User talk:Addshore/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Naruto Kithara Oklahoma School for the Blind Osmium Ashland High School (Ohio) Ogeechee River Cool (aesthetic) Pork List of schools in Hong Kong Australian Antarctic Division Shadow Minister Respiratory disease Trypanosomiasis Ford Academy Halo 3 Chucky Thompson Solo Command Nose St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School

Cleanup T.I. Erasistratus Comedy Merge Microbiological culture Random access memory AOL Add Sources King Henry VIII Grammar School Hilbre High School Australian International School Singapore Wikify Hong Kong Student Welfare Association History of the Faroe Islands Giles Corey Expand Voting Rights Act Scanimate York Community High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello I would like to request permission to be able to use rollback please tell me what I have to do to get it thank you. L07ChLeo3 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me

Hi, I was wondering if you would adopt through the Adopt-a-User program. I mostly monitor the recent changes list/patrol Special:NewPages. -Zeus- [t|c] 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunatly I am currently very busy with "real life" and already have a few people I am adopting so I am going to be forced to say no. Good luck and hope you find someone that can adopt you :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Yeah, so I think im gonna go with putting links to all names on a page. Do you think this is a good idea? I mean for hockey pages. I'm asking you cuz u sound like u know what ur doing. And also, diacritics: do you think i should put them on names, like for French accents (i.e. éáç stuff like that) as well as those European ones, such as ć č å ö etc. Im getting different information cuz on some teams they are there while other teams they do not have them. So, should I put them or not, so yeah. peace.

Bort08 Feb 8, 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bort08 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 February 2009

Hi there. I think it is a good idea to link to other pages, but only if that other page exists. Also try not to add several links to the same page, so in your case only try to link the first or the most important appearance of the persons name. As for characters, if the page contains the characters then use them in the link. I hope this helps. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ACR Review Draft

This was recently speedy deleted (Reason: G2 - Test Page) Can you please userfy this? It was what I intended to do. Thank you  — master son^{T - C} 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. That last version of this article can be found here. I hope this helps. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thank you  — master son^{T - C} 00:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Automated report for Sunday February 15 2009

Here is a report produced at 05:00, Sunday February 15 2009 (UTC):

Click [show] to expand.

Addbot

• Addbot has 68839 contributions, including deleted contributions.

Addbot's last 1 contributions:

• Marcel Tremblay (Quebec City) at 2009-02-15T05:00:03Z -:- Bot: Adding Orphan Tag (Questions) (Report Errors)

Addshore

• Addshore has 38042 contributions, including deleted contributions.

Addshore's last 1 contributions:

• User:Rbpolsen/Guestbook at 2009-02-15T00:18:02Z -:- sign

Addbot (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable)at 05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 5 deleted articles, pretty, pretty please :):

• Paul Pantone
• Wesnoth AI
• Fair Online Network
• Terry Stembridge, Jr.
• Golden Age Cartoons

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

If I could please also get the creator's name and date it was created?

You can add all 5 pages to a userspace (prefered), lets say User:Ikip/Paul Pantone, or you are welcome to email me the information.

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

You should be able to find all the pages I created here. The info you asked for is in the edit cummary of my page creation (including the number of edits to the page before deletion) and any other information i thought might be relavent. The content of your user pages is exactly as the article was before it got deleted and if you would like more info on the other eidt to the page or anything such as the articles content when first created feel free to ask.

Also sorry for the warnings that appear at the top of the pages :P (caused as i copied the page exactly).

I Hope you find somehting interesting and feel free to ask me for more. -·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: feel free to ask me for more.

Careful what you volunteer to do Addshore :) I have been looking for 50 articles that were deleted, and have about 30 more to go: User_talk:Ikip/AfD_on_average_day#Articles_which_were_deleted I ask other admins for this material... Ikip (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how did you add the list of 5 edits like that? [1] This is very helpful to know. Ikip (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what you do is (if its your contribs) firstly select any of the default counts, then you click "Next page" untill you can see the nuber of edits you want. When you have the first of the edits that you want to list like thatyou reduce the number listed (in the URL) to the number of edits above the edit you want. Then you click for the next page. Then you change the count to the number of edits below the one you wanted you also want. Then loads the URL and it should work :P. It would be allot easier to show you but I hope you understand. If not just say and ill explain it more clearly with bullet points and stuff :P -·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Adshore, sorry I was not clearer, but I must know who created the article, and the date it was created, what other admins have done, like User:Amire80 today, is I think they undelete the article and move it to my page. If you are fatigued about this, I can ask someone else, I apprecaite your efforts thus far, thank you for the detailed explanation. Ikip (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The user name and date created is in the edit summary. I thought bout moving the page but that would also move the history away from the article. If someone wanted to the genuinly undelete the article at a latter time the edits would not appear there. Is it just the username and date/time in the edit summary you need? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your wonderful! thats all I need! thank you! you truly deserve that barnstar!Ikip (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem and thanks :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is awesome

Just like to say my Lonely Pages bot is now back up and running (thanks to your toolserver generated pages). If you take a look at the contribs of User:Addbot you should see how well it is working already :). Thanks and if you want to reply to this please do so on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's great to see Addbot churning away on the untagged orphan list. Thanks so much for setting this up - this is a huge step forward for the project. --JaGa^talk 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yee :) And also where is the text version of your "Adopted orphans" page and the update link for it? :P, I will try to add something for that also. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:16, 13 February a2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks, but JL-Bot beat you to that one. The page is Adopted orphans. --JaGa^talk 13:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok and thanks [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW did you notice Addbot stopped putting "Adding Orphan Tag" in its comments after a while? --JaGa^talk 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep I noticed this about 2 seconds ago :P. I put an unset on the wrong line. Fixed now. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, Could you make a similar page for my bot for un-categorized pages? (without tags)? Then my bot can work on them also :). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds doable. You just want a list of pages that aren't categorized? Would you want it "untagged orphans" style, i.e., hit a refresh to make sure they're still uncategorized, then download a list of 5000? Gimme a wish list, and I'll see if I can put it together for you. --JaGa^talk 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep just like the orphans. So have it as untagged un-categorized pages with a refresh page and in the same format =]. Think you can make it work? :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe so. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done. It'll take some time, but I'll put something together. Thanks for the suggestion. --JaGa^talk 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the special page is still up and running, but I have now seen how much more effective doing it this way can be compared with the slow 1000 at a time special page [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding the tag to REDIRECT pages

Hi there,

Your bot recently added a tag to a redirect page, specifically "Euro Area" (I did not link it so it is still orphan, this page constain a redirect to Eurozone). I think that it does not make sense, once you add the tag, the redirect page will not longer "redirects". Do you agree with me or did I miss something?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same problem on Franconia–Springfield (Washington Metro, VRE, Amtrak). In a perfect world, after all, redirects should be orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a result of this bug in Wikipedia that causes redirects that are created from a pagemove not to be marked as redirects in the database. So the bot doesn't know it's a redirect; if it did know, it wouldn't tag it. --JaGa^talk 06:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how simple or difficult would be to see that if the article is just a few bytes long then is most likely a redirect or a disambiguation. Checking for the first line of the article for "#REDIRECT" will do the trick too. To me sounds quite simple, but I am not a bot programmer ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through the orphan tables now in AWB to root out the broken redirects. This will still happen from time to time, but it should happen a lot less after I'm finished. --JaGa^talk 09:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I will try to smash some code into the already expanding bot to make it avoid redirects if it ever does come across any. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot should now avoid all pages that include "#REDIRECT" in their main content. Thanks for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the fast response. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No problema nd again thanks for the report (*yawns, just woke up*) :P. If you ever find anything you think my bot could do or change in something it is already doing i really do appreciate input =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		The Helping Hand Barnstar is to be awarded to users who frequently help new users. This barnstar is awarded to Addshore, for his assistance in helping understand AfDs, which will greatly assist future new users. Thank you so much for your eagerness to help. Ikip (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:) thanks. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

Just wondering how many (and what kind of) incoming links an article should receive in order to no longer qualify as an orphan by your bot's criteria? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:44, February 13, 2009 (UTC)

Basically, an article must have three links from mainspace articles, excluding lists ("List of ...", "1999 in music", "February 13", etc.) Here's the criteria per WikiProject:Orphanage. --JaGa^talk 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, February 13, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JaGa [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging subpages

Addbot tagged Drake Circus/Temp as an orphan. Since enwp doesn't use subpages in article space, Addbot shouldn't encourage linking to them. OK so the page shouldn't be there either, but it won't be for long. Nice work on the bot, btw.  —SMALLJIM  12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I will make a change to the bot to make it stop tagging subpages, and thanks for reporting this :) And thanks again! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, The bot will now skip sub pages. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy fix. Good luck with getting huggle fixed, btw!  —SMALLJIM  19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan questions

Hey Addshore, it's great to see Addbot chugging along smoothly, without problems. I noticed a few orphan-specific questions above, and was thinking - if you put a ref to WikiProject Orphanage in your edit summary, it might deflect some of the your-bot-is-working-fine-but-I-have-a-question-about-orphans questions to the right place. --JaGa^talk 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I will do this :). I will add a link for bugs and a link for questions. Thanks for the suggestion! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, If any questions make there way to the orphanage talk page that I can answer then please drop me a message :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Will do, thanks. --JaGa^talk 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging above a hatnote

