User talk:R'n'B/Archive 4

SearchBot

Thanks for mentioning it - I've brought it up with him a couple of times, too. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

fixing links to disambiguation page National Academy of Sciences

While I appreciate its intentions, Russbot seems to be making a typo.[1] Naional Academy of Sciences? I've fixed that particular one now but I thought I'd let you know in case it's done the same elsewhere. Qwfp (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Thanks for the alert - I've got a fix in progress. --Russ (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary Newlove

Hi. I noticed you were involved in adding a "prod" template to said article. This is a note out of courtesy to inform you that I've listed this under afd here in case you are interested. Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chausey

While fixing disambiguation link (English) on Chausey, you also tagged the article as uncategorized. The article is in four categories. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Venkanna H. Naik

I'll try to fix it. Thanks for suggesting to improve the quality.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobots on articles

I'm sorry, but on that article Nobots is certainly necessary. I don't agree woth you that it cannot be used in article space, and I don't think your position is supported by the general consensus. Note that the template documentation says: "These templates should be used mainly on the "User" and "User talk" namespaces and should be used carefully in other spaces."

Concerning notifying the individual bots: unfortunately, the article has been editted inappropriately by a large number of bots. All interwiki bots are problematical for this article. The template really is the easiest and best solution here, unless you want me to protect the page? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects

You're right. I'll fix the bot, and the existing redirects. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars

An editor has nominated List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Resides

Resides is an English word in the English dictionary... How can you nominate it for speedy deletion? lol... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resides —Preceding unsigned comment added by GLogic (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it is. lol. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. lol lol. There is a difference. lol lol lol. --Russ (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Page moves to non-existant categories

I'm not sure what happened, but Category:Holy Roman Empresses got moved to Holy Roman empresses on February 26, but that category was deleted on February 23. Your bot moved the pages on March 14. (eg. Richardis)

A similar thing occured with Category:Holy Roman Emperors / Category:Holy Roman emperors. I don't know how to sort it all out. Any thoughts? --Bwpach (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. It should be easy enough to move everything back, but the main thing is to remove the {{category redirect}}s from the correct titles. --Russ (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RussBot

Hey Russ, I was wondering if you can explain a rather bizarre pattern presented by RussBot two days ago, particulary this edit [2], it seems like a glitch of some kind. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can tell what happened (obviously, the bot saved revisions to the wrong title) but not why. I had a bug like this a couple of months ago, but I was sure I had fixed it. I'll have to do some digging to figure out why it is popping up again now. --Russ (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Baro-Bhuyan

Historically, the Bhuyan Chieftains formed a supergroup which included the Baro Bhuyan subgroup that controlled parts of Assam. Maybe we should keep them as they are for the time being till someone gets time to update the texts. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but the cut-and-paste move still needs to be corrected. --Russ (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book

An editor has nominated Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Prod

I just reverted your {{prod}} on Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) per my comments on the talk page. I don't think it will ever be a full article, but if you look at google you'll see that the DAB page is now the second highest ranked page when the term is searched and it points to relevant information here in wikipedia and wiktionary. The DAB serves its purpose. --evrik ^(talk) 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RussBot:Templates with red links/1‎ and company

Would you mind having RussBot create these pages in user space instead of article space? The prefix path you should probably be using is User:RussBot/Templates with red links. --Allen3 ^talk 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for creating this unnecessary work for you due to my carelessness. --Russ (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have made similar mistakes myself. --Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure when I will be able to get to these. I have only just finished sorting out the last batch, and that has taken probably a good forty hours worth of work! bd2412 T 01:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosch process)

Hi, would it be possible to rename the article "Bosch process)" to "Bosch process" that is to leave out the last parenthesis? Thanks. Twisp (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin will have to do that. I've placed {{db-move}} on the page to request a move. --Russ (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Force Harvester

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Force Harvester, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Force Harvester. -Fastily (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for your note

I'm soory, must not have understood. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Woodstock

I've G6'd it. What do you want done with its talk page? --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of naval commanders

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of naval commanders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambigs

