Misplaced Pages

User talk:R'n'B

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 1 September 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:R'n'B/Archive 11.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:00, 1 September 2010 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:R'n'B/Archive 11.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
    • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • If you are expressing a concern about edits made by RussBot, it is extremely helpful if you include a link to a specific page or, even better, a link to a diff showing the actual edit that the bot made. This makes it much easier to diagnose and correct problems.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Special request on New York disambigs.

Hey bud! Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Proposal for New York villages within towns, can you generate a list of all disambig pages having "New York" in the name? I'll hand-sort the ones for which "Foo, New York" is a town and a village completely within that town, or the like, and a bot can fix all the links to point to the village. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote redirect bot

Have you, by any chance, made any progress on creating a summary of what the hatnote repair bot is doing (or supposed to be doing) and why? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was lost on a back burner. Thanks for the bump. I will try to get something for you to look at by Thursday. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TAPCIS Deleted!

I was indulging in a little nostalgia about CompuServe as it once was and saw that you've deleted a reference in the CompuServe listing to TAPCIS. That's too bad! Perhaps I can help.

Along with thousands of other early adaptors I was an enthusiastic user of TAPCIS, (The Access Program for the Compuserve Information Service) from 1986 until 2004 when advances in CompuServe technology rendered this brilliant little DOS-based program obsolete.

Written in Borland's Turbo Pascal, TAPCIS was a $79 Shareware program that automated access to CompuServe.

At a time when subscribers paid for timed access and had to spend time online reading and replying to messages, the TAPCIS autopilot took its users online with a single keystroke, bypassing the windows interface while it a sent all email and forum postings written offline, received new messages, downloaded requested files, and logged off CompuServe.

TAPCIS was the brainchild of Howard Benner, a marketing executive from Wilmington, Del. Benner he joined CompuServe in 1981 and soon after authored TAPCIS.

That's the bare bones, If I can help by rewriting this or adding further info, please let me know.

Keith Thekiwikeith (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When? This from the CompuServe article:

12:47, 22 May 2009 R'n'B (talk | contribs) deleted "TapCIS" ‎ (Not enough context to identify article's subject (CSD A1))

Keith 58.28.158.176 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, I see. I couldn't find it yesterday because the capitalization was different. Using ] around links is also helpful. Anyway, I see you've created a new TapCIS article which is drastically different from what I deleted, so thanks for your contribution. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

hatnote note

R'n'B,

As promised, a simple note for the bot to point to when making hatnote updates. I have currently left out any discussion of piping as 1) it looks like the details have not been decided yet and 2) I'm not sure it needs to be included and would complicate the message - but we can see how that goes. Also, the link to the "Redirect in hatnotes" discussion would have to be made "archive" proof.

This bot ensures that the intentional links to disambiguation pages in hatnotes can be readily identified in "what links here" reports. The best way to accomplish this (at present) is to make sure the link includes an appended "(disambiguation)". The "what links here" reports for the disambiguation page can then be used to efficiently identify _unintentional_ links to disambiguation pages so they may be corrected. For further information, see Misplaced Pages Talk:Disambiguation#Redirects in hatnotes, WP:INTDABLINK and WP:DPL.

--John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • In light of the direction the discussion is going, can we preemptively make the "foo (disambiguation)" redirects to those disambig pages which will probably require them? This would include all pages on the lists of disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages (we've been making those left and right already, but it's a drain on the speed of resolving those links). It would also prospectively include all disambig links presently occurring in hatnotes, and perhaps all disambiguation pages with any incoming links at all. bd2412 T 00:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • And by "can we" I mean "can you"; or, more accurately, "can your bot"; and by "can" I mean, "please do, if technically possible", particularly with respect to disambig pages linked from other disambig pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Now pending at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 5; comments are welcome there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! bd2412 T 18:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Motto Shop Archiving

Thanks for fixing that. :) It seems that it was beyond me. ~~ Hi878 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunderland

Please note that when disambiguating Sunderland (north east of England town) and the date is before 1 April 1974, the correct dab is Sunderland, Co Durham. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:R'n'B/Very short pages

Is this page still in use? There is an entry on there that an individual doesn't want showing up in Google. It could be redacted, but perhaps the page is no longer needed? User /user talk pages should probably be excluded from future runs of this report for similar reasons. –xeno 14:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the report (I requested it) was to ferret out pages too short to contain any actual content, which were likely vandal/test pages. I deleted a bunch of them when it was made, but I am not currently doing anything with it. bd2412 T 14:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Shall we just delete it for now? (It might function better as an ongoing WP:DBR that excludes user pages and other false positives) –xeno 14:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No objection to deleting the list. Bear in mind that for purposes of this list, I did not consider user pages to be false positives. bd2412 T 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll delete it for now then. One way to identify false positives among user pages would be to exclude it if the last revision user was the owner of the user page. –xeno 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Android

Hi

Can you tell me what made you rename the page without notifying the Robotics project ? I cannot believe that an article that is listed as "high importance" would be moved in this way without letting us know.

