism, and I don't know what the correct procedure is for reporting that IP or getting any investigation done on that IP. Can you do something or recommend anything?

The correct procedure in cases of vandalism is to warn the user a few times and then report to WP:AIV if they continue. An admin will then temporary block them to prevent further problems.

I left left the IP in question a warning. For future reference, a list of helpful warn templates can be found here: Wikipedia:User warning templates. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know anyone could leave a warning, or how many types there were! Yikes! For the one or couple lone vandalisms I usually just leave them alone, but that was the first one I'd seen with so many in a row :-(

2) The Ad-Aware article seems extremely like it was copied from marketing material or website, especially with the "versions summary" table. There is already an "advertisement" warning box on the page, but I know that it's way beyond my abilities to fix. How would I get someone to try to fix this article, do I just leave it alone and trust that someone else will come along and work on it, or do you think it's ok to leave it as it is?

The normal "procedure" is just to let it sit until someone else wants to clean it up. I went ahead and dumped the "versions" and "system requirements" sections as unecyclopedic. You can try asking for some eyeballs on WP:WikiProject Software, but mostly the reason no one has fixed it yet is there is so much that needs done around here that no one has gotten to it yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I just wasn't sure how to get it on anyone's radar :-) Thanks again for your attention! Shymian (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shymian (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for your help sorting out marginal articles into incubation and assisting editors and the encyclopedia with patience and grace. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Notes like this are always nice to find when I log back in. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Chyrp

If you don't mind, I would like a copy of that article (I was going to work on it, but hadn't found the time). Or if you could, possibly put it in a subpage for me? Thank you,  fetchcomms☛ 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it per your perfectly reasonable request to do so. The "rule" for incubation should be that an article is allowed to stay as long as someone is interested in it, so take your time. I certainly know how real life can get in the way around here. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Some lemon cookies in a cup for you! If you are allergic to lemon cookies, please return them for some File:Grasshoppercupcakes.JPG!

Thank you for restoring it!  fetchcomms☛ 01:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. Any particular reason for the picture, or just one you like? ... If there is any deeper meaning, I'm not getting it. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request ContentCreationBOT

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Schwa (restaurant)

By my calculation, you have expanded the actual article text by nearly 10x. You should go for a DYK! ^Bongo_matic 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have some more work to do on it first, but it'll probably end up on DYK in a day or two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Found it right here

It was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MirankerAD/RNA_Tertiary_Structure Do you think that you can move it over? Articles should really be in the main namespace and not in user spaces. At least that was my interpretation of wiki policy. Thanks! Article finder (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like team of college students is writing the article as part of a college course. I'm assuming they will move it to mainspace when they are done, but I'll keep an eye on it to be sure. Thanks for the notice.

As a general rule, we do allow people to work on draft articles in their own userspace. Unfortunately, these are often abandoned. I don't know what your interest here is, but if we are interested in helping recover these article attempts, by all means let me know and I'll give you some advice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my intended purpose. To often schools start these projects but never actually publish them to the main namespace. Is the only alternative to paraphrase the old articles, if the user is unwilling/unable to do so himself (for example if they are inactive)? Article finder (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Once you are autoconfirmed, you'll gain the ability to move pages. I'll reply to your talk page with more detailed info shortly... --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User check requested between the accouts Illythr and Kingroodney

Hi Thaddeus,

Unfortunately, rather than providing the requested sources for his POV, my opponent appears to try keeping out the fact-based information simply by trying to block opposition, using tactics that should not be tolerated in Wikipedia.

The user check correctly showed that I have no relation to the accounts compared. Thus, I wish to now show who really is behind at least the "madly" behaving Kingroodney account, and why (I did not check in detail the contributions of the other accounts compared).

I stand, that the Kingroodney account was established by user Illythr, in the sole purpose of getting me blocked for sock-puppetry (perhaps other users too).

For protection of innocent Wikipedia contributors, I hereby request a user check to verify this connection between Illythr and Kingroodney. Thank you kindly, Thaddeus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Novikov (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't enough to fit the duck test, I don't know what is. Nonetheless, as before, I would freely submit to a CU. --Illythr (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To Boris: This isn't the best way to advance your case. It is pretty unlike Illythr & KR are related, but if you want to pursue it WP:SPI is the place.

