User talk:JLaTondre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Margaret Nicholas

I feel there should be an article on Margaret Nicholas who has authored some books most notable among her books is World's Greatest Cranks & Crackpots.I had requested creation of an article on her.Efforts were made by Wiki community and it was found that the author has maintained a reclusive profile.I had created a stub which was deleted because it was not as per policy.I have recreated the same. I have been searching for information and once I got a reference on Kosmix search engine that her works are part of text for teaching English language.Nontheless I am a fan of her works.Once again I request Wiki veterans to oblige me with more information on the author.

Regards subzbharti —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzbharti (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My Archiving Bot

Wonderful, JLaTondre, wonderful! Thank you very much for this. Now, is there something I need to do to activate it, and archive what's there now? Remember, you're dealing with a real computer dummy here :-). Thank you for your time and patience, JLaTondre. -- Michael David (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You, are a joy, JLaTondre! Thank you very much for all of your help. -- Michael David (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on the unsigned posts. After several trys I think I finally got it. I'm like a kid with this stuff, JLaTondre! For the past 40+ years I have been working with - and being daily amazed by - the workings of the human brain, and the persons & personalities that go with it. I learn something new every day. It's getting to be the same way with computers. Keep in mind, I wrote my first thesis on a manual typewriter! No, I didn't know Johannes Gutenberg personally - not quite, anyway. :-) As always, thank you again for your great help & very clear instructions. Be healthy. -- Michael David (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Protecting An Article

Hi, JLaTondre,

Question: How does one go about having a WP Article (or Page) or, in this case, a List protected? I have been doing a lot of work on the List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients. And, recently, much of that work has involved undoing nonsensical edits by nonregistered users. This takes a lot of time - that I don't really have - to monitor. This is particularly important where Lists are concerned, because the incorrect information is harder to detect than in an Article that involves information that is obviously vandalism. I'm talking about having the List so that it can be edited only by registered Users. This way, if there is a question about an edit, I can at least ask them about it on their Talk Page. Thanks, JLaTondre -- Michael David (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You can request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Protection is typically only granted if there is frequent or severe vandalism. The policy is spelled out at Wikipedia:Protection policy. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, JLaTondre. I'll give it a try. -- Michael David (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Recognized ciontent

Hi, has the bot stopped? I ask because Arnolfini was promoted to GA status on 26 April, but was not added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol/Recognized content, I added it manually. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I only run that task once a week or so. I just kicked it off. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall be more patient in future. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Just a note to thank you for dealing with the admin backlog and some thoughtful closures. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome & thank you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tillicum/List of potential Tillicum related topics

JLaTondre, this article? is causing a problem for the Canada project. It was assigned to class=NA. It was one of two remaining in our project with this class. The article was deleted but moved to it's talk page? I've never seen an animal like this before! Can you suggest something? Argolin (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit of an odd one. As it's not an article, I clarified what looks like the attended purpose per Talk:Tillicum and removed the article categories. I also removed the project banners since it's a talk subpage (as they would more properly belong at Talk:Tillicum). Hope that helps. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a second opinion on the article before kissing good-bye from the Canada project. lol! My thought that it was an Afd and something happened so that only the article was removed and not it's talk page. Thanks... Argolin (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tentacles (novel) and the anon IP whose warning you erased

You may wish to review that talkpage. I walked away from its edits after you visited my talkpage. The anon IP has done similar redirects in the past. In addition, it has WP:PRODed Tentacles (novel) when on Cryptid Hunters talkpage other editors recommended improvement before deletion. It could stand to read WP:BEFORE. As a Page Patroller, I saw the arbitrary redirect. If this was argument about Disputed Content, as you put it on my talkpage, this anon IP does not have the right to make arbitary redirects in Disputed Contents. It should have gone the deletion route first and recommended that in a WP:AFD debate. I cleaned up the first PROD in less than 1.5 hours while watching the Mundial. The associated author has 25 novels and I even created my first category today for him. I would like to see the warning reinstated. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. It was the other talkpage, Talk:Cryptid Hunters. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a content dispute. The editor does not believe these pages meet notability and you do - that is a content dispute. Furthermore, editors do have the right to be bold and redirect articles. There is nothing wrong with that. If someone objects, they can revert and then it needs to be discussed.

Nor is there requirement to invoke deletion procedures before redirecting. Redirecting is not deletion and going to AfD to specifically request redirecting is discouraged. AfD is for deletion; not for asking for redirection.

Had the editor unilateral redirected in the face of known disagreement, you might have a point, but that is not what happened. The disagreement was not voiced until after in both cases.

While I doubt the community will decide to delete these articles, having a different opinion of the notability guidelines is not vandalism. Vandalism has a specific meaning; not just something you disagree with. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Kinect Joy Ride

Kinect JoyRide was moved back to Kinect Joy Ride by cut & paste. SNS (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Recognized content

I have created earlier this morning the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil/Recognized content, which was updated by your bot. However, there was an error by myself that I corrected latter. I would like to know if the bot will update it immediately. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I ran it against that page for you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 17:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Another recognised content request

Hi, I have just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Buckinghamshire/Recognised content (using the English spelling for recognised!!!). Can you check that it has been created correctly and run the query on our behalf please? Cheers. -- role^player 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Processed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/featured content, but the bot hsn't updated it since I added content. Is it set up correctly? --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Processed. While the bot usually runs once a week, there is some variation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay it worked. Thank you. --Nascar1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol/Recognized content

Hi, the bot inexplicably removed History of Bristol from the GA list above in this edit.[1] I have restored it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JLaTondre. You have new messages at JL-Bot's talk page.
Message added 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I still have not had a responses regarding a similar malfunction on the Bristol Recognized content page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 30#Access 2

Hi, a somewhat confusing comment structure but I think the retarget of Access II to Access (group) was what was agreed. The retarget of Access 2 is fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this rapid response. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Ken St Andre

Saw you had the most recent edit for the article on Ken St Andre. I have a picture of him, headshot, cropped, fairly recent (2007). Can't upload it as I dont edit or generally contribute, but ken's an old friend and I was dismayed his article didnt have a pic.