Hey Russ, I noticed that RussBot is working some of the disambigs links to "Puerto Rican" however the links on biographies should be redirecting to Puerto Rican people instead of Puerto Rico, just thought you should know, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• That depends on the context, and sometimes is a judgment call. (To take a fairly easy case, a "Puerto Rican politician" should link to Puerto Rico, not to Puerto Rican people.) If the original author isn't clear, of course, there is a chance I could get it wrong. --Russ (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

City of Geelong

As the designer of the template and the writer of all but three of the articles within it (with some redlinked ones still to go - notably the ones in the Geelong and Ballarat areas as well as the far west of Victoria) I was well aware of the change I was making. Rather than have to go through and check and change things when I actually write the articles, I had designed it so that it would all fall into place when the articles were written. As it stands, I'll have to change it back again now once I write the article (City of Geelong should not be a disambig, but I have been too busy with other things to rectify that).

As for it being in Geelong, Victoria - it shouldn't be. Articles on urban areas should not be about local governance, nor vice versa. It's a mistake often made on Wikipedia and reduces its credibility quite considerably on these matters when you think of how many iterations of local government pass over a period of time, but how urban areas tend to go from pre-settlement to city in a fairly human-centred and social/industrial/economic/strategic manner that ignores the arbitrary boundaries we place on them. Such situations have earlier led to complications where there is boundary spillover - Newcastle and Townsville are two particular cases in point, where in each case a significant portion of its suburbs were in another LGA, and people were seriously trying to claim the second LGA as a "city" in urban/social terms (Townsville was fixed by means of a recent amalgamation). Orderinchaos 15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

KLOV

what were you planning to place here instead of a redirect to the dab page?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The dab page is going to be (actually, already has been) moved to the title KLOV. --Russ (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

revert to the current dab collaboration

Hi, Russ. Thank you for fixing links I stupidly moved to the done section a couple of days ago. Not sure what I was thinking, but it must have been dumb... -Gwguffey (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Valley Radio

Death Valley Radio needs to be taken off. The stations that were on there are on High Desert/ Eastern Sierra Radio, or Victor Valley. --JoeCool950 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Russ (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

You state that this is a consensual move, can you please show me a link to the consensus discussing this? Thank you for your time. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad

I didn't realize that User:RussBot/DPL/Templates was a bot page. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

British

It looks like a bot is changing Briton|British to United Kingdom|British [3] That might be OK when you are talking about some things, but when you are talking about British people it makes more sense to link then to an article about the British people rather than an article about the country. I'll undo all the ones in articles I'm interested in but I think you should liik at undoing the rest -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Briton was moved to British people in February and they didn't update all the references -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much the same issue I discussed just above: it depends on the context. --Russ (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the particular edit you linked to is a good example -- Pressburger was not ethnically British; he was an immigrant who became a UK citizen. --Russ (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He took out British citizenship. He became British, by choice -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done a lot of this, and my firm policy is that adjectives like Hungarian and British get disambiguated to the country name when used to describe a person, unless the context makes it clear that it is referring to their ethnicity (e.g., a person described as "of Hungarian descent" gets disambiguated to Hungarian people, but "Hungarian author" gets changed to "[[Hungary|Hungarian]] author". --Russ (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that your firm policy? Don't you think that a Hungarian author should be regarded as a person rather than as a country? Does the robot look at the context? I think the trouble with this one might be that a lot of them used to point to Briton when it was an article about British people. But then some genius moved that to British people, put a disambiguation page up for Briton and didn't change all the articles that used to correctly point to Briton meaning the people of Britain. By running this robot and changing them to United Kingdom we've lost the chance to correct them -- SteveCrook (talk)