As to the article, Wikipedia reports the mainstream opinion, not necessarily the absolute truth (which often can't be determined). The local consensus appears to be think your POV is not the mainstream one at this time. It is possible they are wrong, so what you what you need to do is seek wider input through dispute resolution of some form. I would suggest you write up some specific, but concise, complaints with the current article and start either seek a community request for comments or informal mediation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Thaddeus. I want no harm to user Illythr (KR). He ought to behave himself though. Boris Novikov (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Bacon Materializer

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Official Hip Hop Chef

Good afternoon,

I sent a talk message to Singerlarity42 explaning the information that was posted. I'm the Manager/publicist for "The Hip Hop Chef", Cooking Tyrone, if you need any information I can be reached at 410-500-2267 or theofficialpublicist@gmail.com. Tyrone Jones has the name "The Hip Hop Chef", Cooking Tyrone Trademarked, I'm the person that developed his website. I have all Permission to post any information about him. If you need to reach out to him also I can give you his information.

Thanks in advance,

Chast Fleming, Gemini Business Develpment & PR Firm

I have no authority to allow you to use your copyrighted material here, however I believe you will find the info you need at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Keep in mind that any materials donated can be reuse by others for nearly any purpose, including things you may not like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you,

I've changed the wording but it is still the same information. I will be submitting the information shortly. Let me know what if it is O.K. Please! I do have the permission to use the information. If you need to contact the Chef please let me know.

Cheate Fleming Gemini Business Development & PR Firm —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hip Hop Chef (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hridoy Khan:Article under Prod-attack and Bad WP-Politics

Thank you for your support for the article.

The singer is very popular and quite notable in Bangladesh. But unfortunately the article was "Prod-attacked" by an inexperienced user of wikipedia and fortunately saved by an established user of wikipedia. But *unfortunately* once again the established user was attacked with so many "Prod-attacks" suddenly at a time for his own articles that he created. Certainly those were not co-incidents and clear enough who run those bad WP-politics. I expect Wikipedia policy makers would notice this and make the environment of wikipedia more decent for gentle contributors.

The above note is also added to the talk page of the article. --Amarbangla (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the article in question is currently found in the Article Incubator here. You may work on it there. Currently the article suffers from two problems: 1) it doesn't indicate why the subject is important and 2) it doesn't have an references to reliable sources. Those problems will need to be addressed before it can return to mainspace.

If you need any help or have further questions, feel free to ask. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Schwa

Got your note. I, too, thought the concept was pretty unusual and intriguing -- not something I'd ever heard of. The hook is currently in queue to go on the main page tomorrow. At the request of another editor, I did, however, demote it from the lead spot to the #2 spot. Frankly, the picture was not the greatest image for the hook (though it did look quite appetizing). Cbl62 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting....

I note that User:Fastily seems to have used some of your test questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Basket of Puppies 2. Looking over the RFA, I would have some different answers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Schwa (restaurant)

On December 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schwa (restaurant), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine said Schwa was in USAirways magazine listed as one of the hardest places to get a reservation. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• 10,200! Not bad! (But it's not Bambi effect, haha!) Drmies (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, just under the 11K needed for non-lead HOF status. I bet it would have beat your Bambi article if it had the lead spot. Hehe :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't talk like that if you could see me batting my eyelashes at you, and looking at you mournfully with my doe-eyes...my soft fur... Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

bumblefoot

hi, i wanted to thank you for getting involved in the ridiculous situation about ron thal's page being deleted. i was getting very frustrated by those 2 people who seem to be admins but admit that they don't know policy and even gave me wrong advice so i ended up embarassing myself on here. it was enough to make me want to leave until you seemed to take notice and tried explaining why the delete was wrong. anyway i wanted to remind you that he hasnt replied since you posted last on his talk page and was hoping you could really get somewhere on this issue. thanks. Aisha9152 (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• hi i guess you didnt get around to undeleting bumblefoot. well people have been adding sources to the incubator version so i thought maybe you could look at it? Aisha9152 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

בינה תפארת (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Good to meet you in person

here's the collateral aftermath of me having fun making frivolous edits

on this, the most serious of social experiments.

http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Turing_Programming_Language&action=history

have fun encouraging old-new Wikipedia editors, it's certainly fun for me.

many thanks, don't bite the newcomers;), almost noon, Manhattan time.