Would you like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XBenedictx (talk • contribs) 07:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the offer, I'm going to have to decline. Due to copyright issues, it would be better if you uploaded it and filled in the necessary copyright permission information. As it sounds like you are the picture taker, you would have to be the one to release it. If you weren't the one to take it, you would be the one best suited to state why it's allowable. Sorry, images are an area that is a bit of a pain. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional counties

Hi, I placed a model disamb on this redirect which is currently being discussed but left the (rfd) tag in place. My understanding from our previous discussion is that this is fine. However, it has been reverted by another editor. Would you please advise? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You did fine. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 14#K20HB-TV/Montana PBS

Hi, normally I admire your closures. However, this one I think you have got wrong. In order for a redirect to be deleted it needs to meet WP:RFD#DELETE without compensating WP:RFD#KEEP reasons. Here, the only substantive reason by the nominator was "An implausible redirect--there is no such thing as K20HB-TV, and nobody will search for it." I have shown by my sources that 'K20HB-TV' existed and the stats show that people do search for it. Consequently, you had no policy-compliant reasons to close this as delete. I should be grateful if you would reconsider this close. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

While K20HB existed (and nothing in my close indicated otherwise), 'K20HB-TV/Montana PBS' is an implausible search term for a person. A person would more likely use K20HB and that already exists as a redirect to the target. As for the stats, they do not show that people are searching on this term. They show an extremely small use of 'K20HB-TV/Montana PBS' which is a level that highly unlikely to be people, but more likely to be bots and web crawlers. It would need more hits than that to be above the automated 'noise'. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot question

Do you have a timeline when this will be updated? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oligarhy

I was wondering if you could clarify your close of the RfD on Oligarhy.[2] You mentioned "some usage". It looks like most of the hits were generated this month according to this. The redirect has been discussed at an article talk page, been nominated for speedy, and been at RfD so of course there are hits this month. July had 0. June had 21. So it appears to me to not be used often at all. Would a dozen or two hits in a month justify keeping? If so then it might be fine but if not, I plan on returning it to RfD in a couple months if the stats show that it continues to not be used much.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you walk back through the past year, it's had quite a few hits (between 50-100) in a number of months. High stats are not a clear indicator, however, as there is no way of knowing what caused the hits (people, web crawlers, other). The main thing is there was clearly not consensus and that defaults to keep. If usage trends down and you want to see if consensus can be gained in the future, feel free. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JL-Bot/Project content

Any way you can add it to list featured sounds, too? I realize this is a small/obscurish category, but I think it's still worth listing. —fetch·comms 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Implemented. See the page for parameters to use. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:otheruses4

Please delete and replace with {{about}}. Otheruses4 is deprecated.199.126.224.245 (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. {{Otheruses4}} is a redirect to {{About}}. If you feel the redirect needs to be deleted, you will need to follow the directions at WP:RFD. It is not applicable for speedy deletion. However, even if deleted, About shouldn't be moved to Otheruses4. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you help, pls?

Dear, I have established an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_Death_Anxiety. But I am not too expert as a wiki editor. Will you plese see it grossly and help me improve it!!Shoovrow (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Help! (again)

It's me, again. Somewhow, the font size and style of my WP interface got changed to a much smaller, very less readable one. I don't have a clue how to get it back to where it was. I checked my preferences, but they seem to be the same as they were. Can you help me? As always, thanks. :-) -- Michael David (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Surprise! Surprise! Just on a last ditch effort hunch, I did a restart of my computer. And when it was up and running again, I opened WP and it had returned to my original interface style & settings. I still don't have a clue what happened but, anyway, all is well now. At least this gave me an opportunity to visit an old friend. Hope you are well. Be healthy -- :-) Michael David (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC) :-)

See also

Please stop removing entries from "see also" sections on the basis that they do not provide further information on the subject. That is not the only purpose for "see also", it can also direct the reader to other, related subjects. Please read WP:See also. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. They are for "related Wikipedia articles". A generic, incomplete list is only related in the weakest meaning of the term. Categories are much better suited for that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with LaTondre on this one, Ken. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A list is an article. Please let's not churn up the old brouhaha about cats vs. lists - they are different and do different things. I suggest that if you feel stringly about this, you start a discussion in an appropriate place and get a consensus to remove "list" entries from "see also" sections, because as of this moment, there is no such consensus to do so that I am aware of. If you do start such a discussion, I'd like to be informed of it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's covered in WP:SEEALSO. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a red-hearing. No one said they weren't articles. I said they weren't really relevant. If you feel that strongly about it, fine. I'm not going to start a "brouhaha" as I don't feel that strongly enough about it. I just don't see your point. If someone wants to know about Ben Bova, what information in List of science fiction authors is relevant to them? -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding my point. The purpose of such links is not to give you more information about the specific subject matter -- if the linked articles had such specific information, it should be included in the article itself -- but to give the reader the chance to spread out a bit and explore topics and subjecs which are related to the subject matter of the article. If there was no relationship, no connection whatsoever between the article's subject and the see also link I'd be right with you -- I've deleted my share of irrelevant see also entries in my day -- but anything with a legitimate connection, which a reader could want to find out more about, is prefectly acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the specific quote from WP:SEEALSO:

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (emphasis added)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I support JLaTondre in removing the link. It's much tot general to deepen the knowledge about a writer. With Beyond My Ken's logic we could also link to Human, Man and List of US-americans... --Gereon K. (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not the case, those are hardly legitimate related subjects. (Slippery slope arguemnts don't particularly appeal to me, in any case.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see. You reject JLaTondre's comparisons, then tell him that he does not understand you, reject my point as slippery slope. You have your point and other points of views count as nothing for you. And I thought Wikipedia was a joint work and it would be nice to find a common ground and compromise... Have fun spamming article sections, I'm out of this discussion. --Gereon K. (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TelecomPioneers and Telecompioneers

Hi, will you please take a second look at these closes at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 23. Neither term was "was a previous name of the organization per the article"; the previous name was Telephone Pioneers of America. Also it is illogical to have Telecom pioneers, also closed on the same page, going in one direction and the contractions going in another. Finally, there was no consensus for these to be kept. The close should either have been 'delete', for which there was IMHO a consensus, or retarget to History of telecommunication due to the excellent rationale of the nominator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you make a closer reading of the article. It states "Telephone Pioneers of America evolved into TelecomPioneers in 2002..." The organization's website states they shortened their name from TelecomPioneers to Pioneers in 2008. That's not very long ago and it is reasonable to expect that people may search for them by their prior name; especially since it is also one of their domain names (telecompioneers.org).