Hello. Addbot tagged Alfred Collins as an orphan above a dablink, when other tags were already present below the hatnote. See here. According to WP:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead dablinks should generally come first for accessibility reasons. In any case, some maintenance boxes above and some below the hatnote doesn't look right. Can the bot be corrected for that? (I've corrected this particular article.) Station1 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I will get to work on making sure the bot pastes below dablinks now! Thanks for the report! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot should now tag above these tags from its next run (a few hours). Thanks again for the report! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Are redirects meant to be flagged as orphans? [2] — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. No they shouldn't be tagged as orphans. This bug has already been reported above and is now fixed. Thanks for the report and if you do see any redirects tagged then please remove the tags. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle

Hello Adshore, I'm sorry to disturb you but I wonder if you can review this bug. Another question: Since Friday I can't use Huggle on any project. Is something wrong?. Many thanks for your help and time. Dferg talk 16:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I have replied on the feedback page but I see no reason for your accoutn to not be logging in. As far as I am aware nothing has changed. I have checked the global config and all is in order :S ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your reply. Here is my local .css file and the project configuration. It seems OK but for a strange reason I can't log in. Thanks in advance and sorry. --Dferg ^{w:en: w:es:} 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well your local config looks fine as it includes enable:true and version:0.8.1 . The project also look like it should allow you (if you have 500 edits and are auto confirmed). When you try to log in do you get any errors or messages? Also try again i tweaked the project config a bit. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, I still can't. If it is allowed, can I take a screenshot to the log in form to show you what it appears? - an image is always better :D. Many thanks. --Dferg ^{w:en: - w:es:} 17:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please do :). Send me an email through email user on this wiki and i will reply so you can attach it :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Dferg ^{w:en: - w:es:} 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now I cant login either... O_o ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

O_o I'm not a virus! o_O --Dferg ^{w:en: - w:es:} 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what has happened :P Ill try to get hold or gurch or try to find something out. I don't think it is a problem with huggle.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, it's a MediaWiki issue, right?. I hope that this bug would be soon fixed, Huggle is the best AntiVandalism feature I know. Thanks again. --Dferg ^{w:en: - w:es:} 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well not in media wiki but a squid server got installed and we both seem to be using it. It doesnt like something that huggle does :P Hopefully can be fixed easily :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Botanical taxa orphan tagging -- completely pointless

Please don't continue tagging botanical taxa as orphans. It serves no purpose, particularly when the articles are stubs, and they're linked appropriately within their taxoboxes. Their is no purpose in linking every taxon within Wikipedia, even the most obscure, and the idea for the botanical articles is to include every taxon, as named species are notable. Tagging each and every taxon as an orphan, when it is already appropriately linked to its evolutionary position would simply result in pointless lists or just naming taxa that appear in certain areas. This adds no value, particularly to stubs So, please stop your bot creating work that need undone by human editors and thereby consuming the time of human editors that could be used researched and referencing and even linking articles. Thank you. --KP Botany (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. My bot is simply out there to tag anything that is classed as an orphan as that. If you would like to discuss why these articles should not be tagged then please post a message here. Thanks for the message. -·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I posted there, they said post here, so STOP. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Zodon only said you should ask here if you have concerns about bot re-tagging. Otherwise, we can answer your questions at the Orphanage. --JaGa^talk 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't. --KP Botany (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bradford College (England)

You marked Bradford College (England) as orphaned. I have reverted it because this page was recently moved from Bradford College and I am now updating links to point to the new article (where appropriate). -- NRTurner (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand why you have untagged the article and I know you understand why it was taggged, though if the links are not added at the next scan the bot will re-tag the article. Thhanks for the message. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot

New topic: how can I get started in creating bots for Wikipedia? I do have a programmer background ... thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Take a look at Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot. Really all you need is something for the bot to do and the means of doing it. Then request for the bot to be approved and your away :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, will follow you advice. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you ever need any more specific advice feel free to ask me :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New stubs

Tagging new stubs as orphans is absurd, especially as stubs may be created in response to article requests (by well-established process) rather than immediately to support other existing articles. At the least, move the tagging in the case of new stubs to their discussion pages. —SlamDiego_←T 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The bot isn't that clever and does not know how long or how short an article is. Its jobs is to simply tag an article with an orphan tag if and when it finds it. The fact is a short stub that was created even 1 day ago is still an orphan, Therefor it would be tagged. Just wondering, what article did you disagree with this on? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Orca Basin

Hi Addshore, Addbot correctly tagged Orca Basin as an orphan. I added links to the article on three other pages and then removed the tag, but now Addbot has put the tag back; am I missing something? Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I am sorry and I think this is a bug with the list that the bot reads from. As the page has 3 links to articles now the bot should NOT tag it again. If it does get re tagged again please drop me in another message. Thanks :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of links

George Dod Armstrong Number of links of this article (6) is more than the criteria of only 3 so why is it orphaned? Daytrivia (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links. --JaGa^talk 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was tagged is because it only has 2 incomming links from the article space, per Special:WhatLinksHere/George_Dod_Armstrong. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Error reporting

This edit was in error and has been reverted. --KP Botany (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This is no a bug and this page will probabbly be retagged automaticly. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another error

This error was also in error and has been reverted. I don't see the point of this tag in article space, and on a microbrewery article just begs the creation of wikicrap. --KP Botany (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. On its next full sweep the bot will retag the article as an orphan as it only has 2 links to the article space, Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links. As for your opinion on the tags, they may not help the reader but they help the people trying to improve the articles. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Because I am the person trying to improve the articles, and they didn't help me. So, your bot has decided that the only thing I can spend my time on on Wikipedia is removing its tags. You sent me to that crapfest already, and they sent me back here. Guess what I have to say to that?

I am really tired of editors who waste my time with crap like this. --KP Botany (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not the only one trying to improve the articles, the tags will help all of the people in the Orphanage wiki project. The tag is just like a big arrow saying somethign else needs to link here. If somebody links 3 articles to it then it is removed. Simple. And if you have removed it without the article having 3 or more links from the articls space then it will simply be re added at a letter date. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They're NOT editing plant species articles. I am. Or I was. But now, apparently I am tasked with fighting your bot, just because a project is trying to create a need for itself. So, fine, you don't want me to write articles, edit articles, revert vandalism. The only worthy task is reverting your bot. --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I love the way you take words out of my mouth I have not said. Of course I want you to write articles and edit articles and revert vandalism. Reverting my bot isnt exactly a worthy task, you will be there for a long time (infinity). And the Orphanage will edit all the articles with the Orphan tags on, thats the point of them. The tags may look ugly and if you think they should be changed suggest it but they have been used for years. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This tag has not been used for years on the plant articles I've been editing. If it had been, I would have seen it on these articles that I reverted, which were not exactly new articles. Link the bot approval page that shows where you got approval to add this tag to plant species stubs. And, who exactly in the orphan article project is editing these plant species articles? No one. So don't tell me something that isn't true. --KP Botany (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been used on these articles before but it has been used globally on Wikipedia and has been accepted. You are being insanely pecific to the plant species stubs here in my opinion. -·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your personal insults are not necessary. I am not being "insanely" specific to plant species stubs, I don't mind the tag on the other articles where I've seen it, good god. --KP Botany (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging a very specific page

COST Hata model has been marked as orphan. I am not sure this makes sense. That page is the child of COST 231 model, which is a disambiguation link pointed from many pages.--Pot (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see from Special:WhatLinksHere/COST_Hata_model It should be tagged. It has only a single link in but at this current time the criteria for the bot may be getting changed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote above that I do not see the sense of tagging that page as orphan, and I explained why. Unless I am mistaken, if the rules of your bot tell differently, then the bot is wrong. If I am mistaken, please tell me why. --Pot (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point you are looking for is that disambiguation links do not count as a link from antoher article, they are ignored. It must have 3+ incomming links from articles. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This makes little sense in this specific case. The COST Hata model is one of two models known collectively as the COST 231 model. The latter is in fact a disambiguation page. But it is only this page that is regularly cited, because that is the common usage in the field. UPDATE: I reviewed all links to COST 231 model and in fact some of them were too generic and I made them point to COST Hata model instead. As of now, both pages receive three or more links. However, I think that there are cases out there where most links in fact should point to the disambiguation page, and very few to the actual pages. Or maybe not. --Pot (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Userfication