DYK for Michael Carlson

On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Carlson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

changing image on Kacey Jones' page and editing info

Hello Thaddeus,

Kacey Jones has a wikipedia page that was set up and running by someone unknown and some of the pertinent information on that page is either out and out wrong or misleading. She has asked me to contact you to find out if she can go in and correct the misleading info without it reverting back to the original text and also she'd like to upload a photo onto the page that is a black and white photo located in the wiki commons.

Please reply to info@airplayspecialists.com with any info you might be able to give us.

Many Thanks,

Abby Montgomery Kacey Jones

Zamalama8 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello & welcome to Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability. We can't just allow anyone to say such and such is true and edit an article accordingly, because that would allow malicious people to make up information. Instead we go by what the sources say. Do you know of a published source with the correct information?

As to the image, the only picture of Jones that I could find on Commons was the one that is currently in the article. Do you know the file name? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Was I supposed to answer you here?

If so sorry. My answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.84.210.36&redirect=no Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Offering Help with BLPUnreferenced Bot

hey there thaddeusb, I made a script to retrieve the top editor for a page with a unreferenced BLP Page. The format is a dictionary. Im going to make the list tonight, then make a script to add a message to a user's talk page. I don't include a way to remove inactive users, how would i determine if they are inactive? anyways i figured you would appreciate a nice format for your bot to work from. Here is an example

{'User:Tim':['Page1','Page2'],'User:ThaddeusB':['Page 3','Page4']}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

Article incubator

Per the discussion at AI and UKrail, I've created an article on the SECR PMVs. I seem to have made a slight booboo in that I didn't put "Wikipedia:" in the title. Does this really matter, or should it be moved. Will let you sort this one out. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Another editor moved it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV earlier today. It does matter because without the "Wikipedia:" it wouldn't be found easily by people interested in helping out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, will try to remember that in future. It was showing up on the main AI page though. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The {{Article Incubator}} template is what makes it appear on the AI page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP bot

Hey ThaddeusB I noticed that you have a lot on your plate, and so I have been trying to take care of some of your tasks. Anyways, I scripted a BLP notification bot, and wanted your input. See discussion here Tim1357 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your contribution! (Although, that one wasn't actually on my list - I was under the impression another person was handling it.) I'll take a look at your bot w/in the next day or two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of pages that fail to incubate

What's the "legality" of deleting pages that have sat in the Incubator for a month without improvement? If the article meets speedy criteria, no problem; if it was sent there from AfD as an alternative to deletion on promise of improvement which hasn't happened, I guess it could be regarded as under suspended sentence; but what about one like WP:Article Incubator/Taakatism, which I rescued from a {{db-g3}} because I didn't think it was an actual hoax (implying intent to deceive) but was rather WP:NFT. I incubated it, explained to the author about reliable independent sources, and not greatly to my surprise nothing has happened to it except one typo correction. What should happen when its month is up? Do we need a new speedy "Article still unsuitable for mainspace after a month in the Incubator, and with no prospect of improvement"?

I apologise if all this has been discussed somewhere that I haven't seen.

(I see, by the way, that Aisha has added to the Bumblefoot article, and I'm inclined to return it to the mainspace. I have asked Spike's opinion - I guess you would be agreeable?)

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored Bumblefoot. My heart sank when I realised that to restore an article where, like this one, the Incubator version had been copied rather than moved from article space, meant doing a history merge, but I think I have managed it correctly. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Bumblefoot was restored in my absence. That for should really have never been redirected away, but AfD isn't perfect...