It is not uncommon for combined and non-combined words to have different destinations. Spaces have meaning and people tend to use them when they want two words. It is reasonable to assume that someone searching for "telecom pioneers" is more likely to be interested in the general topic instead of the organization whereas someone who specifically omits the space would be the opposite.

Deletion debate closing is not about counting votes. It is about weighing the arguments given. When the arguments provided are incorrect, they loose their weight. The redirects were based on a former name. A redirect based on a former name is not confusing nor an unlikely search term. That only left the argument of "squatting" which could be taken as deletion reason 4, but is rather flimsy and, in my judgement, is trumped in this case by keep reasons 3 & 5.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, good catch, I missed the previous name in the body of the article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about the recognized content bot

I am working to resurrect WikiProject United States and I changed the structure of the Recognized content page before I realized that it might affect the bot. Does the bot need the articles to be in a certain format in order to add new ones or will it use the format resident on the article? --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot regenerates the content each times it runs and replaces everything between the header & footer if there are any differences. Your changes will be overwritten the next time the bot runs. It looks like you want to break out each content type into a different sub page? There doesn't seem to be much benefit to that, but if that's what you want, you will need to remove the bot template from the main page (so it stops updating that page) and add it each of the subpages with the proper parameters (so it updates them with the correct results). -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that mainly because having all 1000+ articles on the main page became unwieldy. I also included a lot of the sub-projects that fall under United States that were not previously included. Would it possible then to create a page for the bot to update and then I would just implement the changes by hand. Otherwise I think it will wipe out the extra ones I added in. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. One way would be to leave Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content as the one the bot edits and then transclude your subpages into Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Quality content directly (assuming I understand your intended layout). Otherwise, you will need to remove the bot template from the "Recognized content" page and move it to a new page that you want the bot to update. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I created a page that looks like the one previous to my changes and moved that structure along with the bot tags to a seperate page that I will monitor. Then I removed the bot tags from the previous one. I think that will work. But if not I will adjust fire if there is a problem on the next sweep. Dont get me wrong that bots still great and saves a ton of time so thanks for making it. Also is there a list somewhere that shows all the projects this bot updates? --Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There isn't an actual list, but you can see what transcludes the template here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Question about the Bot

First off, I just want to say that your bot is awesome.

Now for the question. How often does it update the recognized content for each project? Also is there a manual way to "ask" the bot to run the update ahead of schedule. I ask these things because the project I've been working on, Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia, is new, so I'm still tracking down and tagging pages for the project, and I doubled the amount of featured content in the past three hours, and will double that tomorrow. I'm not in a rush for the update, but if it only runs once a month, it would be worth it for me to manually update Wikipedia:WikiProject East Asia/Recognized content, but if it's going to run once a week, it isn't as necessary to do the manual updating. Please leave a talkback on my talk page if you respond here. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 08:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It runs about once a week. It's manually started and I usually run it on the weekend. That will vary somewhat based on my schedule. If you ever want a single page updated in-between runs, just drop me a not; I can run it on a specific page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Border Country

You just close a RfD for Border Country, but I didn't see a link to the discussion page on the talk page. Is this something you should be doing, or do RfDs have different rules than AfD? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to add one, you're welcome to do so, but they are not required (even with AfD). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Brooke Hart Photo

Hello, JLaTondre, it's me with a different sort of question. I found some terrific photos relating to the Brooke Hart Article. They are here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/12/2010-09-12_they_had_it_coming_gov_glad_mob_lynched_killers.html

I have never uploaded a photo to a WP article, and I wouldn't have a clue how to if I wanted to; and I don't think my geriatric old friend of a browser could do it anyway. I checked out the ownership of these photos, and found this:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=public%2Bdomain+Brooke+Hart&btnG=Search

Does this mean the photos are public domain? And, if that single photo of Brooke Hart is in the public domain, would you be willing to upload it into the Brooke Hart Article? Thanks, as always, -- Michael David (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not mean that it is. It might be, but I don't see anything that specifically states that it is. As the person is deceased, a fair use argument might be made. However, I have not kept up with Wikipedia fair use policy (I stick with stuff that is clearly not under copyright). You would be better off asking an someone who is more versed in image policy. I'm not sure where the best place is to ask, but you could check out Wikipedia:Files for deletion and look for an active admin to ask. Sorry that I couldn't be more help. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response J. I'll take your suggestion and snoop around some more. Be healthy. -- Michael David (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article deletion reasons

i want to create a new article about the Unitarian Universalist holiday of "Chalica", but Wikipedia says you deleted a previous article of the same name for "Blatant copyright infringement", so i'm to contact you before trying to create an article on the same topic. What do you need to know from me, other than that i don't intent to blatantly infringe on copyrights?  :) Mister Austin (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need anything from you. You are free to create your article. You may wish to review Help:New article which contains some helpful information. If it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and is referenced, then you should be fine. If it doesn't, than someone may object to it. WP:CSD will give you information on what types of pages (like copyright infringements) will get speedily deleted. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2010

(UTC) Wonderful, thank you!Mister Austin (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

黑龙江 at RFD

I'd rather you not be so hasty at closing such RFD's. First off, there were only two WikiProject China participants in that discussion. Secondly, I did post the concern at the target page, but since the target article is so inactive, I decided to post at RFD. Lastly, I had to deal with a troll who probably knows little about current WP practise or the language. A conclusion of "no consensus" cannot be reached with such little participation. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hasty? The nomination has been open for 2 weeks. That is well past the 1 week requirement. Leaving it open any longer is unlikely to draw more participation and the amount of participation is irrelevant to whether there is consensus. Of the participation that occurred, there was no consensus.