Android is not just a robot term. It is incorrect to title it (robot) as it also refers to artificial organisms and not just humanoid robots. Irregardless of the seraches and whether or not they will or will not eventually die down it seems that this rename decision is based on a policy that is interpreted incorrectly. If a person searches for Android and not Android OS that surely is their mistake in not correctly inseerting terms to search for. As I have stated

There is also the issue of the 700 pages which now have to be sifted through for link fixing. The hatnotes and links to the dab page were more than adequate and have worked fine and I do not see why there is suddenly a need for this change unless it is simply down to incorrect search params.

THis should neve have been made on the basis of search hits. The searches provided by the editor are 3 to 2 in favour of Android OS but that does not mean that the existing system of hatnotes and links was not working.

Everyone knows that "An Android" is not a phone operating system and that the Android OS is a derivative. I am asking for the Android to be included as a vital page.

I would appreciate anything that can be done to quickly get the page back to "Android" from "Android (robot)" until that process has been completed on the grounds of

1 The high importance to the robotics project 2 The incorrect title 3 The links that need to be fixed and then changed back again if the vital status is accepted. 4 The closeness of the hits 5 The fact that no request seems to have been made at page move boards (although that may not be correct as I canot find an archive of any kind to check older decisions)

PLease do not take any of this as against your decision to move, I assume you acted on the information to hand, but rather that I am bringing new information that would have swayed your choice against making the decision you made or at least in the time frame it was made (and I appreciate that the discussion was there for a while but it still was not informed to the Robotics project or myself or any of the others).

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There is a way to look at the history of a page. For example, you can go to the page Android and click on the "History" tab at the top. Or you can follow this link. When you do, look at the history and see which user moved the page. Hint: it was not me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Trolling again

Hello, I spotted this on the talk page of SpacemanSpiff. Thoughts? --Dave 18:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


Well

I think you've got me for this month re: the disam contest. I'm just about dry and I'm going to be on a Wikibreak for a few days this week. Congrats :) --User:Woohookitty 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

trial of the knights templar

I was a paralegal for many years and in the law "discovery" and "disclosure" (as to process), have two slightly different meanings.

DISCOVERY -PRE-TRIAL process of obtaining facts in a LAWSUIT through various means such as INTERROGATORIES, DEPOSITIONS, and DOCUMENT PRODUCTION http://www.pralaw.com/legalresources/glossary.aspx?id=58

DISCLOSURE - Criminal Law: Right to Evidence Disclosure A defendant who's charged with committing a crime must plan a defense for trial. In order to plan the best defense, he may need to know certain information that's in the hands of the government. The defendant has the legal right to have access to many types of evidence before trial. The process of obtaining relevant information that's held by the other party is called discovery. There are certain types of information that the government must legally disclose to the defendant upon his request. However, there are certain types of information that doesn't need to be legally disclosed. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Law-Right-to-Evidence-Disclosure.html

It is easy to misuse the terms-their meaning is almost identical. Mugginsx (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DAB contest

That is a really fascinating point. I do wonder if we've intimidated everyone else? It used to more of a group effort but its become basically you and I the last few months. I wonder if we should try that. If you look at my user page, I have a whole list of pages I patrol every day. I could just stick to those. --User:Woohookitty 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bristol, Kenosha County, Wisconsin

Hi-the village of Bristol, Wisconsin voted to incorporate the remaining town of Bristol, Kenosha County, Wisconsin and this took effect on July 4, 2010. Having the old article about a Wisconsin town that was annexed by a village that legally no longer exists will just add confusion to whoever would be reading it. The village of Rochester, Wisconsin had the old town of Rochester incorporated into the village and the article about the town got redirected to the article about the village of Rochester with no problems. I still think the article about the old town of Bristol needs to be redirected to the Bristol, Wisconsin to prevent any confusion. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see how anyone will be confused, when the intro to the article says that it is a "former town" and specifically says that it was annexed by the village. However, I would have no objection if you wanted to merge the content of the article about the former town into the one about the village; my concern is that by just redirecting the old page, you hid all the content about the population, geography, etc. of the location. The place still exists, even if its form of government has changed, and there is no reason to remove information about it from the encyclopedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say: Thanks for the disambiguation! Jcoplien (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One quick note-part of the old town of Bristol was annexed by the village of Pleasant Prairie at the same time the remaining town of Bristol was annexed by the village of Bristol. There was a civil court case involving the annexation. This means the information involving the old town of Bristol, the village of Pleasant Prairie is not accurate and someone will have to wrie the demographic, geographic section of the village of Bristol article once information becomes available. I will probably wait. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge thing coming up in a few months.