Hello, the other day my Trojanpony article was deleted (for obvious reasons). Can you userfy the article for me so that I may obtain a copy? Thanks. Uberthing (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, You can find a copy of the article as it was before it was tagged here. If the article is recreated with the same content again it will be deleted. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uberthing (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

listing incorrect

hi a friend of mine said that Gramsci Melodic was now on Wikipedia but they are only listed as Gramsci_melodic. Can the case be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.246.249 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Gramsci Melodic Will now also take you to that page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for fixing this for me. I was excited to tell other fans that I posted the article and then they couldn't find it -- you can imagine my embarrassment. My roomie said he messaged an admin and I was happy to find it fixed! On a side note, the article is now being contested for deletion. It is posted on the Music AfD discussion page. Could you check out my responses when you get a chance? All of the info is from the sources (granted, Rolling Stone never did an article on Gramsci) and the sources are cited. The initial check said the article was in order and now I am worried I am going to lose everything. I thoroughly read the criteria for "Notable Bands" and I believe that Gramsci meet st least two of the requirements (and the list of criteria said they only need to meet one to be considered notable). I appreciate you taking the time to help. Abtmcm (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm

Hi there. I will keep an eye on the AFD and on the article and try to help out where and when i can. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have put a lot of time into sculpting this argument. I am not claiming to be an expert by any stretch, but I certainly feel like this debate is more about the word "notable" than it is about the band article. I think that is why I have spent so much time defending it. The article is certainly important to me because of the time I spent gathering sources and composing the text. Still, I am now more motivated to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a virtual (e-clone of the) Britannica.Abtmcm (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm

Well from the way the AFD is going it looks like it is going to end up as a keep :). I know what you mean when an article or something you have spent a long time on comes up for deletion, You just want to fight and not let go :). Im sure the article will stay, If not I am sure we can improve it further to re add it to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying, haha. The support is much appreciated! Abtmcm (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm

EICASLAB

Dear Sir, I have seen your indications about the article EICASLAB. I am now working for helping in de-orphaning it. Could you please give me some feedback on what I have inserted, just to understand if I am going in the right direction? Thank you so much for your help and support. Best regards Caporaletti (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Yes the article is now de-orphaned (per Special:WhatLinksHere/EICASLAB. Good work :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

archive modification

Your bot made this edit to one of my old talk page archives. Is this a new task? The unsubstituted template has been in the archive for more than eight months. Why the sudden interest in replacing it? —EncMstr (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was ignoring templates that were unsubstituted on talk sub pages before, Today I suddenly relised it would make more sense still to subst them so I changed the bot slightly. Yes Archives are not meant to be edited but the archives would change more if the template was not substed as the template could be changed from its page. Most if not all templates use on user talk pages shoudl be substed as they can change and when archived they should show exactly what they were when they were posted not what has changed since)

I hope this explanation makes sense :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your bot

Your addbot is faulty, very much so. That it added the orphan template to the given name article Ardian, overflowing with links & context, is astounding. It's also an astounding waste of time to revert the addbot. A from L.A. (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. An Orphan is when an article has little or no incomming links. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Ardian the article has no incomming links from the article space. The tag was added rightly. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was reverted rightly. Where would you link an incomming link? In Albanian language? In Ardiaei? In Albanian name? Add that template again and I'll revert you again and report you for being a nuisance. A from L.A. (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont like threats but anyway th bot hasnt edited today as we try to resolve what is going to happen with all this. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well never mind I was in a bad mood. You understand some of the problems with your bot and it's up to you to consider these things beforehand. A from L.A. (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I was aware there were set criteria for what was and what was not an Orphan. But it seems there are many disagreements now over what I presumed to be written "in stone". ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in this case with Ardian and some other articles, your bot was not faulty, it's a case of a criteria not being widely known and in my opinion not really suited to reality :Wikipedia:ORPHAN#You_can_help.21. However your bot is "faulty, and very much so", as shown by the cases being linked below, so I was right :) A from L.A. (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing will ever be bug, At least I can fix bugs, unfortunatly I cant fix peoples opinions :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

BotMalfunction

See this diff, your bot deleted virtually the entire contents of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• and this diff, same problem. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• and this article: Pavlos valdaseridis where your bot created a page solely to tell us it was an orphan. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reports, the last artie you reported will be an easy fix, It is simply the bot read the article from the list and by time it had got around to editing it the article had been deleted.

The other two links I will try to locate to problem and fix it. Thanks for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to turn off the bot if it is deleting entire articles, find the malfunction, and locate all articles it has deleted. The bot still running? Still deleting entire articles? In this instance it is better to be safe than sorry. --KP Botany (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The bugs are now known and the bot has not edited today since you raised your concerns... The bugs will be fixed in due tim and after that and the passing of the filed and the clearing up of the criteria for being an orphan I hope to have the bot running again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Monica Bard-Quartermaine, another report - adding orphan to redirect is not appropriate; we hope that redirects are basically orphans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This bug is already fixed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot

__Error__

I really don't understand why the Liviu Cangeopol article was labeled as orphaned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Cangeopol). The article has plenty of references. Also, please check the name on Google books. In addition, below, are the APA Style references and some additional ones: If you would like please include them into the article if this does not meet the Wikipedia's standards. Thank you! David122

References:

1. Nicoleta, Vieru. (2006, December 12). Iassy’s dissidents, the pylons of Romanian dissidence. Ziarul de Iasi.

2. Open Society Archives (1988, April 6). Weekly Record of Events in Estern Europe. Daily Liberation.

3. United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. (1990). Pace of democratic reforms and status of human rights in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. The Supt. of Docs: Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O.

4. Tismaneanu, V. (2006). Statement of the President of Romania Mr. Traian Basescu, at the Romanian Parliament. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from Romanian Presidential Webpage Web site: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8288&_PRID=search

5. Lucian Gheorghiu, Alina Mihai. (2006, December 19). Commnunism’s phantom fights until the last moment. Cotidianul.

6. Craig Smith, S. (2006, December 19). Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule. The New York Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by David122 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Please see above. An Orphan in an article with no or few incomming links from the artile space. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Liviu_Cangeopol the article only has 1 incomming article link Therefor the tag is perfectly ustified. I think you were thinking of the "wrong" type of Orphan. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematically the bot adds a tag that links to a lengthy wikiproject pages. Most article space tags link directly to policy, thereby explaining what the tag is there for, and how to correct article deficiencies, for example the unreferenced tag on articles, links to how to cite articles, what's considered reliable, verifiable. Linking to a wikiproject for instructions or explanations can lead an editor to a lengthy and unhelpful page as in this case. --KP Botany (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think

This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this subject in articles on topics related to it.

Explains why the tag is there and how to fix it very well. If you have a problem with the templat or think it could be improved visit the template talk page and discuss it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the opening paragraph to the first link on the tag:

"The Orphanage is dedicated to clearing the immense backlog of orphaned articles and images. There are thousands of articles and images on Wikipedia with few or no links to them. While it may seem simple at first, de-orphaning is a difficult task, and this project aims to make it easier."

This is not helpful to a new editor who does not understand what an orphan is or how to fix it, as it is an obvious prelude to a long recruiting page for the wikiproject. --KP Botany (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say again, If you think the tag should be changed make a new section about it on the template talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I will, but until it's changed, be a little more helpful to confused users, please, by understanding that your bot is adding tags to pages that give new editors no clue about what they are supposed to do. --KP Botany (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm a relatively new user and it makes perfect sense to me. An article I was involved in writing ended up with the tag at the top of the page, and it was quite clear what the problem was. If there are no other articles that link to it, it's an orphan, which is a common term for something that is alone. There are links in the tag that explain what the issue is. It's succinct and to the point. If you have any suggestions to change it, as Addshore mentioned, you can put them on the template talk page. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did post there. What needs to change is simply to make the first link on the template the relevant one rather than a recruiting campaign for the wikiproject, that's all. Always the first link should be straight-forward, not a recruitment ad, not anything else. I just want to edit articles on Wikipedia, there are a billion ways to interfere with this, most of it done by other editors attempting to require that I edit things on their schedule. This whole discussion is somewhat ridiculous. There's a problem with the tag on organism species articles, but, no this can't be dealt with without a huge ruckus. Very frustrating to have to see a problem with an article is really a project recruitment campaign. --KP Botany (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So now am I right or wrong in saying that if the tag did not contain a recruiting campaign link that you would be happy for it to be on the stub plant articles? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Puerto Rico's Newsletter

Hello, just dropping by to let you know that the next issue of the newsletter is ready, it is here. To continue with a consistent delivery format, February 29 might be the best date for delivery. You did a terrific job last time, thanks for the help. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for the info and i am fully up for sending it out, I'll try to get the code ready tommorw or in the next few days (as you can see by my talk page im quite busy at the moment). It would be awsome if you would send me a reminder on the 29th just to make sure I do it :) Thanks --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will, don't worry about it, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Untagged orphans = zero-link only now

I just finished testing it - you will only get zero-link orphans from Unlinked orphans now. And I mean zero-link as in not even a link from a list or chronological article. --JaGa^talk 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Grateful if you would actually look for links before orphaning pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I have had a quick look through your contribs and all of the tags I check were correct and you have reverted wrongly. An Orphan is a page that has little or few (less than 3) incoming links from the article space. Please stop reverting good orphan tags. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

References in disambiguation pages

Hi. I noticed that this bot added a references section to a disambiguation page.[3]

Obviously, since disambiguation pages aren't supposed to contain references, perhaps the bot should look for the {{disambig}} tag and strip references out or put a {{disambig-cleanup}} on the page rather than adding a references section. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I am not sure with this case acctually, Should a disambiguation have a references section if it has a reference? It is the only way to get to the reference without going through the code for the page and also without the references section the page will spout an error. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of WP:MOSDP is that there is no basis for having a reference in a disambig page. If there is a reference in a disambig page, it needs cleaning up to remove it. The reference should appear in an article linked from the disambig page, not in the disambig page. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh right, Well thats for cleaning up the article, This explain why it is not taken into account for in the bot :P, As it isn't meant to happen. The bot just goes through a Mediawiki generated list of pages that have cite erros due to having a <ref> tag and no </references> tag. Thanks for the report and information ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Refresh question

Hi Addshore, I've noticed that at times if I request http://toolserver.org/~jason/data/untagged_orphans_list.txt the data is stale, but is fine if I hit refresh. Is your bot capable of refreshing the text file link before loading the orphans? (BTW I've almost got that uncategorized articles report complete if you're interested.) --JaGa^talk 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep every times the bot runs (every 4 hours) it refereshes the list and once it is refereshed it gets the new list. Awsome with the new list. Any chance you can take a look at the section below about pages being transcluded and maybe build a fix into the list? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot's orphan tags on court pages.