I did leave you an "out". If you posted at the target and received no objections, just be bold. If there is disagreement, than the bold, revert, discuss cycle will bing resolution much better than leaving this RFD open will. Most RFD participants are not going to have the necessary knowledge (i.e. familiarity with the Chinese language) to weigh into a discussion of a redirect like this.

Also, I recommend that you review our civility policy. It is not appropriate to refer to a fellow editor as a "troll".

-- JLaTondre (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

well amount of participation could be relevant considering we haven't heard opinions other than "neutral" or "this is not English". So do you think I would be fine if I re-targeted right now? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Section Headings

Hi,

For some reason I no longer have Section Heading titles showing in the Articles. There is a Table of Contents and, when I click on a particular Section, it goes to that Section, but all that is there is a straight line separating the Sections. There is also no button to edit a Section. This just started today. Any thoughts? Thanks, as always, J. -- Michael David (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I read this awhile back, but didn't have any immediate suggestions. I meant to come back to it, but got distracted and forgot. I hope you were able to find a solution. Sorry for the slow response. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Headings Issue

In case you're wondering why I am responding with a new Section: That is a part of the problem I wrote to you about.. Short explanation: I am working with a very early version of Internet Explorer on a Mac. Because of recent techincal changes to the WP site I no longer have Section Headings in the Articles and, consequently, no edit buttons that enable me to edit just a Section of an Article - OR a Talk Page. I plan to change browers soon but, until then, I can edit just a whole page - or nothing. Be healthy in the New Year. -- Michael David (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognized content

Resolved

 – Thanks! --Admrboltz (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if the Recognized content task will be completed soon? It seemed to run on Sat/Sunday then last week it was Monday, but its now Wednesday. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (disambiguation)

When you "closed" the RFD discussion for Centrifugal force (disambiguation), it was a redirect, because we had already decided to get rid of the disambig in favor of the summary-style article at Centrifugal force. There was nothing in the RFD discussion to suggest reverting it to a disambig page, a move that none of the involved editors would support. See Talk:Centrifugal_force#Re-merging, where nobody objected to my proposal and action of getting rid of the disambig. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A procedural note: If you disagree with a XfD close, you should discuss it with the closer first and then take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you cannot come to a resolution. Editing against the close is frowned upon. I don't care, but other admins will block over that.

Also, instead of redirecting something and then sending the redirect to RfD, just send the original to AfD next time. It makes things easier.

It would have helped had you summarized the discussion at the talk page at the RFD nomination and actually explained your logic. You would have been more likely to get support from participants for your position. That's why you only got two "keep" responses (both with logic that was faulty). However, at that talk page, only you and Martin Hogbin mentioned deleting the dab page. JohnBlackburne opposed it (with reservations in the long term) and the other handful of editors didn't mention it at all. So, somebody did object to your proposal, and in the absence of an opinion from the majority of participants it's a stretch to say "none of the involved editors would support".

I really don't see what harm there is in having a dab page. Yes, centrifugal force is a summary page, but a dab page is not an article, it's a navigation tool. Why not make it easy for experienced users to skip past the summary page? Anyhow, it's not worth arguing over. Past experience has shown keeping it as a redirect is harmful since the target is not a disambiguation page (it confuses people as they expect a dab page & it can also result in faulty links). Therefore, I've revised my close and deleted it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize the way I went about it was screwed up. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with JL-Bot 5?

At least on WP:MILHIST, the last update of recognised content removed all the A-class articles from the pages... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded at that talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking minor assistance

Your bot correctly removed an orphan template from a new article I started Human rights concerts. Thank you for that. I need help on a very minor thing that I don't know how to do. The article title reflects a proper name "The Human Rights Concerts". The words "Rights" and "Concerts" should start with upper case letters. But when the article was first saved - the Wiki system automatically treated those words as words that should be all in lower case rather than having "title case". Is there any way that you can help correct that? Thanks Davidpatrick (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can move the article to the desired title. See How to move a page for directions. If you have any questions after reading that or when trying to move it, let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Two deletion debates at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 20

According to this discussion about the "60s punk" variants, Black Falcon recommended deletion of the third redirect 60s Punk though he did mention retargeting for the others. If we adhered to his recommendations, shouldn't the outcome of the redirect above have been deletion rather than retargeting?

In the discussion about the "noticeboard" variants, the proposal was to revert the redirects to an earlier reversion in their pagehistory, not necessarily suggesting outright deletion of them. Only the "noticeboard" variants were recommended to be kept as-is by multiple users; however, only both I and Rossami directly addressed two specific redirects that the others left out. These were Administration notice Board and List of regional notice boards, which were the only ones agreed upon for reversion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

60s punk: There was not a consensus for deletion as Rossami argued that they be kept. Also, you failed to tag the pages with {{rfd}} when you nominated them. Therefore, deleting it would be inappropriate.

Noticeboards: Again, you did not tag these redirects with rfd when you nominated them. This means potential users were not notified of the debate and therefore the statue quo is the best outcome. However, if you wish to re-target those two, feel free. An RFD is not required to change the target of a redirect. You could have made the changes without initiating the RFD. If there is conflict over the target, an RFD can be used to resolve that conflict, but the first place it should be handled is at the redirect's target

Let me know if you have more questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no compelling policy or mandatory reason that I can see for forcing someone to place an RFD tag on a certain page before listing it at RFD. According to the guiding principles of RfD, one of the scenarios for closing an RFD was such that "The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination." which means whether the redirect receives an RFD tag or not before the discussion was initiated the discussion, if it does not receive any more comments, will result in deletion nonetheless. The outcome of RFD discussions should be decided on a similar basis, and if you think that a redirect page ought to be kept based on the reason that "Nominator has not {{rfd}} tagged the pages" you should note that in the discussion by commenting about the redirects in question rather than closing it in an arbitrary result defined by you as the closing administrator. That is, a sysop is supposed to interpret the consensus that results from a discussion, not put in his or her own reasons for keeping or deleting a particular page in the closing process. Since none of the participants save you presented your idea as a reason to keep redirects as is, and said reason is not documented anywhere that I can see, I would not think it would be a valid reason for a keep closure in this instance. In summary, if you disagree with the nominator's reasoning, do it like Black Falcon did, add your reasoning to the nomination page, but don't close it and add it at the same time.