Greetings, my friend. You may have heard that D.C. area Wikipedians, including myself, have been working with the Smithsonian Institution (through Misplaced Pages:GLAM/SI) to work out the potential use by Misplaced Pages of material in the Smithsonian collections. To this end, the Smithsonian may prepare materials in their database for a possible batch upload to Misplaced Pages as articles on specific artifacts in their collection. Not to overdramatize the situation, but we may be talking about upwards of a quarter-million articles. Of course, your bot-mastery came to mind in contemplating just how we might handle this. We'll be having another meeting with the Smithsonian in a month to work out details. Is this something you would be interested in helping with? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds exciting and I'd like to know what I could do to help. Let me know as it develops. (By the way, I haven't forgotten your New York request but haven't yet had a chance to do anything with it. I think it needs a web-tool rather than a once-every-so-often report, which will take a little more development.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I certainly do appreciate that. I will let you know how things proceed. As for the New York pages, I moved the first one and created Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links/New York disambiguation report/Adams. If I move them all but create a comparable report for each, will that be enough to set up a solution? Or should I wait until a solution has been implemented? bd2412 T 16:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Julia Pirie

I have had another go at Julia Pirie, which has been previously deleted for copyright violation. Here it is: Julia Pirie in sandbox. Please take a look and let me know if it's good enough. Thanks Budhen (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Species abbreviations

Heya, Russ. Of course I've been watching the workings of RussBot these days, and have noticed that species abbreviations have not been getting redirects (for instance, see this list). Now, I'm assuming it's going in alphabetic order - any idea why the bot is skipping these? Cheers, --JaGa 09:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They are using a template {{Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation}} that wasn't on the list of recognized disambig templates, until I added it just now. When the bot gets to the end of the list, I'll run it again to pick up the pages that were missed the first time through. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Great. That'll be a nice drop in TDD. --JaGa 12:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that I want to ask any more of you than I already have... but when RussBot is done making those redirects, it would be useful to have it go through the disambig pages that link to disambig pages and change all the "foo" disambigution links in the "See also" sections to "foo (disambiguation)" links - provided, of course, that there's nothing else on the line. I estimate that this would clear about 6,000-8,000 intentional disambig links. If that can be done, then it would also make sense to generate a new report of disambig pages with links to disambig pages, excluding those intentional links. bd2412 T 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
RussBot is done with its initial run. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page titles

That's the thing, I know there is a move button, but where I am it doesn't appear on the top of the page, I don't know why. It's the computer, I guess, because in some places the computer doesn't present all the features of wikipedia, such as the buttons like "redirect", etc. Sorry about that, it makes my work harder. Phoebus de Lusignan (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Republics of Russia

Thanks for your comment, R'n'B. I am, however, not quite sure if your concern is different from Offliner's—the solution I suggested on my talk page should remedy yours as well, no?

On the other hand, if a part of your concern is having the articles at the fully spelled out names, consider this. There are currently twenty-one republics of Russia. Of those, the titles of four (Altai Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, and Sakha Republic) were already fully spelled out before I started to work on the rest. That's nearly one fifth, and they can't be moved to shorter names for ambiguity reasons much more pronounced than those with, say, Adygea or Buryatia. Furthermore, names of the articles about fifty-five krais and oblasts are also fully spelled out, because the short name is either already taken (Irkutsk Oblast vs. Irkutsk) or is not used in English on its own (Primorsky is not an acceptable short name for Primorsky Krai, for example). The only autonomous oblast of Russia (Jewish Autonomous Oblast) is at full name because that happens to be what it is usually called in English anyway. And the autonomous okrugs are at full names because a variety of short names (neither of which can honestly be called "common") exists for them. So we have sixty-six federal subjects (~80% of them all) with names fully spelled out, and seventeen republics which are not. I'm moving them to longer names mostly for consistency sake. Note also that I'm not just moving them to some made-up Misplaced Pages-only names (like it is often the case with the monarchs—Ivan IV of Russia is "common English", really?), I am moving them to what is often a more correct form than what we are using currently. Consider, for example, that while both "Dagestan" and "Republic of Dagestan" enjoy equal official status per that republic's constitution, such is not the case with, say, the Republic of Adygea—just "Adygea" is not the official name. Add on top of that the issue of ambiguity between the historical entities, and having the nineteen republics at slightly longer titles should make a lot more sense, wouldn't you agree? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2010; 13:27 (UTC)