These pages are transcluded to a master page (Courts of the United States) which is definitely not an orphan. Can the bot not discern that? bd2412 T 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the report. I will stop the bot from editing now and set up an exception so it ignores all pages that contain "Courts of " in their name. Thanks for the report and I will try to get the list that the bot uses fixed so that it check for transcluded pages. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done this temp fix is now in place, If the bot continues to add the tag after its next run (which start 23:00) then please send me another message. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the problem - it has prompted me to find other appropriate places from which the individual pages should be linked anyway. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded pages are an issue in general. For example, look at May 2005 which transcludes individual days pages many of which have been incorrectly marked as orphans. You are using the Untagged Orphans toolserver report to determine which ones to tag, correct? I think we need to have JaGa update his report to excluded transcluded pages. I'll drop him a note. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I acctually spotted May 2005 and was wondering why it was showing up as tagged but had orphans, I took a quick glance and could not see the tag. Thanks again for the report and I have dropped JaGa a line and hopefully we can get this fixed quickly :). Thanks again for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I've got this under control. Couple of things:

1. Untagged orphans will not show any page that is transcluded by another page. That's a permanent change.
2. Adopted orphans will show any transcluded page that has an orphan tag. This will go away.

Transcluded pages will still show up on Lonelypages, so they can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, like the "Courts of ..." articles, it makes sense not to place the tag. But in others, like when only a section of an article is transcluded, it may not. Once the May 2, 2005's of the world are fixed, I'll remove the code from adopted orphans. --JaGa^talk 10:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the second change could just cause an editing war between the bot adding tags and the bot removing tags. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry ignore that last comment, It must have been because I had just woken up I didn't read it correctly. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Error reporting

This edit is in error as the issue was being discussed and no counter arguments were offered. All such edits done without community consensus will be reverted, since you've decided to go forth and do whatever you want, so will I. --KP Botany (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and note here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The edit made by the bot on Hydrocotyle_yanghuangensis is NOT an error, Special:WhatLinksHere/Hydrocotyle_yanghuangensis shown NO incoming article links and therefor it should be tagged as an orphan. The bot has been approved here. It will only tag articles with NO incomming article links and will try to avoid very small pages. All known bugs at that point as also fixed. I have not decided to go forth and do whatever I want so you shouldn't either. I am and have been sticking to the policies and other pages on WP. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

questioning the orphan flag on Johnny Roventini

This article (Johnny Roventini) seems to me to be linked to quite a few other articles. Could this possibly be an error in applying the criteria by the bot? Vaoverland (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has no incoming article links per Special:WhatLinksHere/Johnny_Roventini. I think you might be thinking of outgoing links. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

questioning the orphan flag on Jack Crabtree (artist)

This modest article has 27 internal links to other wiki articles, as well as four external links. What is the citerion for this bot's intervention? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot will currently only edit articles that have NO incoming links from articles (if you are referring to my orphan bot) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly confused with this header as my bot has not edited that article. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, the article is Jack Crabtree (artist) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. As you can see from this page the page has no incoming links from articles and that is the reason it was tagged. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I understand. Maybe some articles can be linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep :) That's the plan and the reason for the tag :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now linked from List of people from Rochdale. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good good and thanks! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your bot remove its own tag, and if so when? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When there are 3 links the bot will come round and remove them, This might be changing shortly though. The removal of the tag will not be instant either, it could take a few days. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why 3? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

3 links are what Wikipedia:Orphan and Wikipedia:WikiProject_De-orphaning#Criteria both say. So that is what it has been :). But as I said above this could change very soon. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: My Bot

Hi there,

Fixed this now, thanks for letting me know!

The Helpful One 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Np :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks, most people aren't really interested in bots until they go wrong, so it's nice to be appreciated! Richard⁰⁶¹² 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean :). Now GET BACK TO WORK! :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

IAES question

It's interesting that no one wants to talk about an educational program that serves thousands of students across the country. I was an teacher in the Interim alternative educational setting program in the Gallup-McKinley County Schools for several years. The term doesn't even want to link here, yet the article (and the program) do exist. Could there be a technical problem?Richard Dates (talk)

It's just there are no links going to the page per this page. I will try to introduce a link somewhere pointing to that page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags

Please stop cluttering up pages with irrelevant orphan tags. There is no point to them. Mohrflies (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The tags are not useless they help the wikiproject locate and try to deorphan articles as well as other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Build_the_web. If you want to question the use of maintenance tags try putting a message on the template talk page or on the relavant wiki project / wiki page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If their purpose is organizational, why CLUTTER the top of articles with an annoying infobox? Why not make them something less annoying to readers like Category:EVIL_ROBOTS_THAT_OUGHT_BE_DESTROYED Category:EVIL_ROBOTS_THAT_OUGHT_BE_DESTROYED? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LLAgain if you want to discuss the use of the Orphan Tag then please do so on its template talk page or maybe try the Wikiproject. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Replag

Hey Addshore, there's currently a one-hour replication lag on the toolserver - so Wikipedia changes older than one hour won't be in my reports. Is there any danger Addbot could double-tag orphans? --JaGa^talk 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I have built in a section to the bot to make sure that the bot WILL NOT tag anything with an orphan tag. (just incase this sort of thing happened) :P Which it looks like it just has. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Distributed Management Orphan Category

The Distributed Management page show be a sub category of Management. How can I make the existing article a sub-category of Management? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChangeManager (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. It already is in the Category of Managment. I think someone got there before you did. Anyway to add it to a category (such as managment) you simply add [[Category: Management]] to the bottem of the page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to make a link go from managment to Distributed Management you simply need to ass double square brackets around something to make it link there. For example [[Distributed Management]] will make Distributed Management. If I have not answered your question please ask me again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Response and post missing?

I know your busy responding to complaints about your bot, but you 'archived' my post without responding. BTW, the post does not appear in your archives, so you may inadvertently deleted it. You may want to check that. Regards, cygnis insignis 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I will re add the section below and reply, It was located in Archive_15. Sorry I missed your message previously and thanks for bringing this to my attention. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot

As far I'm aware, the wiki software (MediaWiki) determines orphaned-ness based on whether or not there's one incoming link to an article. Your bot appears to be marking articles that have less than 2(?) links. This has several issues:

1. I don't see any approval from WP:BAG or the specific bot approval page regarding using an arbitrary number to consider whether a page is orphaned.
2. I don't see consensus anywhere (including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage) to base orphaned-ness on an arbitrary number.

Please clarify or adjust the bot. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up the question I would like answered, where is the bot's approval and specific bot approval page for what it is doing? Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a chat with MZMcBride so here are some key things i said.

[4] Is the BRFA. I have been told (as i have been told before) that a brfa is not needed for a simple code change or source change. The line this bot fits under is "If the page is an orphan the bot will add {{orphan|date=*****}}".

All of the pages tagged are orphans per this and are sourced from this. The bot has now stopped editing an I ill open up a new BRFA again for this task (in mroe detail). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

BRFA now located here ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, everything Addbot has tagged thus far has zero links, not even from lists. It's based on this toolserver report I created, which in turn is based on WikiProject Orphanage criteria. The report is organized so Addbot tagged zero-link orphans before anything else. The Orca Basin tagging report above happened because of an edit conflict, so to speak; Addbot loaded a list of zero-link orphans, an editor added links to the article, and then Addbot tagged it. I removed the tag myself, but if I hadn't, JL-bot would've picked it up on its next de-orphan tagging run. --JaGa^talk 09:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that's not the criteria given about lonely pages, which is, supposedly, a synonym for orphans. And the wikiproject orphanage declares it must have three links to it. For an obscure organism, the probability will be that only one link to it will exist from either a genus, family (plants) or order (animals) depending upon how obscure, and if the genus/ family or order page has a list of species. This means, these will always be tagged as orphans, with a tag, at the top of the, bigger and more attention-getting than the text of the stub itself. The wikiproject orphanage editors are not editing species articles as far as I can see. So, you've distracted the reader from the article, and you've not gotten any editing help, but you've occupied the time of editors to remove your tags, so that readers can actually read the limited text that's in the article. A zero-link orphan may be just that, a zero-link orphan. However, since it has a taxobox, the user can get around to the genus, family or order articles, just fine. If they're not totally confused by the orphan tag, which then takes them to a page that's a wikiproject page, not a policy page explaining what an orphaned article is.