In general, if I feel that a particular retargeting of a previously defined redirect could be considered a controversial request, such as in the John Knightley discussion, then I will ask for editor input about it, which is the first reason that I would list it at "Redirects for discussion" (note that discussion implies something other than deletion). I feel that RFD is a more appropriate place to gain community consensus in determining the fate of a particular page than the talkpage of the target article to which the redirect points. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The RFD guidelines fall under the overall Wikipedia deletion process rules which do require pages under debate to be tagged. Read the first bullet of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Procedural closure. Not placing the tag on articles is generally considered disruptive and people have been blocked over it in the past. The community consensus on this is strong.

As for the rest, I did interpret the consensus that was shown. There was disagreement (keep, re-target, and delete) so it defaults to keep. Consensus was not shown.

RFD is a place to discuss controversial items (that's why we renamed it from " for deletion"). However, it is not design as the starting point for discussion. Recently, some debates have been closed which went right to RFD when they should have started on the talk page. Unless known something is going to be controversial, be bold and make the change. It may result in BRD, but that is not a bad thing.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

National Museum of Language page

I'd like to add to the NML page. I see you edited it recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMLbd (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I Need a Miracle

Per WP:DABSTYLE, there is no point to have DAB page that links to zero pages titled "I Need a Miracle". It's a waste. CTJF83 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, WP:DABSTYLE does not state that. Anything that helps our readers find the content they are looking for is not a waste. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at MOS:DABENTRIES instead. "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line" in combination with "A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." The DAB title is "I Need a Miracle", with 0 links to pages titled that. CTJF83 19:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not interpreting that correctly. It says each entry should have one blue link. It says nothing that requires the link to be "I Need a Miracle". See MOS:DABMENTION which specifically allows this type of linking in dab pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there are 2 entries with 2 blue links. I guess it is fine, but I'm adding Toca's Miracle CTJF83 22:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jl-Bot and WikiProject United States

I recently updated Wikiproject United States to include your bot here with some modified parameters. It had been previously setup on another subpage. I also added it to a couple of other projects. Do you know when you will be running your bot again? --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I ran it against that page and it's been updated. Your setting for the A-class category is not correct as it has a non-existent category name. You may wish to change that. Let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you I think I fixed the A-Class problem. I also rearranged things a bit to be in a little more logical flow. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-ran it and it picked up the A-Class articles (plus your other mods). As for the other projects you mentioned in your original post, you can either let me know which ones or wait to the weekend when I'll make a full bot run. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at it looks great thanks. I can wait till the weekend for the others. I will go and check each one and make sure they are setup right tonight. On a side note I submitted a bot request for someone to help automate a couple tasks with the US Wikipedians collaboration. Would that be something you might be willing to do with your bot? If not no problem just thought I would ask. Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That requests looks like you want something more real-time (i.e. low latency between when it's tagged and listed). I'm not really setup to do that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, it was worth asking. --Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about JL-Bot

I was wondering if JL-Bot will work with multiple projects. For example, for Portal:United States we have a Featured content section that is meant to list the featured articles and lists for United States articles. It is currently manually derived because there are a lot of projects relating to United States and I was wondering if there was a way we could use your bot to automate that somehow. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't currently. Let me think about how hard it would be to add. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, if it helps the only way I could see it was allowing multiple categories but I don't know how hard it would be or if its the best way. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It turned out to not be that hard and it's been implemented. I've updated the documentation page. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, let me know if you apply it. It worked in my testing and it's a pretty low risk change, but I always like to keep an extra eye on changes in case of unanticipated issues. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow thats awesome thanks. Ill implement it today and let you know when I am done so you can watch it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I went and added a few just as a test here. I added some of the FA class categories but I wasn't sure what to set for the category/template parameter. Please let me know if I need to change anything. --Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, you would set the category/template parameter to match that of the different projects. The content-featured-articles says to list articles that are featured articles and it does not take an argument. Since you just want to list featured articles, the easiest thing is to set the category parameters to the FA categories. Take a look at the change I made and the resultant output. If it's not clear or you see something off in the results, let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok thats great thanks, that makes complete sense. Would it be possible to ask for one more optional parameter? Would it be difficult to add an article count function? I was thinking in the header like this Featured articles (50) but any way is ok with me. It will make it a lot easier to update the numbers. --Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Implemented. That was an easy one as I already did something similar for the 'maximum' parameter. Instead of placing it in the header, I put it at the end of the content type (since that is how the 'maximum' works and it avoid some complexity). I enabled it at the page above so you can check out what it's like. If you have a better idea for the wording, let me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's perfect thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States

I've set up a page at Portal:Supreme Court of the United States/Recognized content. Just curious how long it will take to get updated? -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's running now so should be updated shortly. Typically runs once a week. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow this is so awesome. I'm going to have to add this to lots of other portal pages. Thank you so much, this is such a useful tool! -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a few more to some portal pages and talk pages. Any idea when the next update will be? :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll run it tonight and catch those. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New dump