My concern is basically the same as Offliner's; however, I wanted to make the point that the same solution should be applied to the other disambiguation pages you recently created for federal subjects, not just limited to Dagestan. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no real objections to doing it this way, although I believe it would be more beneficial to consider them all individually, not as one wholesale unit. What makes sense for one does not necessarily make sense for them all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2010; 14:22 (UTC)
Hello, R'n'B. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I mentioned "automatic" because I was under the impression that some bots (even if they have to be initiated manually) are involved in that type of cleanup as well, no? At any rate, it would have been more helpful to have folks with experience in large-scale cleanup do it—the redirects could use some straightening because in this particular case there's no benefit whatsoever of linking via a redirect as opposed to a straight link. Oh well, if that's not what projects like TDD are there for, I'll manage on my own. Point taken; thanks for your time and patience; I won't be a bother in this area again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 14:24 (UTC)

FOO

Bot appears to be creating lots of pointless redirects from FOO (disambiguation) to FOO, when there is little chance of more than one article on FOO. E.g. . What's the point?  Chzz  ►  13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:INTDABLINKS. This bot task was discussed and approved. Anyway, redirects are cheap, so why not? We have many redirects on the books that are much more pointless than these. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I second that, and note also that all of these redirects are only being made to existing disambiguation pages, and specifically to existing disambiguation pages which already have incoming links, which are likely to have at least some intentional incoming links. bd2412 T 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Situational Awareness

Greetings, R'n'B !

What do you think about reviewing the discussion page for the entry on Situational Awareness and updating the actual article with suggestions in the talk page?

I suppose I could update the entry but I would want someone to review what I did, and since you touched the entry last, I thought I would bug you about it. LOL. I can update the page but would you review it and correct anything I do that's not clean? NotSoOldHippy (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's Situation awareness and all I did was fix an ambiguous link. However, I took a look at the talk page, and I'm concerned that you are verging on original research. You have news articles that say that certain events happened, and then you on your own are drawing the conclusion that these are examples of lack of situational awareness. If you had found reliable sources that concluded that these are examples relevant to the article, that would be different. However, the role of Misplaced Pages is to compile and summarize what has been published elsewhere, not to introduce novel analysis or conclusions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Humm. The incidents of failed SA are specifically stated as failed SA in the 24/Aug/2010 safety alert issued by the USFS in the ANF where the incidents occured so there's some legitimacy in the suggestion that incidents are some how "research." Any conclusions are those by the Federal agency which specifically expressed the need for better SA.
Yet the article itself is still lacking specifics on how observation carries forward in to decision and from decision to action. As I mention, memory is not even mentioned in the article whereas it's covered extensively in extant research. I suppose I could drag forth academic reviews which cover memory and mitigation of SA failure. As it stands, the Wiki article could be a lot better.
Thanks for your comments.
By the way, I'm aware of what WikiPedia is and what its "role" is -- I've been active in various incarnations since WP's inception. NotSoOldHippy is just my latest name, I never can settle in to one name since that's, well, boring. }:-} NotSoOldHippy (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

working on a deleted page

Hello,

I was working on a page for the organization I work for called Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. A wiki admin moved my page to the sandbox so I could edit further, as I had to edit the language that I was using from our marketing materials. Now I see the page is deleted, so I'd like to attempt to write the page again. The instructions said to contact the person who deleted the page first, so that's what I'm doing. I'm taking cues from wiki pages for other orgs similar to try and have more success with this page. One admin I was IM-ing with suggested I write the page from a third party perspective. I'd be happy to have any other advice. I tried adding more sources and to the article. Can I start working on this article from the sandbox and then request approval? I'd like to prevent the article from being deleted again.

Thanks for your help.

Jennimay (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Jennifer

As far as I can tell, there has never been a Misplaced Pages article with the title Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. I cannot find a deleted page without the exact title (including correct capitalization). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the deleted page is Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, which was deleted after Jennimay moved it to that title from User:Jennimay/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. No action is necessary, as that title has been moved back to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
…Although most of the content has been blanked for copyvio. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

missing citations tags

I noticed that you added a missing citations tag on the top of the geotechnical engineering page. I agree that parts of the article need to be improved in this regard, but some of the sections are well referenced, I believe. The opening section did not have references so I added a couple citations to the opening section of the article, and I am wondering if it is now OK for me to remove the missing citations tag at the top. I would leave the tags on the sections that do not have references. It is just that there are two such tags at the top.

I am fairly new to editing wikipedia, so if you can point me to a policy article on how to judge if citations are needed and when it is appropriate to add or remove the missing citations tag I would appreciate it.Blkutter (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

September

Whoops. Forgot about that :) I'll go to my everyday list for awhile. And maybe *gasp* parts of Misplaced Pages. :) --User:Woohookitty 10:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. http://www.nfbnet.org/files/modems/TAPCIS.TXT
  2. http://www.tapcis.com/benner.html