As to your original question. There is no technical justification for deleting an article out of incubation, as there is no formal rule. However, myself and many other admins will delete a userified article that the requester has abandoned after a while. Its pretty much the same situation with incubation so in the spirit of IAR sending it to MfD or whatever is just unnecessary bureaucracy. I see no harm in removing something that has no chance of ever becoming a legitimate article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Valhalla Vineyards

An article that you have been involved in editing, Valhalla Vineyards, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ThaddeusB. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Dead external links.
Message added 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for taking the time to get this project up and running again! Tim1357 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! You graciously agreed to re-launch the project a little while ago. How is the progress? If you have to much on your plate, then I can take a stab at it. I would probably use the python script (.py) , and try to modify it a bit. However, it would be some effort because I would have to get a tool-server account (I'm not sure my internet can handle it). Plus, I'm not sure the script produces a well-formatted list of dead external links. Tim1357 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

New dump

Just a quick note, there's a new bot dump for the journal database bot to go through. Would be nice to get an update list. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia#Presentation tweak Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to reply to this earlier... I have a couple higher priority tasks on my agenda, but I should be able to make the modifications and re-run within a week or so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any update? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been super busy with the GeoCities closure, but today is the last day for that so I should be able to get back to this within the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make sure to go get something up this week - hopefully complete with all the desired changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)]]

Poke. Any update? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on real-world vacation for the next copy weeks so I will definitely get something up shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Any plans to implement a couple of the presentation tweaks? (The article links/search is much needed for cleanup). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will make as many of the changes as I can. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any progress? The current journal dump is getting quite old... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the latest dump (30 Jan 2010), for convenience. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest dump (12 Mar 2010), for convenience. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd Like your input...

Hello,

Im not sure if you knew this, but Geocities is shutting down. A lot of people are woried about all of the dead links that are going to be created. Seeing as you have significant expertise in this area, I'd like to see what you have to say. The discussion is at Wikipedia:VPPR#When GeoCities shuts down, how should we handle links to its sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

Hello, and thanks for all your work on fixing dead and dying links to GeoCities and Encarta. I was wondering if it's worth putting a request for help or comments on Template:Centralized discussion? If WebCiteBot's working fine as it is, then there's no need to invite well-intended meddling, but if on the other hand, you're looking for help chasing down dead links or searching all those other possible hosts, I could add a note to the Village Pump section above, and then add some kind of appropriate call for assistance to the Cent. template. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't need any help from human editors, but thanks for the offer. I'll let you know if anything changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#My_new_Template. Equazcion (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot feedback needed...

...here. It's a bot to assist Wikiproject Intertranswiki, so your advice has been specifically requested Fritzpoll (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance in the process would also be much appreciated!! Drawing up this missing directory is going to take some time even at bot rate! Himalayan 13:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Incubate

In case I wasn't clear before, feel free to use the template. In fact, I'm glad you guys have gotten that project started. Good luck, and I will be sure to put the concept to the test. ;-) -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

CC Bot

MoS prefers US to USA. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

DeadLinkBOT

Hello! It seems like DeadLinkBOT (contribs) has stopped running? Do we need a replacement for it? I would be willing to script up a bot to take its' place. Let me know. Nice speaking with you, MatthewYeager 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this popped up on my watchlist, I've got a couple of link replacement tasks for DeadLinkBOT, if it is still in operation? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still functional. It runs "on demand," that is when there is need to replace specific links. I haven't personally sought out any dead link replacements for a while, so it hasn't been active. I will be happy to run it again if you know of anything that needs done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The links I'd like DeadLinkBOT to tackle are IETF RFC links that point to faqs.org: "http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc([0-9]+).html" [10] and the old locations on ietf.org: "http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).html" "http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).txt" "http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc([0-9]+).txt" [11] These should be updated to point to: "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc$number"
MediaWiki:Rfcurl was updated back in August 2004 from "http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/" to "http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/" [12] and then in May 2006 and August of 2006 to point to "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc(number)" [13] [14] but we still have a lot of manually created links in all sorts of namespaces that point to the old locations.
I came across these while doing prep work for {{Cite IETF}} and had considered doing them myself but DeadLinkBOT would make short work of them. Updating these should be very easy since the only thing that needs to be extracted is the RFC number and a really simple regular expression will do the job.
--Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinkbot

Thanks to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center deciding to change their website around completely we in the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones have a lot of links which need pointing to their new homes. Anyway i was wondering if youre bot would be able to do it at all? Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to help. Could you supply some examples of links that have changed or point me to the discussion about the change? Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Geocities

Do you expect to get all 30,000 done before the deadline? MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't yet have enough data to say with confidence that there will be enough time, but I should have a better idea by tomorrow (I'll reply here again when I know.) If it looks like it'll be close, I'll switch it to archive only mode (i.e. no Wikipedia page writes), which will speed it up significant. It can always go back later and edit the Wikipedia pages, but it can't go back and archive pages after they are gone. :)

I'm also going to try to get through as many foreign Wikipedias as possible on an archive only basis. I imagine a fairly large % of the links will be duplicate, so hopefully that won't add too much. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had a bit of a disaster where I accidentally overwrote my updated code with an old version, so I was set back ~24 hours by having to fix it. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to make an accurate guess as to if there is enough time or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you hitting bandwith limitations and just need more bandwith? If so and this is something that can be run on a *nix host let me know as there may be something I can do. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. However, the problem lies not in the technical end, but on the human end. I had to make a significant number of modifications to my existing code for the new functionality (on demand archiving of links to a specific site). I have been having trouble finding time to adequately test everything, but I had some time today & I think it is 100% ready to go now.

I already have a backup plan ready to go if the main bot proves too slow - an archive only version (no Wikipedia writes). I'll start up this version my mid-day Saturday if things seem to be progressing too slow on the main bot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of saving this link (no. 18) which appeared on the Reference Desk/Misc. only yesterday? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Double-spacing with typewriters? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5kp7c3mO1 --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've adjusted the corresponding citation on the Ref Desk page. They may not know it now but it should turn out to be pppp-rrrretttty hannn-ddddy when this computer bubble finally bursts and everyone needs to learn once again how to operate a typewriter properly. Nothing will impress a future recruiter more than a high wpm. :-) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the current rate of archival, it should be able to get through all of enwiki's links before the deadline. The fate of the foreign wikipedia links will depend on what time exactly Yahoo shuts it down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Stats

• 40683 unique URLs archived
• 6365 URLs take were 403/404/508. Not sure about the 508 (which were a very small number), but the others were very unlikely to ever be available again even if GeoCities stayed open forever. A few % of these were probably due to onwiki typos, but the vast majority were due to normal linkrot; that is, sites moving or disappearing on their own.
• 81 URLs missed due to 503 (temporary unavailable errors): These would have been available given enough time. All pages were tried at least twice.
• or 86.3% saved, 13.5% already dead, and 0.2% missed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So when can we expect to see the links updated in wikipedia? I see that the bot has updated Encarta links already. Tim1357 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I moved to Encarta for a while since it was more pressing... It will probably be a couple weeks at least before all the links are actually updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

New Discussions in August 2010

Hello, again, I hope you're enjoying the summer.

In case you haven't noticed, GeoCities archives have become a hotly-debated topic at the External Links and Administrators' Noticeboards:

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#External links and references to former GeoCities sites

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bot making hundreds of links to oocities.com, when links to Archive.org would be better

I hope no one's laboriously re-inventing wheels you've already put on the Infobahn. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wayback Bot

Hey there thaddeusB,

I did some research on the wayback machine, to help with that bot I've been pestering you about. Like you said, the bot would have to find an archived version that is at least close to the date it was accessed, so here is my solution.

Let us assume that the range for deviation from the access-date is 4 months.

And lets have example.com be our example dead link.

Also, the accessdate for that is July, 2008.

Because we have a range of four monthes, (2 months in either direction) our date range (in yyyymm format) would be.

200805 and 200809

So, in the wayback url, type the following

web.archive.org/web/200805-200809/example.com

this would produce the archived version closest to the center of the provided range. If no archive exists in the provided range, then it returns "no archive".