BTW, the newest dump has just completed. Thought I'd let you know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm subscribed to the dumps RSS feed so I'm automatically notified when they're done. I've just been out of town for a bit. The latest dump has been processed and the results uploaded. This includes the fix for the most popular journals (all pages are listed now, not just existing pages). Let me know if you see anything else that needs to be modified. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stuff seems... off. For example, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology was cited 95 times [3] in the previous dump, but now the top missing journal is Zoos' Print Journal with 35 citations. It's as if it skipped the first few hundred top-missing journals. Haven't had the time to look at other things in details yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It shows up in the B2 page so it's definitely something with the logic for the most popular. I'll look into it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved and updating now. My previous change for making the most-popular both existing and missing had the side affect of anything listed on the most-popular not appearing on the top-missing. I also made a change so that HTML encoded entities are treated the same as their decoded versions (ex. '&' and '&' display the same so are now combined, see [4]). -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I just spotted something else to be considered. |journal=Science (journal) gets treated as something different than |journal=Science (See for example [5], sort alphabetically). It's not a big deal, and the compilation doesn't require another re-run because of this, but it's something that could be fixed eventually. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if we shouldn't move to template-based tables. Like you'd place {{JCW-row|rank=1|journal=J. Biol. Chem.|display-as=''J. Biol. Chem.'' |target=Journal of Biological Chemistry|citations=22044|articles=8191}} rather than the hard-coded version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that is half-a-dozen of one and six of the other. As the pages are not manually edited, I'm not sure there is much benefit, but it's easy to do if you want. There is a new dump posted which seems pretty early. I probably won't get a chance to process it until next week as I have limited availability for a bit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Benefits would be reduced page size, cleaner diffs between updates, and it would make it easier to tweak things like Google/Wikipedia searches. And probably prettier bot code. I also saw the new dump, which is surprisingly soon. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary benefit of reduced page size is reducing page display times and switching to a template doesn't help with that as the template is expanded when the HTML is generated. It also has no impact on the quality of the code as either way it's inserting values into a predefined format. However, I'll implement it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the (journal)/(magazine) logic could be extended to incorporate (newspaper), it would be nice too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have the merging working for all three cases, but I need to do some more testing to verify it's formatting them correctly (existing, dab, redirect, etc.). By the way, I did see a case where the piping masked the fact that while there was a "NAME (journal)" page there was no "NAME" page (I don't recall the name of the top of my head. I have it written down, but not with me. When I have a chance, I'll "fix" it by moving the page or creating a redirect). That should be a rare occurrence so not planning on checking for it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot is currently uploading a new run against the 20110803 database dump. In addition to the new dump, this run contains the following changes:

1. The pattern matching to extract the journal= field from the citation templates has been tweaked to avoid some errors.
2. Templates (especially language) ones within the journal= field are handled better (this will be an ongoing issue as new ones appear in dumps).
3. The "Science" and "Science (journal)" cases are merged now and the logic handles "(journal)", "(magazine)", and "(newspaper)".
4. The tables are generated via templates.

Please let me know if you see any issues. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'll let you know what's what after I get a chance to review it. BTW, I think there's a new dump being uploaded right now. I don't know how comes they are so closed in-between each other, but I'm not complaining! Certainly better than every 3-4 months. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A developer made some changes to the dump code. They aren't planning on running it that frequently normally (there is a mailing list if you are interested). It looks like the urlencode function fails if there are open brackets without close brackets (you'll see some cases where the row template doesn't get parsed correctly). I may have to add a search= parameter to the row template and do the urlencoding in the bot vs. relying on the MediaWiki software. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I note some things are a bit off. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Missing1, the top two missing journals are reported as "Journal of the National Cancer Institute (journal)" and "Brain Research (journal)", which have perfectly fine journal articles over at Journal of the National Cancer Institute and Brain Research. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured out the problem. It's a byproduct of adding logic to merge the (journal) and non-(journal) cases. I didn't account for a particular case. I'll implement a change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment over at WT:JCW#detection_of_appropriate_page regarding automatic detection of " (journal)". Thanks for working on this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Implemented changes to address both Headbomb's & Vandenberg's comments. Hopefully, the merge and display logic is now correct for all the (journal), (magazine), or (newspaper) variants. I recommend that if you see anything else, you list it at WT:JCW. Might as well make it more visible to anyone who might be interested. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in recognized content

At WP:FG the bot keeps adding the Road to... (Family Guy) Good topic to "Former featured topics", instead of adding it to the Good topics section. Can you fix this? Gage (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The bot is listing it per the current status given at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topics/Road_to..._(Family_Guy). While it looks like there was a successful nomination, the actual status was never updated. If you update the status, then it should be reflected on the next run (or if you don't want to wait until then, drop me another note after the status is updated and I'll make a special run for WP:FG). -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I need to change there. Would you be able to change it for me? I tried comparing it to another good topic in the project, and it seemed like it was fine for some reason... Gage (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I compared that page to another good topic page. There was a missing parameter which I added. I also ran the bot against the WP:FG subpage and it's been updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees/Recognized content

Hi. Did I break something when I changed the output style for Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees/Recognized content? On its current run-through, JL-Bot seemed to malfunction. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You changed the project parameter from |category = New York Yankees articles to |template = WikiProject New York Yankees. There is no Template:WikiProject New York Yankees and no articles are tagged with it (hence the bot reporting no articles found). By the way, |WoRC-cat=yes is not a valid bot parameter so not sure what you were attempting there. You may wish to check out User:JL-Bot/Project content for more information on the valid parameters. Once you update the settings, let me know and I can re-run the bot on that page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was basing it off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content, which is what that page gave as an example. I fixed it, so hopefully it should work now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

JL-Bot Recognized content

Hello, I am having trouble on with the JL-bot for the Latin American music task force as it does not seem to find results. Here is the subpage. Thank, Erick (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The configuration says to use Category:WikiProject Latin American music articles, but that category contains no pages (so no results). You need to either specify the category(s) that contains all the pages for the project or the template(s) that is used to mark the pages. From my quick perusal, it doesn't look like this task force has its own template. If that's correct, your best option is probably to use all of the Category:Latin American music articles by importance categories (i.e. add a |category = parameter for each of those six categories). Let me know when you update the configuration and I can re-run against that subpage. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, I added a category parameter for each of the importance category. Erick (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The page has been updated. Let me know if you have more questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

With thanks

		The WikiProject Scotland Award of Excellence
		This award is given with many thanks to JLaTondre for creating the wonderful JL-Bot and in helping sort out the recognised articles list for WikiProject Scotland, from Ben MacDui 19:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

WikiProject Kentucky

ShmuckatellieJoe (talk · contribs) was trying to freshen up the look and feel of WikiProject Kentucky, but in so doing, it seems he has messed up the Recognized Content page. The user was subsequently blocked from editing for a week (for something unrelated). He emailed me to tell me he was leaving the project because of the block and told me I might want to try and fix whatever he broke. Since I don't know anything about your bot or what ShmuckatellieJoe did to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Recognized content, I can't really fix it. Could you please take a look and see if you can determine what he did? All I know is that no recognized content is showing now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks great. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