It is my firm policy (which is not to say that it's an absolute rule) because my experience has taught me that when people talk about a German author, a French actress, or a British police officer, for example, they usually mean a person from that country, not a person whose ancestors came from that country. However, as I said above, it all depends on the context. Which is why I make those kinds of edits under manual control. (And I have observed that British people is a little bit different than some of the other articles; whereas Hungarian people and Germans are very explicitly about ethnic groups, the British people article is a bit more inclusive about what constitutes Britishness. But I still think Tony Blair was the [[United Kingdom|British]] prime minister, not the [[British people|British]] prime minister. --Russ (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the British Prime Minister is referring to a position which isn't itself a British person. But the British Prime Minister is a [[British people|British]] person :) Is there anywhere I can see which ones the robot changed on its last run so that I correct the ones that need to be corrected? -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As for your general rule, if I was to talk about Hungarian scriptwriter Emeric Pressburger then that would be describing the person so should be [[Hungarian person|Hungarian]]. But if I was to say Emeric Pressburger is a Hungarian scriptwriter then the subject is the role, not the person, so it should be [[Hungary|Hungarian]] -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your 'bot has made another pass through these corrections - and is still getting most of them wrong! If it's about a person it should very nearly always link to British people, not to United Kingdom which is a country and a political entity -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that it's "wrong"; you just have a different opinion on the subject than I do. --Russ (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We certainly do have a different opinion. But how can it not be wrong to link a person to a country when there's another entry for people from that country? While I was going through changing some of the ones you did in the most recent run I saw that some had already been corrected by other people, so it appears I'm not alone in my opinion. For instance, "Richard Addinsell (January 13, 1904 - November 14, 1977) was a British composer ...". Why link him to a geographic and political entity like United Kingdom when there's an entry about British people? -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from fixing the Briton links yourself. I'm sure your help would be appreciated. --Russ (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If only the person that moved Briton to British people had done that. It's just that your changes make them harder to find -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

made this change you may wish to explore why. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's safe to say that isn't right. --Russ (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RussBot subpages

Oh... just trying to help... does it break something? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...Well, if/when in future I set AWB to update some links (usually templates) and I don't notice these include links on RussBot pages, my apologies in advance. Looks like RussBot does some very useful maintenance, so I don't want to disrupt it. Thanks for providing it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• ...Sorry, but I haven't seen the large red banner you describe. Do you know if there's a way to stop AWB from editing these pages? In any case, I'd like to understand why it's a problem, as the edits made keep the pages in touch with templates whose names have changed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought: I may be able to set AWB to exclude any pages with "User:RussBot" in their names. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Tweaks to Wikipedia:Templates with red links reports.

Greetings, friend. I wish to impose on you a request to split out more sub-reports for the Wikipedia:Templates with red links project. Since you have generated a report based on a more recent date dump, this is what I would like to see, if you have the time.

1. The specific areas are for templates containing one of the following terms or sets of terms:
   1. Indiana (for some reason, there are a lot of Indiana-related templates)
   2. Basketball and/or NBA
   3. Road(s) and/or Highway(s)
   4. Class (these will almost always be for classes of battleships)
   5. Airline(s)
   6. Protected areas
   7. Olympic(s)
2. Generate the lists of templates with red links including those terms from the most recent data dump.
3. Delete templates with red links including those terms from the existing lists.

Ideally, I would like you to teach me how to do this at some point, so I can stop bothering you about these things (I will have some time available in June for that purpose). Even more ideally, I would like to set up some kind of automatic sorting, where many templates that share a common term in the name of the template would automatically be sorted to a separate page when the database dump is parsed.

Please let me know if you are able to do this. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do, but it most likely won't happen until the next dump. Do you have Pywikipediabot? --Russ (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't even know what that is (but I'll find out!) :-) Next dump = even better (more up to date). bd2412 T 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • m:Pywikipediabot will tell you what it is. That's what I use for all my bot activities. --Russ (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, I wanted to let you know I'm leaving on a trip overseas tomorrow, so I'll be gone for about a month (doubtful that I'll be able to do much editing) - but I'll be on top of these things when I get back! Cheers! bd2412 T 18:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, have a nice trip. In that case, I won't rush on this.... --Russ (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Xena: Warrior Princess

Xena: Warrior Princess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighttemptation (talk • contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

help on image in my article Besiyata Dishmaya

hi R'n'B,

i'm new here and would like to ask for your help.

I have uploaded an image to English Wikipedia from the Hebrew Wikipedia. Under the Hebrew Wikipedd the licence is GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License.

someone put a warrning under this image that it is going to be deleted within i think 7 days or so, unless more information is provided.