This, of course, works if there is an "accessdate" parameter given. If it is not given, you can query wikiblame, which gives the accesdate.

Use the following url, replacing pagename with the page's name, and linkname with the link's name.

http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?
project=wikipedia&article=pagename&needle=linkname&lang=en&limit=2000&ignorefirst=0&
offjahr=2009&offmon=10&offtag=26&searchmethod=int&order=asc

the page will produce a statement "insertion found between (datestamp) and (datestamp), which can then be substituted for the accessdate. Whew, and thats all i got. I might have just spent a lot of time telling you things you already knew, but I thought that was a good way to work through the problems you listed in the bot request i originally made. tell me what you think. Tim1357 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "pestering" me. I, in fact, was completely unaware of the wikiblame system and only vaguely familiar with the archive.org system so the information was definitely helpful. Hopefully I'll find the tim geocities e to program the bot soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely take your time, this is not nearly as urgent as geocities, what do we have, 16 hours left? Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea really - the wording is quite vague. I don't really expect it to suddenly disappear at 12:01a, although it is possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one links linger on for a few days. If they are truly deleting every page like they claim, that will take quite some time to complete.

As far as progress goes, all 26k enwiki links finished shortly after midnight yesterday. The combined total of all foreign language Wikipedia has about 3k links to go out of 51k. Then I have to do another run through to try and get some of the "503 - temporarily unavailable pages" (~1% of total). Based on the rate so far, it looks like a bit less than 2 hours of archiving remains. I believe just about everything salvageable (nearly 10% were already dead) will be archived in time. :) It will be awhile before all the Wikipedia pages are updated though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! I almost sent an email to yahoo begging them to wait a few more hours, I thought it would be really that close. Kudos for getting the job done so quickly! Tim1357 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the existing dead links may have been page renames or prior removals (like when Yahoo purged untold numbers of inactive accounts) and may still be salvageable with archive.org. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, many of these sites probably decayed for the "normal" reasons of people abandoning their project or changing sites and not leaving redirects behind. The higher rate than normal is probably due at least in part to people moving when they learned GeoCities was closing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Whither?

There's a concentration of other free sites where GeoCities hosts were being encouraged to migrate (see my discussions in the archives of WP:Village Pump (proposals) derived from the GeoCities article in Wikipedia and the GeoCities home page: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/geocities/close/close-07.html ), so at some point, some kind of search-and-locate operation may be called for. Much of this will have to be done by humans, but is there any way that a 'bot could automate part of the search? —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not easily. It has been my ambition for some time to write a bot that seeks out where dead poages have moved to. However, I have not yet had the time to actually do it. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CourtTV Linkrot

It's possible this problem has been brought up and is being addressed somewhere, but I wasn't sure where. And seeing as how you've developed a bot for the correcting dead links, I figured you'd be a good place to start in getting it resolved. With CourtTV's change to 'TruTV', they made sweeping changes to their domain as well. As a result, just about every unarchived link, external or reference, to CourtTV sources has been rendered useless (they now redirect to TruTV's redirect page).

For example, several references on this page, this page, and an External Link here. No doubt this affects countless other pages covering notable trials and/or criminals. I haven't figured out which of the two links on that redirect page lead to the archived documents generally being referenced, so I'm not sure if the repair process could be automated. Is this something your bot could be configured to fix?

That being asked, I notice this page was created with every CourtTV reference archived, but I can't tell if it was done as a result of this issue or if it was just someone maintaining best practice citation habit.
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you've got a lot of conversations with a lot of different editors going on here and you may have missed this particular query, so I'm just posting a bump in the hope that you'll catch it. :^)
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to your post. I'll take a look and see what I can do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WebCite

I just wrote Wikipedia:Using WebCite. You want to check it out?--Blargh29 (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Input please

Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: BOT you were working on with Abyssal to record speicies info (?)

This may not make a whole lot of sense. Abyssal suggested that I contact you about a bot you were working on to automate "filing in tables" on arthropod invertebrates. Here is the text of his message to me...