So, I should trash out other articles, making them unreadable, to link obscure species to as many as three articles to remove the orphan tag so a wikiproject can, .... I don't know. With even some tribes of the Asteraceae, this would mean creating articles that are hundreds of thousands of bytes in length to satisfy wikiproject orphan. How is that going to help the reader? It's not. --KP Botany (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well im getting bored of all these long messages, why dont we all stop fighting and come up with something sensible? Such as i change to bot so it will only edit pages over a certain length or it will ignore all stubs? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue over the Orca Basin article. Just to make it clear that without the bot I wouldn't have got around to adding the links on other pages and the same is true of a group of articles that I'm watching that have recently been tagged (I'll be working on them over the next few days). The tag is a very useful spur to get on and create links, I have no problem with it, I just thought that it might be malfunctioning in the particular case I mentioned above. As to your suggestion Addshore, I would say yes to minimum article length as a criteria, but no to ignoring all stubs. Mikenorton (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need spurring on, I'm not a draft animal, I'm a human volunteer. --KP Botany (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered adding the template to the talk page instead? This would still prompt editors to correct biota links, without cluttering up the header. The information is of no use to our readers, the reason that Pelargonium drummondii was orphaned was that nobody had got around to making a list of the 200 species of Pelargonium. cygnis insignis 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Addbot, and per the documentation on Template:Orphan the tag should be added to the top of the article. Maybe it would make a good change for mantainence tags to be moved? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for entertaining my suggestion, but I'm not surprised that your colleagues at the Orphanage have put forward [dubious] rationales as to why it must be in main space. It is not the first wikiproject to attempt to make mass edits to main space, the discussions tend to degenerate into fierce (and therefore unproductive) debate with the polarised sections of our community making assumptions about the motivations and neutrality of each other. I believe this tends to emerge when editors have focused on a single aspect of improvement to our document, it occupies so much of their attention that even the reader must be made aware of the problem. So it goes. Anyway ...

I am particularly cynical today, and no less so because your bot opened up an old wound. The article Pogona henrylawsoni was made an orphan because some jerk decided to counter my improvement to the most obvious link and move the genus Pogona to an article on the questionable practice of keeping these as 'pets'. Prior to this, the history of the article is primarily composed of editors either adding encyclopedic information or adding instructions on how to 'look after them'. This makes it a problem, under GFDL, for me to reverse the move or resurrect the redirect. The 'my pet' edits should be directed to wikibooks for inclusion of their care instructions, but I have no objection to the 'as pet' article (though it would need lots of work). What all this is leading to is:

Would you mind using your tools (sysop) to restore the genus article, satisfying the GFDL requirements (of course), so I can finish the work I began by adding a {{Howto}} tag to the page? Regards, cygnis insignis 15:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the message above confuses me a little bit. You want me to restore Pogona? If so it has never been deleted so it would be a simple revert of the redirect, but something tells me this is not what you mean. Please try to explain it to me again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be a bit obtuse, and I forgot to supply the link that illustrates the problem. Apologies for that. I also made the assumption that because your bot contributes to articles on fauna, you are familiar with the concepts and problems surrounding this area of wikipedia. I will give you the sequence of events:

• Someone created an article on Bearded dragons, a common name for some Pogona species.
  • This title sucks because it does not refer to all the species. However, ...
• It previously contained a taxobox for the genus (named in RS as Pogona), which listed seven species and their links.
• Some editors contributed to the article as a genus. Others, mainly IPs and newbies, added info on their pets which are loosely known as Bearded dragons (or Beardies), this was instructive rather than encyclopaedic content.
• I came along and copied the info to wikibooks, because I intended to make the genus article about all the species. I had no choice, because taxoboxes are unique. Again, only some species are kept as pets, but all of them are interesting.
• I added the tag {{howto}}, with the intention of returning after a grace period to cull the unencyclopaedic content and add the link to the wikibooks page.
• The aforementioned editor, "Ibanix", moved the article on a genus to an article on those that are kept as pets. The latter is a related, but separate topic.
• The taxobox was removed, making Pogona henrylawsoni an orphan.
• I discovered this when I came back from my wikibreak, it was too late to simply reverse the move. Editors were contributing to the pet topic only, but the history contained editors contributing to an article on the genus (a GFDL issue).
• Your bot tagged P. henrylawsoni as an orphan. I wanted to remove it, but there is no longer a genus (parent) article to link to it. I'm forced to readdress this heartbreaking sequence of events, if I want to remove the 'orphan tag' from an otherwise adequate article.
• I noticed that you have sysop tools, and so are able to do a history merge or duplication or whatever it takes for me to continue improving the genus article.
• I asked you to do that.

If this is still confusing for you, I will ask someone more familiar with WP:TOL articles to do the necessaries. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is still confusing me and sorry I could not be more helpfull. Feel free to link to this discussion when you ask someone else as it should be here for at least 3 days from the last edit (starting today). Sorry again and good luck! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Perhaps you should reconsider editing articles in the scope of WP:TOL. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free to edit for all but I am curious to which articles I have edited? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we fix this by reverting the Pogona redirect to this version? I'm surprised wiping out a genus article like that was tolerated. --JaGa^talk 11:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

Is it really necessary to mark lists as orphans, as the bot did here? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, February 19, 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I am currently trying to get someone from the orphange over here to clear this up as I am unsure. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The decision to tag lists is based on this discussion. And I believe soon we will be removing orphan tags from any article with a single article link (still in discussion), so hopefully we can achieve this even for lists. --JaGa^talk 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the link. Can you, please, point me to where the single-link discussion is being conducted?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, February 19, 2009 (UTC)

I think it is on this page somewhere. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that lists should be less findable than other articles? De-orphaned it by adding it to template of Moscow metro lines. (Seemed appropos.) Zodon (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No reason why lists should fall under different orphan criteria; we want to bring lists into the web as well.--Aervanath (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hendrik Prinsloo

Hi. Addbot continues to add the orphan tag to the article on Hendrik Prinsloo which is definitely NOT orphaned. Please assist. Many thanks. Whoosis (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. the article is an orphan per Special:WhatLinksHere/Hendrik_Prinsloo. The bot will tag any article that has no incomming links from the article space that are not disambiguations, redirects e.t.c. This means the article we are talking about has no incomming links from real articles meaning it is tagged by the bot. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Addbot count links through redirects?

See WT:O#Counting redirects? for a question that hopefully you'll know the answer to.--Aervanath (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a question you will have to ask JaGa as the lists thhe bot uses are his. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it sure does. :) --JaGa^talk 20:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Blackpool F.C.

It's a disambiguation page, so please stop tagging it as orphaned - it's getting annoying. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for reporting this. The bot will nott run again until this bug is fixed. The bot shouldn't be given this page to tag so I will build in a fail safe. Thanks again for reporting it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot will now skip all pages with that template and other templates that redirect to it. Thanks again for the report I will also try to get this bug fixed on the list. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bug. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The disambig notice and categorization. The History of Blackpool F.C. page had a {{dablink}} hatnote, which is really just a "see also" type of template to which the author added the phrase "This page acts as a disambiguation page". The hatnote does not mark a page as a disambiguation page or place it in Category:Disabiguation pages - for that, the page needs the {{disambig}} or similar template. --JaGa^talk 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Taniwharau

Hi. Taniwharau got tagged as an orphan, yet its a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if it has been set up wrong and is missing a tag that its meant to have or if this is an error with the bot. Cheers Mattlore (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the bot only currently looks for the template, I will try to get this changed either just on this page or on the list builder. Thanks for the report. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Littlenobody orphaned article

The article has (rough count) 22 linked articles in wiki and another 20ish external links, please can you explain why this article has been orphaned or is it an error? If it is an error please can you remove the orphaned status, massive thanks - Kind regards k --92.21.53.225 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The notice at the top of the page before you edited says "If you have a question or comment about the tagging of orphans by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan." An orphan is an article that has few or no links comming INTO the article. Such links for the article we are discussing would be listed here. That shows that the article has no incomming article links. I hope you understand this. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologises - I now understand (I'm a noob to wiki) - How many links into the article would it need not to be orphaned? - thanks again for your help k --Kdelirium (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the current number is 3 but that may change very soon. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice, this never occurred to me before - Littlenobody is now linked to from Thou Shalt Always Kill music track - Contemporary animation studios - Pixellation - Amplifico the band - once all these links have been verified would you be able to remove the orphaned link - I have a lot to learn :) thanks again kind regards k --Kdelirium (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The oprhan tag should be automaticly removed, unfortunatly something is currently wrong with my bot but another bot should not get round to it. If not just remove it yourself :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, my bot just suddenly started working again at some point today, At the next DB scan the bot will untag you page if it has enough links :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What most extraordinarily annoying bot!