I don't understand what kind of information is needed since i have provided the link which i have taken it from and it's free to copy or else?

i just tried to guess about it and added the - GFDL - in the image - is that what they wanted? the hebrew message of the image says you must put "wikipedia Hebrew" as the creater - which i did - so what else is needed to be done?

thanX --Shevashalosh (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian-Irish people

Do you know why this category has been incorrectly redirected to the non-existent "Americans with Italian-Irish ethnicity"? Neither Charles Bianconi nor Freddie Scappaticci are Americans, so I am struggling to understand why a category that contains Irish-Italians who are not Americans has been changed in this way. Thank you. WYLF (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea. User:Hashmi, Usman made the revision, I didn't, so why don't you ask him/her/it? If you ask me, it seems like a peculiar category either way. --Russ (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation RussBot fixes?

Hi I am working my way through British Bikes but and invariably your Bot has to fix links - I'd like to know what I am doing wrong but can't work it out. Please can you have a look at BSA Super Rocket and let me know? Thanks Tony (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. The history of the article you linked to shows that my bot changed [[British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]]. This is because British is a disambiguation page; there is more than one topic that could use the title "British," so the disambiguation page is there to help readers find the correct topic. If you, as the editor of a page, already know what the most relevant topic is (in this case, "United Kingdom"), then it is best to link to that topic instead of the disambiguation page, to save the reader that extra step. --Russ (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense thanks Tony (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty by year categories

Hello. Just letting you know I reverted a few of your speedy deletion tags for empty "by year" categories. I understand what you're trying to do but really I think this should be something discussed at CfD once and for all. And let's face it, they're not your usual empty category and for the most part they were created with full awareness that they were empty. Now you can disagree with the wisdom of doing that but I don't think speedy deletion is going to do any good, especially drama-wise. Of course, I haven't checked but I suppose you also nominated quite a few that have already been deleted and I'm too lazy to undo that (though I probably should undo them...). Really this should be discussed once and for all at CfD and future speedy-tagging should just refer to the final decision there. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Empty_by_year_categories. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't care one way or the other. I just read the criteria at WP:CSD and applied them. As long as that page says "empty for 4 days," without any conditions, then these year categories qualify. --Russ (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States

Can you please break the Composition section into a separate article. It will enable you to add more information about composition of US Supreme Court and will help to maintain standard article size i.e. around 32 KB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeravshan: circular redirect

After robot fixing on May 27, we seem to have ended up with an almost circular redirect: Zeravshan river (lower case r) → Zeravshan River (capital R). It seems to me that Zeravshan river (lower case r) can be deleted without any damage. If you agree, please delete Zeravshan river (lower case r) and keep Zeravshan River (capital R). Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an {{R from other capitalization}} and the consensus is almost always to keep them. --Russ (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous link

I am concerned by your change to {{ambiguous link}} permitting users to mark ambiguous terms in the form {{dn|Ambiguous term}}. This form is not recognized by disambiguation bots that typically search for [[Ambiguous term]] links, thereby making it harder for other editors to find and fix these links. Before making an issue out of this, I wanted to solicit your views and see if I am overlooking something. --Russ (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I made this change some time ago because I thought that this form was more explicit, and also that it was easier for automatic tools to use this form because every information needed is in the template call (at least, it was easier for me when I wrote Wiki Cleaner). --NicoV (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange wikilink edit by RussBot

On Selling coal to Newcastle, it (correctly) changed [[Britain]] to [[United Kingdom|Britain]], and left the edit summary Robot-assisted fix links to disambiguation page Britain. However, at the same time it also changed [[French people|French]] to [[France|French]] (see here). No clue why; French people isn't a disambiguation page, and I was explicitly linking to that article because in the context of the sentence ("...the [sale] of champagne and cheese from Britain to the French..."), it refers to the sale of champagne to staff at the French Consul in Edinburgh, Scotland.

I'm assuming it was just a glitch, but if RussBot is doing what it's told, then its instructions will need tweaked. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it says on the User:RussBot page, disambiguation is robot-assisted, which means that (nearly) all changes are actually decided manually. RussBot changed French people to France because I told it to. As for the context of the sentence, I think I can be excused for not realizing what you meant, since it doesn't actually say that anywhere on the page (although I suppose I might have found it if I had checked the references). Champagne and cheese are products associated with France and its residents, not necessarily with people of French ethnicity, so it seemed like an odd link to me and I changed it. Sorry if it was an error. --Russ (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon

Mate, I've worked here since 2002 and that's the second one i've got, I need to up my efficiency. it means a lot, thanks Tom (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RussBot and more than double redirects

Hi, I'm wondering does RussBot work on more than double redirects (ie triple, quadruple redirects)? It would be great to have that function. In any case, we're looking for something that cleans up redirects on Wikiversity. Would the bot script need to be modified for use there, and if so, would it be possible for you to do so? You're more likely to reach me on my WV talk page, but I do also check WP. Thanks! Cormaggio ^{is learning} 10:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. So, is it a simple case of activating the bot, or what should we do? (I'm a bureaucrat there, so can 'technically' do so, but I don't usually deal with bot issues..) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you should do this via SUL, as I wouldn't have the first clue as to how to load or activate a script. ;-) We've only discussed this for the en.wikiversity community - does it make much difference to you and/or this process whether others are interested? Would it help for me to post messages on their village pumps? Cormaggio ^{is learning} 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I hadn't checked that page, but came here on the momentum of a discussion on the Colloquium (our village pump), in which people seemed to be highlighting multliple redirects as a problem. (I wonder if that special function picks up higher-than-double redirects?) Cormaggio ^{is learning} 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bot flag turned on - thanks! Does this need to be monitored or administered to any extent - should I ask one of the bot-savvy admins/'crats? Cormaggio ^{is learning} 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Z3 / Z3 (disambiguation)

Is that what you wanted accomplished? xenocidic (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks very much! --Russ (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will improve the article and remove the peacock terms wherever applicable.

Regards, Praveen Goud —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen goud (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Xxxx Yyyy to Xxxx yyyy move(s)

Oops. Just read the top of your page. Answer moved to my page. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, "Given a choice, I'd really rather not get any more involved than I absolutely have to". Given that you say you've read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title, then you know all the points-of-view, and you know that they are just that. (i.e. points-of-view.)

I'm somewhat disappointed that you are not adding anything new to the debate; you are just repeating those already stated opinions that suit you.

And now I see you've decided to provoke the issue by making, without consensus, further edits (in particular, to rear admiral) which are contrary to the consensus, and making irrelevant statements to support your POV.

I have a choice: I can say, "Who cares! If he doesn't want to follow the 'rules' of this WP society, why should I get my knickers in a twist?". Or, I can say, "Hang on, I'm assuming good faith. Clearly, this guy doesn't understand. Just how much effort am I prepared to put into helping him?".

I've decided I'll leave the choice to you. Shall I just give up and let you push your own point of view (which will enable you to achieve your own ends, but will be to the detriment of the broader WP), or shall I continue to try to work with you to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome?

It's your choice; I can't be bothered continuing without your support. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't mean to provoke you. However, if you believe the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms is wrong, then I respectfully suggest that the proper course is for you to propose a change to the manual, and try to gather a consensus for it. Until then, I don't really think it is appropriate to revert or undo edits that are consistent with the existing guideline. The guideline represents a consensus; I fully acknowledge that consensus can change (although in this case I don't think it should), but a change in consensus needs to be discussed and agreed upon by the community, not enforced by individual editor(s). --Russ (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I was writing, so were you.

Thank you for your words, the fact that you went to the effort is appreciated.

I would like to reply, but it's 11:30pm here, and at the moment I'm just too tired.

Very simply and briefly: It's not quite as straightforward as you are presenting it.

I will reply properly at another time.

Meanwhile, again, thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. In the meantime, please consider that the discussion we were having on Talk:General Officer was about changing a page title, not about the capitalization to be used in the body of articles, and so was the discussion you referred me to on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title. However, I can see that similar considerations would apply in both cases. --Russ (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"then I respectfully suggest ... " - Sigh. That's what the debate is about.

"Until then, I don't really think it is appropriate to revert or undo edits ... " - Sigh. I don't really think it is appropriate for you to make provocative edits whilst the matter is under discussion.

"The guideline represents a consensus; I fully acknowledge that consensus can change ... but a change in consensus needs to be discussed and agreed upon by the community" - Sigh. That's what the debate is about.

"but a change in consensus ... not enforced by individual editor(s)." - I'm not enforcing anything other than the status quo. You're making the changes; I'm just reverting them back to the status quo whilst the matter is under discussion.