JL Bot

Hi, is there a way to configure the output for the "Featured sounds" section to use <gallery> instead of :File:? The page in question is here. Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gallery may not be the best approach as it produces rather ugly blocks for audio files. However, I'll look into sound file markup and see what can be done. I probably won't be able to get to it for a bit; maybe next weekend's run. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

reposting a page deleted 5 years ago

Hi, 5 years ago I started a wikipedia page for myself as a writer. The name of the entry was Alexander Aciman. WHile I was mostly a student then, I have now published a book and publish regularly, and contribute to the publishing industry in many ways, and am the editor of an online publication. I was told that before starting a new page, I needed to contact you. What should I do? Adrianswist (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would have pointed you to me. I don't have any special say regarding this. I would, however, suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. That is the community's general position on autobiographies. Please read the whole thing, but the last paragraph provides a recommended approach if you believe you meet the notability guidelines. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Geology recognized content

Wow - all this time the recognized content for geology was inactive because of a typo? Thanks for catching that! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

JL-Bot orphan removal

Hi there... JL-Bot recently removed an orphan template from Giakoumelos, stating it isn't a valid orphan. There is only one link to the article, from a user talk page, so I believe it is an orphan. I haven't undone the edit but perhaps the bot needs tweaking. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Giakoumelos is marked as a surname page. Per the orphan citeria (under "On set indexes"), surname pages are supposed to be orphans. Looking at the page, an argument could be made it's not a true surname page, but as it is currently, the bot was correct. If you want to revert the bot and also remove the surname tag, I don't have an issue with that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Headings generated by JL-Bot

A quick question: the heading parameter in User:JL-Bot/Project content allows one to select between two different heading styles. Is there any way to completely turn the heading off, so that the bot generates only the list of articles? Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 12:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a noheading option (see documentation). -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Two parameters or more for output?

I added a 2nd parameter for output here, will that be okay for the bot to parse? Also, what is the maximum number of WikiProjects for it to draw from? Thanks for this great service, — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, multiple source templates & categories are supported. There is no maximum (well, theoretically there is an upper limit where my computer would run out of memory, but that's high enough to not be worth worrying about). -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's great! Only other question is how often does it notice it and update? :) — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I run it once a week; usually on the weekend. However, it can vary based on my schedule. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, that's plenty frequent for Wikipedia's purposes, thanks very much for this great service to the site!!! — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment parsing by JL-Bot

It looks like JL-Bot chokes when HTML comments are present within a citation template. See Military career of Hugo Chávez for an example of the markup that's causing problems and this diff for what it did to the bot's output. Choess (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Epworth Show

Hello, thanks for tagging this for notability. The tag's sat on it for 5 years now; you may want to look it over and consider the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/TPS-43 vandal

Please watchlist Talk:AN/TPS-43 if you haven't already. It has been under attack by a nut from Colombia since 2006. We started with 24 hr blocks and quickly grew to one year. He ran out of IPs at home, work, and school (all in Colombia, generally around the city of Medellin). Now he is attacking from whatever mobile IP he can find. He is now blocked for 1 year for block evasion on sight. I blocked the IP accordingly. Just check the history of AN/TPS-43 until it was protected to see. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about your Bot

Greetings, I recently created some pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island/tasks/Under review/GAN so that I can link the content for development in the to do lists of some of the state projects. I would like these to not include the section header is that possible? Thank you in advance for the help. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, use the |noheading parameter. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome thanks, I didn't see that one. Have a great weekend and sorry for the stupid question. Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:...

Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

List of articles cited on Wikipedia

Hi,

when compiling WP:JCW, I assume you are generating a list of articles cited on Wikipedia as an intermediate step, and I was wondering whether you could make that available in some form, ideally on a routine basis. I would like to use it to take a look at the portion of it that is open access.

Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The listing is generated by parsing a Wikipedia database dump for the "journal=" parameter within the {{Citation}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Vancite journal}}, and {{Vcite journal}} templates. The Wikimedia Foundation provides new database dumps about once a month. When a new database dump is available, I download it and run a script against it that does the parsing and posting of results. If there is additional information you are interested in, let me know what and I'll see if it's easy to add. You could also download your own copy to do whatever processing you are interested in. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Having "doi=" covered as well would be a good start. Is your script available somewhere? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a Perl script that works on Windows under Cygwin using ActivePerl (may require tweaks under other environments). If that works for you and you have your email address enabled, I can email it to you. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:JL-Bot

I left a message at User talk:JL-Bot a while back.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how I missed that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg

Hi! I noticed you ran your JL-Bot today to update the "recognized content" of the page that shows the Wikiproject Washington featured content and it just deleted the featured picture that I put in there a little bit ago: [6]

Since you are operating the bot that deleted the image, Im wondering if you can help me find out why it isnt being included in that list despite being a featured image on Wikimedia Commons: [7]. It should be popping up on that list automatically right? I dont deal with image files too much so I dont know whats going on. I looked at the file text and it has this: "Assessments|featured=1" tag in there but apparently something is missing that the JL-Bot checks to determine if its recognized or not and its getting deleted. I noticed that other featured pictures such as this one [8] have other text in there:"assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpg" Also, I think it was originally featured on the Turkish Wikipedia, and I dont know if it is also featured in English Wikipedia or if that matters at all. Anyway, could you take a look real quick to determine if that picture should be recognized, and it it should, could look into and fix whatever is going on? I would greatly appreciate it. That picture is very nice and I want it to be recognized! :)

Thanks!! 75.106.229.140 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The bot can only list pages featured on the English Wikipedia. If you wish to include pages featured on another Wikipedia (or Commons), you will have to manually maintain them. To do that, you can add another section to the page, give it whatever section heading you wish ("Externally featured pictures" perhaps?), and list it there. As long as it's after the <!-- End of content generated by JL-Bot -->, the bot will not modify it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thats what I thought might be happening originally, but I later noticed it is actually another version of that image that actually got featured on the Turkish wikipedia, [9]. The one I showed you before is actually another image that from the looks of things, went through the vetting process and it looks like it did achieve featured status with a 5-2 vote in favor of being featured (on what looks like English wikipedia). Heres the nomination page: [10]

Is it possible that the picture became featured and nobody bothered to put the wikitext in the image? It just says 'featured=1', when it should have something like '"assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=...'. If that is the case it should be an quick and easy fix lol.