FEW is NOT ZERO!

PLEASE UNDO THESE MESSAGES! Don't make me waste MY TIME fighting automated changes! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC) {{Orphan|date=February 2009}}

EXAMPLE: List_of_25th_century_lunar_eclipses is a sublist, referenced from List_of_lunar_eclipses which has lots of references.

The list is not directly transcluded from the higher list, Therefore it is counted as a separate article. List_of_25th_century_lunar_eclipses does have one link from the article space but as it is a list it is not counted whcih brings the total links from article space to 0. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's your problem. I don't see a problem. Is this policy or are you justing being annoying for the joy of it?! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Orphan , Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage and Wikipedia:Build_the_web ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please UNDO the stupid messages, and I might look at it! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what do you mean "UNDO the stupid messages" ? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SockForTomruen, please be civil. Yelling at Addshore to stop his bot will not help one bit. However, if you real the links Addshore gave you, you'll see why this task is needed. Xclamation point 18:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maker of annoying bots need to be yelled at, so they'll be more anxious about their work and possibly annoy less people.

STUPID MESSAGE: {{{{Orphan|date=February 2009}}

That's not how it works. Yelling at them to stop will just annoy them, and it will not persuade them to stop their bot. Xclamation point 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

'Small nucleolar RNA SNORAs' navbox

Hi There, I noticed your very nice navbox for the H/ACA box snoRNAs. Would it be possible to generalise it more to include all the H/ACA box snoRNAs and not just those with the HGNC 'SNORA' prefix?

eg. Small nucleolar RNA SNORA1 is an H/ACA box snoRNA but so are eg. Small nucleolar RNA_psi18S-841/snoR66, Small nucleolar RNA snoR86 and Small nucleolar RNA F1/F2/snoR5a. I suspect that just renaming it

{{{H/ACA Small nucleolar RNA}}}

. It'd be great to do a similar thing for the C/D box snoRNAs also.

These pages are extremely brief and not terribly useful. I suspect that they probably should be merged into snoRNA or perhaps a dedicated 'List of snoRNAs' page. Best wishes. --Paul (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be best to have seperate nav boes for each different group or just one large one for all the genes such as those? Give me some example groupings or something like that :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the most generic grouping for these would be ncRNA or RNA gene, followed by snRNA, followed by snoRNA, followed by H/ACA box snoRNA. It's a hierarchical tree. We use something like this for typing RNAs. Would you suggest a more or less generic classification? Or perhaps multiple classes? Would it help to put some numbers on these? ;) --Paul (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can do but I am going to be inactive for the next probably around 48 hours. You could always copy the code and do it yourself :P See Template:Navbox --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (I also followed one of the nav boxes here), but can I suggest you move this discussion over to one of the WP:MCB discussion pages? I think there is great potential to do large-scale nav boxes for the gene pages, but there are lots of details of how to categorize those pages beyond looking for similar-looking gene names (as I think Paul is alluding to). Boghog2 in particular has done a lot of work with some gene family nav boxes, so it would be good to get his input... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ppgardne I agree with AndrewGNF. If there is someone over there that is familier with the field and with nav boxes I think that would be the best way to get it done. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

... oh, and nice job with all the orphan tagging. After seeing thousands of edits on my Gene Wiki watchlist, I think I have a good strategy to deorphanize a sizeable chunk of those pages. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Paul (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Souds good to me also :), I did notice the day before yesterday that many of the pages looked the same and turned out the be genes. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I chime in here. I have taken the liberty of replacing the {{AKR human genes}} with {{Alcohol oxidoreductases}} navbox since all the gene names starting with AKR encode aldo-keto reductases which are a subfamily of alcohol oxidoreductase enzymes. The {{TXNDC human genes}} are all thioredoxin related enzymes which apparently do not fall so cleanly into one EC number group and therefore into the existing enzyme navbox hierarchy. This family will be more difficult to link. Finally the {{KIAA human genes}} apparently do not have any structure or function relationship to each other beyond the fact that they are all human genes that were first cloned by the HUGE sequencing project. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this definatly shows that the navboxes for this topic need someone more familier with it than me :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fantastic that you've actually rolled up your sleeves and got involved! I say keep doing what you're doing - it's a great start for others to build on. I'm still reading the NavBox docs - slowly. Might be a while. ;-) --Paul (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

i want to be eco freindly by making bricks

help me to get fly ash from dadri , i want top ash which is using cement quotas , i acknowledge that you selling out there , but it is not helping us to manufracture bricks through it , please get me free of cost that can only the way to help in eco freindly in building bricks , thanks my name SUMIT MITTAL

Sorry I do not understand what you mean. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Linda Lou Taylor

Can you please explain those maintenance tags you placed on my article. The first one just baffles me as the article is filled with internal links, and the name Linda Lou Taylor should appear on any world record category, while I'm inclined to find the second quite offensive, considering I spent a long time carefully wording the document specifically so that it couldn't be accused of plagarism. Thank you. --Heslopian (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. As you should have read in the notice obove the edit box to this page if you have a comment about the tagging of orphan article by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan. An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere. Special:WhatLinksHere/Linda_Lou_Taylor shows the article has no incoming wiki links from other articles and this is the reason the bot added the orphan tag.

As for the {{Copypaste}} template on the page that was not added by the bot, it was added by User:129.252.87.77. If the article is not clearly copied and pasted from one of the sources listed on the page then just remove the tag. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I did think the term orphan simply referred to links within the article, so thanks for enlightening me there. --Heslopian (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for reporting your concern, better to be safe than sorry. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Huggle

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks for getting Huggle up and running with version .9.0! -download | sign! 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Addshore, it works fine for me (too slow IMHO) but it works. Is the blocking and reporting extension fixed?. Thanks. --Dferg ^{(w:en: - w:es:)} 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is fixed is the fact it work and a few other small fixes such as exceptions. If you think it is slow then take a look at the download list where you will find a fixed version of 0.7.12. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. I have successfully logged in with the new Huggle. Thanks for your hard work. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and good to know it is working :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar seconded, and a virtual chocolate cake sent with heartfelt gratitude. You're a star. Karenjc 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Addshore, thanks for your message. Huggle is working for me again. Thanks for your help! -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the new Huggle! --Aka042 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you all that !xclamationmark also [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis_Social_Club

You placed an orphaned tag on the subject. I have just adopted this orphaned Article as my first Wikipedia Project. I am not that experienced as an Editor, but I have already linked the Article to other cannabis subjects within Wikepedia. Does this mean it is no longer orphaned? Before I proceed any further, am I on track? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes per this page you can see that there are now two incomming article links, this does mean that the article is no longer orphaned so feel free to remove the orphan tag, if you dont remove it a bot will get around to it shortly. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Small tags

Hello, could you please explain to me why you made my name small on the guestbook page? I made my name normal sized again. Thanks, obentomusubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, happy early birthday! obentomusubi 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the reason I made your name small was for some people tthat view with smaller resolutions (1024*768). I check it every now and again and every persons name that appears on two or lines gets added small tags to keep it to one line. You are not the only peron this has happened to. Really it is just to keep the page looking nice, I suggest you make your name small again (or shorten it) as it will otherwis make the list look a bit tacky :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Battle (boxing)

Hi there, you put an orphan tag on The Battle (boxing). Well the article now links to three different articles, so I was hoping you can now remove the tags. Showtime2009 (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag is very hard for editors to understand as the primary purpose appears to be recruiting editors to a WikiProject.

You should edit other appropriate articles and link them to this article. I did just that by adding links to this article in the See also section of Antonio Margarito and Miguel Cotto. Adding links to the The Battle (boxing) does not remove it from the orphanage. Only links to The Battle (boxing) will accomplish that. You should search Wikipedia and think about places where this article should be linked, then add them as appropriate. I also removed the orphan tag.--KP Botany (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the links KP Botany. As far as I know the tag has had the link to the orphange remove, So is it such an advertisment now? Also a quick note, the bot hs run through all 0 link orphans so now you should see less tags appearing. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot 19

Heh. Right, so when you get approved for operation, I want to be second in the queue:

I want the following message delivered to high profile/active WikiProjects. I did some of them (~200) manually already, could the bot ignore those?