"Actually, come to think of it, maybe you should talk to User:ThaddeusB before continuing. We were collaborating on a bot that would fill in the tables automatically from the PBDB, but it fell into development hell. Should it continue it may render your work unnecessary. You should tell him your plans and ask him if any future work on the bot would effect your planned editing. Filling in a lot of data manually would be an unfortunate waste of effort if it ends up getting overwritten by the database-harvesting bot. Abyssal (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)"

I have only entered a small amount of info in the list of eurypterids, which is what he was referring to. I am presently entering species descriptive information from the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology onto the pages on each individual genus. As the source I am working from is a non-digital paper source, I doubt that a bot will affect that work. As for the name and date info that I have entered onto the species lists, if that could be automated, more power to you. My input was minimal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digthepast (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

Hey there!

Just a reminder to generate the list of dead links.

This reminds me - a really need to generate that list... Yes, I will output two lists - a complete alphabetical one & a separate list with the most "popular" dead links. I'll make finally finishing the program the make this list my top priority for the next week.--ThaddeusB (talk) 8:28 pm, 4 October 2009, Sunday (1 month, 21 days ago) (UTC−4)

Thanks again for taking the time to do that! Tim1357 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi, I wonder if you're still interested in saving regularly the statistics as we had disucssed here. Cenarium (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I never noticed that you wanted some additional stats that aren't already tracked at the link the other editor provided. As such, I had incorrectly assumed the bot was no longer wanted... I am on real-world vacation the next couple weeks, so I should be able to get something programmed before the end of the year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A hope for the future...

Wikipedia is sometimes seen as a rather harsh environment for newcomers. I am currently working on an essay that might better ease newcomers into the family. Any input for Newcomer's guide to guidelines will be most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can You review?

Hello my friend! Union Avenue Historic Commercial District needs a bit of copy editing and you do clean things up so well. I would like to see it be nominated for the featured article but it's needs a buit more fleshing out. Can you please guide me? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to get to it w/in the next couple days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Auto-categorizing Robot

Hi! A couple of months back, you created this 'bot to work with National Register of Historic Places historic district categories. (THANKS!) From User:The Auto-categorizing Robot/Logs/NRHP Index, it appears that the categorizing work began, but then stopped. This task is still needed (see Template talk:Infobox_nrhp#Problem with autocategorization to Category:Historic districts in the United States for the latest expressions of concern). Was there a problem with the 'bot or the task design that someone else could help out with? --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem was that I never restarted the task after the last run finished... Thanks for the reminder - I will restart it w/in the next day or two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this bot be started again soon? --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please? --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I haven't done much the past few days. Will try to get to it tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It still hasn't run. Is there a problem that someone else could possibly help with? --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I see that real life has been interfering with your wiki-life lately. I hope things are getting sorted out for you. Is there anything anyone else can do to help with this 'bot process? --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please advise if there's anything anyone else can do to help get this job running again. It's been more than three months since it last operated. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'll get it back up tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Thank you for your patience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor & Publisher & WebCiteBOT

Due to time-sensitivity, thought you should be advised of this notice/discussion --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MacJarvis & AquaConnect

About this comment.

Why?

Someone who is obviously connected to the company is intent on making sure we have an article on their product. No-one else is showing any interest in the article. Surely if the product really was notable we would have some actual contributions from editors who do not have a COI?

What is the message we are trying to send to people intent on spamming us? "Just keep trying!" The article has been deleted multiple times now as spam. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple points:

1. Clearly someone (me) has shown some level of interest in the article or we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with, so your premise is flawed to begin with.
2. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that no one is currently working on, but that doesn't make those subjects non-notable.
3. A COI is never a valid reason for deletion
4. A subject being written as an ad (and deleted as such) doesn't make it non-notable. What if the first 5 tries at Diet Pepsi had all been ads, would that permanent disqualify from ever having an article?

The message we should be trying to send is that we judge content, not editors. If something is salvageable, it should be salvaged, regardless of the original editor's motives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but as far as I can tell the only reason you are showing interest is because User:MacJarvis left a comment on Template talk:Cent asking that the deletion be reversed. MacJarvis has been pushing this article for over a year now. I'm assuming you can see the deleted history of the article, you can see for yourself that he/she (and his/her IP address, sockpuppets) is the one and only significant editor. If the only one aggressively pushing for the article is someone who has a blatant COI, then that speaks volumes about the notability of the subject.