Thanks for looking into this btw! 75.106.229.140 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That nomination is from Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org) which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). What link's here ([11]) does not show the picture ever being nominated on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg

Hi JLaTondre! I have been trying to figure out why the File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg featured picture isnt getting picked up by the bot youre using and getting recognized as being featured content on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Washington page. It got featured earlier this month and I think that page has been updated since I made my latest attempt to fix it. I thought it would have been included in the list of pics when I tagged the new English Wikipedia picture page with the Category:Featured pictures of Washington (state) text, but it seems all that did was add it this list here-->Category:FM-Class Washington articles. Im out of ideas on whats going on, could you look into it? Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by G755648 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The picture is not tagged as being part of that Wikiproject. If you wish it to be listed in the Wikiproject, then you need to have the Wikiproject "claim" it by adding {{WikiProject United States|class=FM|importance=NA|WA=Yes|WA-importance=NA}} to the file's talk page. See File talk:Mount St Helens Summit Pano II.jpg for an example. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

AAh, thank you!! I never thought to look at the talk page lol. Ill tag it. Thanks again for helping out.G755648 (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Syntax for User:JL-Bot/Project content

the portal page, Portal:Society/Featured articles, uses |template= twice, which is causing the page to appear in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. does the bot recognize any other syntax (e.g., |template1=, |template2=). if not, would it be possible so we can remove this page from the tracking category? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Implemented. The change was pretty trivial. You can modify the project page to use numbered parameters. See the updated documentation for details. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

great. I am assuming you did the same for |category=? I just fixed Portal:Typography/Maintenance and Portal:United States/Featured articles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

JL-Bot incorrectly removed "Featured Portal" from WP Louisville recognized content

See here. The Louisville portal is still on the Featured portals page, and there has been no indication of de-listing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tracked it down. {{Article history}} has been modified to no longer apply categories outside of Talk: namespace. This has impacted the portal categories the bot relies on. I've queried there to find out what is going on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

New Portal Featured Content

Would you mind running the bot for us? Thanks! Portal:Seattle Sounders FC/Featured content Stevetauber (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. No results found as Template:WikiProject Football/Seattle Sounders FC task force is not a valid template. If your project doesn't have an unique template, you will need to use a category instead (perhaps Category:Seattle Sounders FC task force articles?). -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey/StatusArticleList

Hi! Recently, I'd added a DYK to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey/StatusArticleList and changed at the same time the Template:Col-break to Template:Columns-list for better visualation. However, your bot JL-Bot restored the template for a reason I didn't understand. In order to know better, may I kindly ask you what is the reason for this preference? Thank you. --CeeGee 03:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That listing is automatically generated by a bot. Everything between the <!-- Start of content generated by JL-Bot --> and the <!-- End of content generated by JL-Bot --> will be replaced every time the bot updates the list. If the project wishes to have the list automatically maintained, then it is limited to the bot's display options. If the project wishes to manually maintain the list, then it should remove the bot template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I see, however, isn't possible to rewrite the bot's relevant part script replacing "col-break" template with "columns-list", whch would give a far better reuslt? Just have a look at the current DYK-section of the WPTR to see what I mean.--CeeGee 05:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use it originally as a significant percentage of browsers visiting the site didn't support it. Looking at recent stats, those older browsers are now less than 4% of traffic. That's low enough to make the switch in my opinion as it simplifies the code. Done. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding JL-Bot

As of last year, JL-Bot was involved in updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Missing1 monthly, but then it stopped. Is there a discussion where this was decided upon or did something else happen? Silverseren^C 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to temporarily stop running it last year due to some computer issues. When no one noticed, I decided to not bother resuming. That task takes considerable resources to run. If the output is not being used, it's a waste. Given you are the first one to ask in almost a year, there is not much point for me to run it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

With fgnievinski and me, that's three. I would have asked sooner, I know I noticed the lack of updates, but I figured there was a reason why it didn't run (e.g. no new dumps or something) so I slaved away in other regions of Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:JL-Bot. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

JL-Bot: Jim Henson on WikiProject Disney

For some reason, the bot deleted the date on Jim Henson being the featured article of the day on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/Featured content. I fixed it, but I don't know why it did that. I figured I'd give you a heads up, since that seems odd. Elisfkc (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It did that on a few other reports too (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Roads/Recognised_content&diff=prev&oldid=701307944). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Found the problem. I had upgraded Perl modules to the latest versions, but the date parsing had a bug in this one. I've worked around it and re-ran against those two pages. Thanks for letting me know. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Journal Citation Statistics

Are we due a new run of this? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The April database dumps are not available yet. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I take it these are what you work on with your BOT. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, given the volume of citation templates, it is more efficient to parse a backup than the live site. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hi, can you unprotect Rock band (which you protected 8 years ago)? I intend to redirect it to Band (rock and pop), which was created a couple of weeks ago. --Pipetricker (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot Issues

In the featured pictures section of WikiProject Women Scientists, there was a picture of Ida Wells who is a journalist and not a scientist. I removed the picture, but I am not sure how your bot works and if the picture will come back. Sepideh (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The bot lists pages based on the project's criteria. In this case, the project is using Template:WikiProject Women scientists. That template is on both Talk:Ida B. Wells and File talk:Mary Garrity - Ida B. Wells-Barnett - Google Art Project - restoration crop.jpg. If she is not a scientist, it should be removed from both pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

API change will break your bot

Hello,

I noticed that JL-Bot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// This is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): What time frame are you basing that observation on? I made the change the other day after seeing the mailing list notice. Everything since then should have been https. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)-- JLaTondre (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the list with JL-Bot was created the same day as the e-mail message you read. The devs will generate a new list before the cutover (probably next week), and if your name is still on it, then I'll let you know. Thanks for the timely update. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

New dump

There's a new dump out. Can we expect a run for WP:JCW in the next few days, or will it be a bit longer? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, JLaTondre. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)