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)}

That's assuming that the above falls within the scope of the bot, of course. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep if you give me a list of wikiproject links that you want to send it to i will do it. And I will just set the bot to ignore page that have {{User:LivingBot/SignupTemplate}} on them. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mann (surname)

Do you consider adding the template {{Orphan}} appropriate for Mann (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? — Also: it seems your bot does not obey {{Bots|deny=Addbot}}; is that intentional? Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This section of the bot (Orphan tagging and un tagging) does not and has not ever taken notice of {{Bots|deny=Addbot}}. This is only as there has need seemed a need for them to be used for it. If you have a question about the tagging of a specific article or type of article please take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite parse the first two sentences of your reply, but I think I get it's gist and I don't like it; if such sentiment were uttered by a human editor, I'm sure it would be followed by counselling. As to your advice to take my question to the WikiProject Orphanage: why then does the link in your edit summaries point to this page? To the matter at hand: I've now added the template {{Surname}} to the article. I trust this will avoid future tagging as orphan. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i guess i was still slightly asleep. The Orphan bot has never taken notice of the no bots tag as there has not been a request and really there should be no need to ignore any articles. If the page has not been re tagged then i presume that the urmname tagged is ignored by the list. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey Addshore how are you doing i saw your adoption page and i was wondering if you would be ble to help me prepare for a RFA Application so that i may become a sysop i have done two other previous RFA which went horribly wrong.Hope to hear from you soon take care

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 01:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there and sorry but at this point in time I do not really have any spare time. I would love to help so if you ever have any questions feel free to ask me here on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the RFA's i had no support what so ever :( Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Staffwaterboy Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Staffwaterboy_2

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it was only 2 days after your first rfa ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Very true i was young and stupid then lol :) but the problem is getting support from other users.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you make friends :) dont self nom and make sure you can answer the basic questions and know as much as you can. Try to spread out over the areas of wikipedia. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Young Savage Florida

The article Young Savage Florida does have more than three links. ----DanTD (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. For the ten zillionth time I am having to say the same thing, if you had read the edit notice at the top of the page as you were writing this message you would have recognized your error. An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere. You are thinking the links are in the article but they are not. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Young_Savage_Florida the article is an orphan with NO incomming links from articles. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

1)Florida, 2)Badfinger, 3)Neil Sedaka, 4)Elvis Presley, 5)Mopar. That's five right there. I can't take the blame for the redirection of Mike Gibbins to Badfinger. ----DanTD (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say again, An orphan article has less than 3 links from other articles (not to other articles). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan Tag

Can I ask why you continue to add the orphan tag to the pages, some articles for example Rory Graves played only a few years in the NFL, and there is no article that mentions his name.--Yankees10 16:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the reason the bot keeps adding the tag is simply as it has no links fro other articles. If there is no article that mentions his name but there could be an article that mentions his name then maybe add some infomation, Or add a see also link to the bottem of a page that is related. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned article - Marion Harding

Hi Add - have added more links to article and one back from new article. Is article to remain orphaned until another two links can be created back from other articles? If this is not possible does the tag remain permanently or is there a further process? ThanksErnstblumberg (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, if the article has one incomming link you can probably deorphan it as i think they are the current criteria. The bots will also go around de tagging articles if it finds them. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For seeing the orphan tagging project through to completion despite bugs, mass confusion, and angry botanists. JaGatalk 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your support through all this. BTW I took the / articles out of Untagged orphans. --JaGa^talk 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Angry botanists? How petty, give someone a barn star and then use it to make a nasty personal attack on another editor. Maybe it wasn't worth giving a barn star in the first place. --KP Botany (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jaga :) How are the uncat pages coming along? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

in use articles

Please refrain from marking articles as orphaned that are using the {{inuse}} tag (as you have done twice with the GCT 155mm article). This tag is provided by wikipedia to indicate articles currently under construction, and are not to be modified until the tag is removed. Please consult wikipedia policy before continuing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there thanks for the report. The next bot run from now on will ignore any pages that include the template. Thanks for the message. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Orpaned" Entry

Can you please tell me why you are marking my entry on Dan Hubbert as "orphaned"? I am not abandoning the entry, but rather working with some the record labels to get the information up online. All the sources are print media, such as FMQB and entertainment industry insider rags. Can you please take that tag off and any others that are no longer relevant because I am still working on it. Thank you, 76.90.103.71 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, The tag does not show if someone is not working on the article. The tag is simply saying that now other articles are linking to the articles, We want to build a web of links on wikipedia and per Special:WhatLinksHere/Dan_Hubbert there are no incomming links from other articles. I hope you understand what the tag means now :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot and Category:X1

I'm curious why the header that addbot puts on Category:X1 doesn't include a parent category such as Category:Sandboxes. If it did, that would not only make the category easier to find, but would also keep it from showing up in the empty categories report. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to create a template for the header really with everything in it (will make it tidier and will be easier to change), Ill get to it in a couple of hours, Just got to finish what I am doing here now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for volunteering to take care of it! --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I promise I WILL eventually get around to fixing this. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

De-orphaning criteria?

I am interested to know how an article gets "de-orphaned" like this. It had no articles linking to it before and it has none now. — AjaxSmack 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Disambiguation pages should not be tagged as orphans, As the bot has been improved it has noticed that this page has should not have been tagged and has removed it. I hope this makes sense :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had just added the {{disamb}} template to the article when the bot removed the orphan tag -- makes sense now. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to know this is cleared up :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delay for new articles?

Could you please add a delay to the bot so it doesn't tag new articles? Say, give a new article three months or so before complaining that it's an orphan. Linking from all over the place to a very fresh article can be a bad thing, since it can take a while for an article to become refined enough to be worth linking to. Remember, complaint tags are annoying, so please post them only when there's a problem that really requires immediate attention (ahead of other problems). --Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The orphan tag is not a complaint tag, it is a maintenance tag. I do not see any good reason for a delay as personally I would tag an article as orphan if I saw it in new pages and it fitted the criteria. The tag is just there as a point that can improve the article and its links. Wherever the problem is there will be a tag. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that: the amount of time the article has been around is really of no consequence. I guess what's bothering me is the nuisance/distraction/confusion created by putting the tag on the main page rather than the talk page. I think there is some discussion about this here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There has also been a talk on Template talk:Orphan. I think the end result was it should stay where it is. Ill be happy to come and talk a look at the discussion, and anyway the bot has already tagged all the 0 link orphans and it not going to tag the 1 link orphans. It continues to remove probably around 500 tags a week (from what I have seen). The tagging of zero link orphans as far as I can tell should have no dispute if the location of the tag is agreed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask, how was the decision made to reject the proposal to put the orphan tag on the talk pages? I read Template_talk:Orphan (thanks for pointing me there), and I didn't see any strong response to the reason that the orphan tag is of no relevance to casual readers.

BTW, AddShore, I hate to be complaining about the bot, since I really like the Orphanage project. When I first saw the orphan tag, I gleefully edited other pages and de-orphaned the page, and I'd like to see intelligent de-orphaning work done throughout the encyclopedia. I very much appreciate your efforts to that end. It seems, though, that the bot's current operation is causing a lot of annoyance, compounded by what appears (perhaps wrongly) to be ignoring of people's objections. Please see my request on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage to temporarily halt the bot and allow a better solution to be found. Many thanks. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be slightly off-topic, but one reason we don't want to delay the tagging of new articles is the way new articles are often created - that is, someone creates their article, and works on it pretty hard for several days. If we tag the article quickly, that enthusiastic editor will see the tag and do what they can to de-orphan it. They're usually the best qualified to do the de-orphaning, and are often unaware of the need for articles to link to each other. So we want to tap into that enthusiasm. If we wait a couple of months, it's much less likely that editor will be around (or have the time) to do the maintenance. --JaGa^talk 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JaGa. I think tapping into enthusiasm while it's hot is a really good point. I am now completely against any sort of delay. (BTW, on another topic, I'm also favoring keeping the "non-orphan" minimum at 3.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I am also 100% sure the bot should stay at only no links counts as an orphan for now :) Otherwise I will have the same complaints as previous over the criteria comming back to me again. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Untagged uncats

Hi Addshore, here's the untagged uncategorized articles page: http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_uncats.php

And here's the caveats:

• It lists redlink categories, but that seems to be OK.
• Very rarely (twice so far), I've seen categorized articles in the list. It may be due to this bug or a variant.
• Hidden categories are ignored.
• Articles with a / in the title are ignored. (Figured I'd beat the rush. Transcluded articles aren't given a free pass this time, though.)
• I would suggest doing a small portion (there's over 20,000 total) at first, just to make sure there aren't bugs.

Check it out, let me know what you think! --JaGa^talk 08:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep I will probably do a trial of a few hundred articles. I will make the bot perform its own checks looking for cats as I dont think I would want it to tag articles that have red cats either, They can be done by humans. Where is the referesh link? :) Thanks lots and is there a posibility of doing a page for articles that are tagged but that have cats? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to give you the refresh. Here it is: http://toolserver.org/~jason/data/trigger_uncat_file.php

Here's my Categorized articles page, but it won't auto-refresh - it's only updated once daily. --JaGa^talk 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, lets see if I can get this bot up and running [= ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I have been writing stub-like articles on foreign relations between states, such as Holy See–Lebanon relations ; the articles will not always have links to them, and the Addbot should probably not add a tag on any article title that ends with relations. ADM (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. You are correct saying not all articles always have links to them, and this is the reason for the tag, to try and push people into creating these links and creating the WEB. I see no reason not to tag articles ending in relations so I will not be adding an exception. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you add the article to the {{Foreign relations of the Holy See}} and {{Foreign relations of Lebanon}} navboxes? --JaGa^talk 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea to simply fill out those templates before adding and creating articles ; I was just pointing out that some sets of articles will almost always need templates instead of actual man-made links. ADM (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untagged orphans =

Hi I don't understand why there is a orphan added to the Liviu Cangeopol's Article. There are lots of links. In addition, please see below many other links and please feel free to correct the article if you wish. Please contact me if you have questions, Thank you David 122.