"In the meantime, please consider that the discussion we were having on Talk:General Officer was about changing a page title" - Yes, as were the Rear Admiral / Rear admiral discussions, and the follow on discussions.

"not about the capitalization to be used in the body of articles, and so was the discussion you referred me to on ... However, I can see that similar considerations would apply in both cases." - Sorry, but you've lost me. (i.e. Either I don't understand, or I do understand and it seems to me you seem to be contradicting yourself. I think "I don't understand" is more likely.)

You know, it's all been said several times before in the archived debate; I've yet to see anything new. I'm tired of repeating myself, and from an earlier comment you made, you're tired of me repeating myself. I'm going to step back for a while. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indian -> India (RussBot)

The "disambiguation" edit RussBot made here isn't ideal, IMO. I believe in that instance linking to Indian is correct? I'll wait on your response before reverting -- I could be misunderstanding something! Cheers. Shannonr (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indian is a disambiguation page. I don't see how it helps a reader who is looking at the Prajwal article and clicks on the word "Indian" to be brought to a page that says the link might be referring to a country, or to indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, or to a motorcycle brand or various books or films. Much better to point the reader directly to the actual article about the country in which the name is found. --Russ (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's an Indian languages word used by Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin (i.e. an Indian word used by Indians) so I thought that Indian was in fact the correct disambiguation page for someone who could conceivably be looking for either of those things. Not sure how India fits, really! But I will certainly defer to your judgment. Not like this is a super-important article -- just one I happened across and pulled a bunch of nonsense out of... Shannonr (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have a good point that Indian languages might perhaps be a better link than India; either one would be much better than the disambiguation page. --Russ (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll edit the sentence to fit that in. Probably should have done that in the first place! So a productive exchange after all! Cheers, and enjoy what's left of your weekend! Shannonr (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but I noticed a few links to dag page Indian changed to Indian here and here, where in both instances the word Indian denotes a person from India and the change according to my view is right. Although in the second case link to Indian languages may not have been a problem, but in the first case it would be wrong. Not sure if there is a way out. I guess certain things should be fixed manually after the bot runs through it. Opinions? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if there was a "lesson" (hate that word!) from the earlier exchange that I learned, it was that in most cases if the bot changes Indian to India then perhaps the sentence should be rewritten so the disambig page is not required. That would certainly "fix" the two instances you're talking about, IMO. YMMV... :) --Shannonr (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not labour under the misimpression that the bot automatically changes all links from Indian to [[India]]n. As explained on the bot user page, disambiguation is robot-assisted, which means that I manually select the link that looks most appropriate based on the context of the article. Because I am human, I occasionally make a mistake and you are welcome to correct those, but I do not think there is any widespread issue here. --Russ (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying there's a "widespread issue"! Just a couple examples of something that jarred, that resulted in a good remove of a disambig link to something more specific. As I see it, RussBot ran -> something changed -> editing that made a better Wiki page resulted. Win-win! --Shannonr (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Musette

Musette is a term that may refer to a small French bagpipe, or to a non-specific variety of folk shawm. Badagnani (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The small French bagpipe is not a double reed instrument, and you'll see that the doublereed template is not for bagpipes. In that template, the term "musette" refers to the European folk shawm. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I misinterpreted your first comment. --Russ (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not yet an article on the musette in question, although there could be with some research. As of now, that small European folk shawm is described at the disambiguation page. It's similar to the piccolo oboe, although that term is generally taken to mean the modernized version of the small European folk shawm, with keywork equivalent to that of the modern oboe. Badagnani (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit to disambiguation page

Hi Russ, I intended the link to go to a specific article about rocks (geological definition). I didn't want someone to have to hunt for the type of rock I was refering to. Why was it changed? [4] Mudgineer (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It was changed because the page you linked to, Rock, is a disambiguation page that lists all the possible meanings of "rock", and forced the user to hunt down which one they want. The page I changed the link to, Rock (geology), is an article about the type of rock found in the ground. Based on what you said above, I think that is what you meant to do in the first place. --Russ (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are right. I thought I had entered rock (geology) and then when I looked at the difference I thought you had changed it to the disamb page. Thanks, well done! Mudgineer (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation with AWB