And please note that it isn't just myself. The article was nominated for speedy deletion multiple times by different editors, and previously nominated for AFD by another editor. Each time the deletion or AFD was successful, MacJarvis turns up to either re-create the article or ask for it to be restored.

Lastly comparing a piece of software that has received no coverage aside from that prompted by press releases to a hugely successful product like Diet Pepsi is frankly not a valid comparison. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How I became interested in the subject is irrelevant and your assessment of the press coverage is completely biased and inaccurate. Please show me any policy or guideline that says "if a COI account pushes a topic for a long period of time and the article is speedy deleted multiple times, the topic becomes permanently off-limits for recreation." Then show me where notability is said to be determined by "interest." Until you do, you have no valid argument to make - you are just trying to push your personal opinion on me. If I want to "waste" my time on a minorly notable subject, what concern is that to you?

And BTW, I am not the only person who thinks the subject is notable as evidenced by the AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe your last statement, please look closer. Three keep votes. Two of them from editors who only edit the AquaConnect article or articles that mention Aqua Connect. And the only other Keep vote said "Weak - with some cleanup, I do believe this article could live." And the only ones that argue the article is notable are the two who plainly have a conflict of interest.

And I never claimed notability is determined by interest. I only object because the only editor who is pushing for this article to be repeatedly recreated plainly has a conflict of interest. If another editor who had contributed even a single other article to Wikipedia were pushing for this, I wouldn't be bothered about it.

Lastly the article wasn't just speedy deleted multiple times. It went through AFD and was deleted twice after being discussed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again. The article was speedy deleted multiple times in 2008 as spam. A DRV overturned the last speedy and sent it to AfD. The resulting AfD was no consensus, which means it was kept. The votes were 1 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 weak delete, and 1 neutral. Last I checked, neither MuZemike or Suntag is a SPA pushing this article.

The article then sat for more than a year before you started the second AfD. The second AfD had numerous sock keep votes and three delete votes. All three delete votes were "delete - spam" which is a comment on tone, not notability. Furthermore, the AfD was severely hampered by the socking. For proof that this kind of behavior influences people to vote delete, you have to look no further than yourself. You have repeatedly argued the socking is a reason to delete it and your arguments plus the shitty behavior by the sock was likely a factor in deciding the second AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Palmer (chef)

If you want more of the fine foods meme this new article is mighty skimpy. Otherwise, you're welcome to help out on the Tacoma, Washington architecture subjects I've uncovered (see top of my user page article list...) or to do your own thing. :) Anyway, great job on that article you fixed up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WebCiteBot special request

Hi there Thaddeus. I wonder whether I could bother you with a special request for a bit complicated WebCiting (that needs a bit of coding)? We at WP:DW have a problem (read here for details) that Outpost Gallifrey, a website that hosted many reviews currently linked from 150+ articles, has been shut down. Those reviews have been cached at web.archive.org here but that service is always very slow. Would it be possible to submit all those links under the "reviews"-header (if archived) to WebCite using an adapted version of your bot's code and then add them to the articles in which they are used in? The tricky part here would be that the links are already "rotten" and there would be a difference between the link to archive (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20071001000119/www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=bbcp-69) and the link in the article (e.g. http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=bbcp-69). Regards SoWhy 11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

After I get caught up on other things, I'll look into it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A bot for WP:Article Rescue Squadron

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Listing_the_articles_with_rescue_tag:_Fritzpoll_and.2For_Thaddeus_can_you_create_the_bot.3F Ikip 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 4?

Is it ready yet? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Opinion sought about User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Kevin Rockett. I believe even at this stage the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I am ready to turn it loose and let others join in on the fun. What'cha think? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice article. The subject definitely passes notability, although I wouldn't specifically refer to N:academics as my first choice. He easily passes the GNG, but is more known as an author than a pure academic IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)