References below: m -References added. Please improve if needed. - All the references are there, just need to list them properly) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.58.149 (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Below, are the APA Style references and some additional ones: Please include them into the article to meet the Wikipedia's standards. Thank you!

References:

1. Nicoleta, Vieru. (2006, December 12). Iassy’s dissidents, the pylons of Romanian dissidence. Ziarul de Iasi.

2. Open Society Archives (1988, April 6). Weekly Record of Events in Estern Europe. Daily Liberation.

3. United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. (1990). Pace of democratic reforms and status of human rights in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. The Supt. of Docs: Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O.

4. Tismaneanu, V. (2006). Statement of the President of Romania Mr. Traian Basescu, at the Romanian Parliament. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from Romanian Presidential Webpage Web site: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8288&_PRID=search

5. Lucian Gheorghiu, Alina Mihai. (2006, December 19). Commnunism’s phantom fights until the last moment. Cotidianul.

6. Craig Smith, S. (2006, December 19). Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule. The New York Times

Hi there. The edit notice that you should have read before you posted on this page says. If you have a comment about the tagging of orphan article by Addbot please make sure you know the correct definition of an orphan. "An orphan article has less than 3 links from some other article. Links from disambiguation pages don't count. See Special:WhatLinksHere." You have got the wrong definition of an orphan.

An orphan is what is said above, it has few or no INCOMING links, These you cannot see on the page itself, You have to go to Special:WhatLinksHere.

Liviu Cangeopol Only has one link from the main space per Special:WhatLinksHere/Liviu_Cangeopol, and this is from a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not count as links therefor it is counted as having no real links from the article space and was then tagged.

I hope you understand what I have said above, Thanks for the message. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My response == Hi, I still don't understand exactly what is wrong with the page above. Can you use the references listed above? This is a very important journalist and writer that fought against communism in Romania, Europe. I don't understand what it can be done. His name is also included in the Romanian presidential website, when he was recognized by the president for what he did for Romania. Please type his name on Google web or books and see what comes up. Please help me make the page according to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, David122

What you need to do is add links from other articles to this article. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I ADDED MORE REFERENCES. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE. THESE ARE RELIABLE REFERENCES. ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THAT THIS ARTICLE MEETS WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS, IF THESE CHANGES WON'T WORK, DELETE THE ARTICLE AND FORGET IT.

You need links coming in from other articles. You do not acctually need to change Liviu_Cangeopol at all. You need to change other pages to link to it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NEVER MIND. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THANKS FOR HELP - —Preceding unsigned comment added by David122 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do is add links going from other articles to Liviu_Cangeopol. I suggest you re read Wp:Orphan --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

-The Wikipedia entry on Porochista Khakpour keeps getting an orphan tag. I don't get it. It has more than 3 links, that seem to be updated quite often. She is a celebrated author and journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.6.60 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I will say again, It is not the ammount of links that appear on the article, it is the ammount of links that are going to the article from other articles. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Porochista_Khakpour ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is classic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Maybe we should make the text in the tag a bit bigger so it fills up the entire page to make sure people read it coorrectly :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Substing user talk page templates

Howdy. When your bot made this edit I assume it was working on this task. Does that task cover only templates listed here, or are other templates covered by this task as well? The reason I ask is because the template substed in the diff above doesn't appear to be on the list.--Rockfang (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, The list has moved to User:Addbot/Subst.css. No brfa is really needed for this as the task remains the same (substing user talk templates) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a request. Could you please do one of the following. Either make your bot compatible with {{bots}}, or stop substing templates in my user talk space. The reason I ask this, is because the person who put the template there did not originally subst it and I'd rather not have people or bots change comments that aren't their own.--Rockfang (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the bot acctually substs the template is so that it does stay the same as when it was sent. If a template does not get substed and the template gets changed on the template page it will also change on your talk page. If it is in an archive the archive will then be incorrect and you will not see the same message you received but a new version. The wikibot classes the bot uses should have inbuilt nobots ignore stuff but I am guessing it is not working correctly. I will take a look into it. Thanks for the message. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan on special redirect pages

Spezial:Beobachtungsliste is actually a redirect outside the main namespace. Due to the fact that redirects are not working there, it is not possible to use the "normal" redirect system. I have no idea if that is the only existing example of this, but in theory it might not.

The only solution I can think of would be making the bot check if an aticle is in category redirects and not marking those, any better idea? --Windharp (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT: And sorry for adding to archives. I might have noticed, but my connection broke down while posting :-/ ] --Windharp (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I am trying to get JaGa to change the list, He should post here when he next comes online. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do that, but is there a better solution? I'd avoid hard-coding pages into my script if I could. If we convert the page to a soft redirect, it would be exempted automatically. Would that be OK? --JaGa^talk 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The soft redirect would work, like for Wikipedia:Special:SpecialPages. I could convert it if you're OK with this change. --JaGa^talk 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Never noticed the soft redirect until today. I'll do the change, thanks for teaching me sth new :-) --Windharp (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to know this is cleared up :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphans

Happy Birthday!

I was wondering about the orphan tagging. Is it possible to narrow it to articles that have been on Wikipedia for a couple weeks? It's hitting all the brand new article, and this seems a bit distracting from the higher priorities of dealing with sourcing, formatting, notability and such.

I also have some qualms about mass orphan tagging generally, it's helpful in a lot of cases, but I don't know how to remove an orphan tag without the article being tagged again in cases where no link from another article is warranted. Is it required that every article be wikilinked? I know orphan tagging does a lot of good, so I'm not trying to be difficult, but I have mixed feelings and it seems like some limits or opt outs might be good.

Thanks for your consideration. Let me know what you think. And party on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your note regarding my AN posting and that some of these issues have already been discussed. I wasn't sure what others thought, so that's why I raised the issue there. I mean I understand that orphans are discouraged, so tagging is a good thing generally... I don't know. I'm working on unpatrolled pages, but not brand spanking new ones... I'll live with whatever others decide as far as tagging new pages goes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm got 2 edit conflicts while trying to reply to this so this is acctually my thrid go at writing out the reply (sorry if it is a bit jumbled up now). Firstly thanks for the message and the happy birthday. Dam now the phone is ringing.

Anyway most of what I would say is in my reply on the AN section and in the section on my talk page which is links from there. I am thinking of getting an RFC on the generall orphan tag, its use, where it should be located, what should be the criteria e.t.c to try and clear up as many issues as I can. I would also love wider input on the issue that you have again raised although I feel that I stand in a strong position with the reasoning in the section above

Again sorry for the messy reply, --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry about the edit conflcits. Wider consideration sounds good to me. That's what I was trying to get. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See I like talking to you :P You dont spam my talk page with capitals about something that wrong anyway :). I think below this line would be a good place to start the discussion (so i can easily keep track of it). See the addbot comments section below(might not be there quite yet). Thanks again for your message. --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that the drama you deal with as a result of the orphan bot's tagging may be adequate justice for any overtagging. So I'm willing to write my concerns off as a case of (karmic?) Justice having been served. Of course I plan on adding your page to my watchlist for comic relief.

Seriously though, I don't remember the add bot being this "efficient" in the past. Have you powered it up? Is it a new bot program or something? Since it's so good what about turning it on every few months? Yes I heard your argument that you like to get the links done right off the bat, but patience is also a virtue and you might get a nice break inbetween rounds, as well as giving others a break time as well. I guess this belongs in the new section, but I had only intended to razz you about all the orphan questions and haranguing, so it's stuck here I guess. Unless it gets moved. Even in Kindergarten, I was never any good at staying inside the lines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for adding my page to your watchlist :) If you do see any questions that you can answer then please do :) (I suspect there will be the odd doven of why have you tagged this article? and the reply is something along the lines of because it is an orphan and you do not know what an orphan is)

The bot has not sped up and should be editing at the same speed, If anything it should have slowed down as I have increased the code size and I am now using more complex regexes.

I am thinking of makeing the bot only tag articles that are not not patrolled, this means all artiles over 30days could be tagged and anything patrolled before then. I am still sticking by what I have already said thinking it would be better to keep tagging as I am. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot Comments Section

This is a new section dedicated to trying to iron out all the small problems that people may have with Addbot. Any and all comments about the bots operation on any of its tasks is welcome (but I think this will mainly be for orphan tagging) --·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Im contacting you about an edit by your bot

he put an orphan tag on my page that I created can you please tell me a little bit about an orphan tag

Thanks --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there and yes. The orphan tag is added to articles that have no incomming links from other articles (not including disambiguations). An example of how to see the incomming links for this talk page would be by going to Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Addshore. I hope this helps and if you have any further questions feel free to ask me. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot Adding Orphan Links to New Articles

Noticed [this edit] where an orphan tag was added to an aticle just created on February 13, 2009. Bit soon, eh? Cheers, Geoff ^{T C} 23:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. There is currently no limit to how early the bot can tag an article (though this may be introduced). But as I said in my reasoning above somewhere the timing of the tag is good as it catches the origional creator, the one that probably know the most about the article, and trys to push them towards de-orphaning it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)