As much as I love AWB, could you please explain the precedent for returning Burnsville back to a disambiguation page when it was supported at Burnsville (disambiguation) (Talk:Burnsville (disambiguation)). The reason we did this is because for example Minneapolis redirects to Minneapolis, Minnesota. As such the MN article included a link to the disambiguation page. So everything was pretty much setup correctly. The reasoning behind this move is that Burnsville notoriety and population outweighed the other Burnsvilles in the United States. While I love standardizing all to disambiguation, understandably links like New York go directly to the city page. If there is no opposition in a few days I will return it to the original setup. .:DavuMaya:. 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bizarre situation. Bear in mind that the version I was looking at read like this:

   #REDIRECT [[Burnsville, Minnesota]]
   *[[Burnsville, North Carolina]]

Since anything following a redirect never appears on the reader's computer, the user who placed the second link on the page clearly didn't know what they were doing. I had to make a wild guess at what they meant to do. Out of an abundance of caution, rather than delete the link, it seemed safer to make it visible by turning the page into a disambiguation. I wasn't aware of the existence of Burnsville (disambiguation); if I had been, I would have realized that the link didn't belong there at all. Feel free to change it back. --Russ (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL okay. Oh yeah there is a random IP in the history log. Veird. I guess someone in North Carolina doesn't like us. .:DavuMaya:. 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Down on Sunset

OK Thanks. :)
Oleg N (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

category redirects

Oops, hadn't encountered that situation before. Thanks for the tip! Hope I didn't cause too many problems. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank by the Notification Russ, I'll be noting this the next time to avoid this "cut and move" history-misleading actions. Have a nice day Carau —Preceding comment was added at 07:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe animal barboza

no any thing about the animal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.34.133 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Policeman's Other Ball

Something went wrong in your attempt to disambiguate this page [5]. Grafen (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• It sure did! Thanks for fixing it. --Russ (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists of basic topics

Russbot has fixed some redirects, at Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics and on its subpages, making it impossible for me to revert my moves of those pages. Could you please move Portal:Contents/Topical outlines and its subpages back to their original locations (Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics)?

I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RussBot keeps changing Category:Eve Online members

Hi, R'n'B. Since Saturday, June 21 RussBot keeps moving members of Category:Eve Online to Category:EVE Online. This affects five articles and five images. I think it may have something to do with a change that User:Demio made on June 14. The correct category name is Category:Eve Online in compliance with the trademarks guideline of the Manual of Style. The all-capitals Category:EVE Online contains a redirect. Demio wasn't aware of the guideline. The issue has been sorted out. Could you configure RussBot so that it recognizes "Eve" as the correct spelling and stops moving articles and media out of the category?
-- Aexus (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Until June 22, Category:Eve Online contained the text "{{Categoryredirect|Category:EVE Online}}". The bot just followed this instruction. Now that the redirect has been removed from the category, assuming it stays removed, there shouldn't be any further changes of category links. --Russ (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. On June 22 I put the category redirect template in the EVE Online category and removed it from Eve Online. The redirect now points to the article with Wikipedia-style spelling ("Eve"). Still RussBot used its run six and a half hours later to move the category members back to the all-capitals EVE Online category. For now I attribute it to me not knowing the inner workings of RussBot. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Thank you very much for your reply so far!
-- Aexus (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know what happened.  :-( This script, which usually runs in 4-5 hours, took well over 15 hours this past weekend, for reasons I haven't quite figured out yet. The list of category redirect targets was loaded when the script started, but by the time it got around to this category the redirect had already been changed. I'll have to see what I can do to prevent this from recurring, besides my ongoing efforts to speed up the script. --Russ (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah alright, I get it :) Today everything went fine, RussBot didn't do anything to any of the articles; as expected. I think it'll be alright. -- Aexus (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Unitalicized case names.

I have an interesting challenge to pitch to you. In the United States, case names are supposed to be italicized, but Wikipedia's practice in this regard is spotty at best. Would it be possible to generate a list of all instances where the text includes a " v. " that is not italicized? bd2412 T 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically possible, but very difficult. Try parsing a sentence like this: I '''''won't''' go '''back '''''to'' that'' place.''''' Where do the italics start and end? To implement a general solution would require a full-blown HTML parser, and I'm not sure I'm up to that task. --Russ (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - I was hoping it would be theoretically possible, and a piece of cake to execute. Thanks for the reality check! But, hmmm, how about a list of instances of a " v. " that does not have the notation for beginning italicization within, say, 50 characters before it? bd2412 T 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

May I shamelessly steal part of your welcome message?

Hi, Russ. In your welcome message at the top of this page you write, "Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started." I like the phrasing and I'd like to shamelessly use it on my Talk page, too. Is that okay with you? -- Aexus (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure; go right ahead. I'm pretty sure I stole it from someone else, anyway. :) --Russ (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Aexus (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Arista

Someone has changed the page Arista that used to redirect to Arista Records, to redirect instead to Arista (disambiguation), which I think makes sense. Earlier someone had tried to do something similar, and it was reverted by someone who commented that many articles already rely on the redirection to Arista Records. Can your bot just change all the links the currently point to Arista so that they point straight to Arista Records instead? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because how do I know that all of the existing links to Arista were intended to refer to the record company? --Russ (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that intention comes into it. Up until now, every link to Arista has been redirected to Arista Records, whether or not intentionally (because links, after all, know nothing of intentions). If you change all those links so that they point to Arista Records directly, you will be returning them to the same condition they were in before (in terms of where the user winds up after clicking them), whereas now none of them goes to the intended destination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did it the hard way and it turns out that every one of those links did refer to Arista Records, which leads me to question whether the renaming was justified in the first place. But it's done, in any case. --Russ (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I guess I see what you mean about the renaming. But thanks for the effort! It certainly will prevent from the same road being walked multiple times in the future! —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reporting for Russbot

Hi R'n'B Here With I Creater of One Article Called Vijay TV Series Report To You That Your Bot Reported This Article As Red Link Article But This Red Link is Only Remains Till Show Start and As per now Show Started or page created so please remove this link from red link report

• Link to show Page:Vijay (TV series) displays Full Title Vijay - Desh Ki Aakhen at Original Channel Programme Page

Hardik Kansagra (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The user who asked for those reports knows that they are historical and subject to change. --Russ (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		For fixing all those annoying double and triple redirects in my userspace without getting mad. Your the bot, bot. I would give you a beer, but Im sure you owner would disprove. Gears Of War 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(This is a award to the bot not the owner) (R'n'B, that means dont you dare put this on your usetrpage, this is for your beautiful bot)

Arista

There was no need to recreate the deleted Arista (disambiguation) page. There were few or no other articles directly linking to it, so anyone simply typing "Arista" can simply find their inquiry on the Arista page. Disambig pages work best when there is an overtly common usage of the term with secondary usages being linked at the top to a disambig page. Since there are so many possible major searches, the Arista page itself is better suited as a disambiguation page.

If there is a discussion about this that contradicts my line of reasoning, please let me know. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Arista (disambiguation) there are at least a few articles linking to this title; why leave them as red links? Further, the general philosophy of Wikipedia is that redirects are cheap; I doubt you would have gotten a consensus to delete this one if you had asked on WP:RFD before acting. Also, thanks for educating me about the purpose of disambiguation pages (even though I didn't create one, just a redirect); but you might also want to look at WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages. --Russ (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, the only pages linked to that (disambiguation) page were as follows:

• User:Poccil/redirects <-- a user's page
• User talk:R'n'B <--Hey, that's THIS page!
• Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages/A-K <-- a Wikipedia page
• User:MisterHand/Links to (disambiguation) pages/A-K <-- another user's page
• Talk:Arista <--not sure where this occurs, but it probably has something to do with the disambig project box

Nothing that would impact articles, IMHO. The page was tagged for a non-controversial clean-up, and it seemed logical to me. Of course there's a consensus page for this type, but I didn't see it as "problematic." For instance, British is a disambig page without the use of the "(disambiguation)" in the article title.

I apologize if I came off as snarky or bossy. I quite often project an adamant tone in my opinions without catching on that my language often makes me appear immutable; though this more often occurs in my speech, as I don't have time to consider what I'm expressing as thoroughly as I do when typing my thoughts out. Note, though, that I did invite direction to previous discussion. If you know of any which discusses this, please feel free to link me to it.- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)