User talk:Jarry1250/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Problem with bot

I hope you appreciate the irony: [1]. Every page in Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed will no doubt be the same. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologizes, I won't run again my bot on Wikipedia space, thanks for your intervention. --Sisyph (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

new entry for Susan Dorothea White

Hello Jarry1250,

Thank you for your message welcoming me to Wikipedia.

I have written most of a new entry and would like some feedback from an editor. My first attempt was deleted because I forgot to put it on a subpage

. The revised entry is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gorflet

Also I am having trouble following the Wikipedia guideline for repeated use of a reference (e.g., in the entry, ref. #17 is a repeat of ref. #1, #22 of #2, etc.). Please can you help?

Best wishes, Gorflet (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

about Alessandro Esseno

Hello Jarry 1250,

I think I might need your help to correct the translation of the page Alessandro Esseno, I do not think to go it alone ... thank you very much! anthony. 00:01, 2 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony luciani (talk • contribs)

entry for Susan Dorothea White

Thanks for your help - repeat references worked fine - entry now up. I have another query but will wait until your return or ask 'help'. Regards, Gorflet (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help in editing our World Species List Forest page.Rstafursky (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Thanks! That would be great, thank you. ~♥~ Tatlolou --Tatlolou (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Tatlolou

Thanks

5 euro per minute! Hell, that's even more expensive than Cambodian internet. Thanks for your !vote of confidence and your note on my page - hope to see you around WP:ACC! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Jarry1250 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 8 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I just thought I'd introduce myself, as a fellow member of the BAG at the very least. I must say that though I have not been around very long, I was slightly thrown to see your name on a BRFA. "Who is this guy?" I thought to myself - and hence how I ended up here, wasting the time of a Wikipedian much more experienced than me. Anyhow, pleased to meet you! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jarry1250. Welcome to the BAG. My job has been keeping me busy, so I haven't been as active as I was before. I still check in from time to time though! I'm an admin on here and at meta: so if you need anything, let me know. Nice meeting you. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re.:Shvetaketu

Hey Jarry, Nice to know that the scriptures interest you. Yes, I am working on that Article and you may see certain expansion of content and addition of context to the Art. in coming few days. Till then, for your consumption you may browse the Art. by the great Indologist *Patrick Olivelle at *Scribd. Enjoy. -- soft dynamite (talk) (Contributions) 15:23, 14th April 2009 (UTC)

re: Incorrectly tagged as needing infobox

Thanks, that's a rather nifty tool which will certainly come in handy! :) I've had a quick play with it and it seems to work just fine. I had considered making a similar request at BOTREQ, but I may as well ask you: would it be possible to create something similar that would check for the existance of an image/file? Thanks again! PC78 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The category in question is Category:Film articles needing an image. I guess images would generally be found in the |image= parameter of {{Infobox Film}}. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean; the tool seems to have inadvertantly picked up 95% of the category, many of which I guess are just stub or flag icons. What about checking for a specific paramater usage in a specific infobox? PC78 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better. :) A few issues I've noticed with both tools: the "edit" link is taking me to the main page for some reason, and I'm getting links such as "Albéniz (film)" (may be a promlem at my end). Incidentally, I used the infobox tool to do this check, which you may find of interest. Thanks again! PC78 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, I've just switched my encoding over to unicode. PC78 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm short of articles to tag (or untag) at the moment, but would it be possible to have a similar tool that checked an article category for a talk page template (i.e. a project banner) in order to find articles that aren't tagged? PC78 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the spiffy list! Feel free to be nosy regarding my planned agenda; I was hoping to find ways to automate such lists and find automated tasks to address such lists. If you have any additional thoughts about tagging and assessing film articles, feel free to share with all of us coordinators at WT:FILMC. :) I'm envisioning an agenda in which a ton of tagging and assessing can be done in a short while, and there could be revisiting of the same tasks on a monthly basis (so such duties don't feel so overwhelming). We'll see how it goes. Again, thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I did, and it's much appreciated! I am hoping to formalize tasks to use these pages to help us. I will introduce the preliminary agenda soon, and I hope that PC78, who is more knowledgeable than me about the pages, will suggest how to use them to accomplish the listed objectives or additional objectives. Would you mind in the future if I asked you questions about what is and what is not possible about generating such lists? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Call sign disambiguation

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		As promised, just a small and nowhere-near sufficient token of thanks for that extremely handy toolserver report you created for me. Stellar work! Mlaffs (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Existance Checker

BTW, love the narrative about the new report you built for me on your toolserver page!
Anyway, here's the question I was wanting to ask. I was looking at your "incorrect 'needs-infobox' finder" tool, and your description of how it could be used for any intersection of article template and talk page category. I wanted to see if it was possible to turn that tool on its head a bit, by having it look for an article that includes a particular template and an associated talk page that isn't included in any categories, but it requires a value in each field.
What I was thinking of was trying to use it to find articles that are missing the relevant project tag on their talk page. Say I create a new article about a U.S. radio station. In the article, I'd use {{Infobox Radio Station}} and I should tag the talk page with the {{RadioStationsProject}} template, which includes the article in Category:WikiProject Radio Stations. Or if I were to create a new disambiguation page, I should use {{disambig}} on the article page and {{DisambigProject}} on the talk page, which includes the article in Category:Disambiguation pages. Similar relationships hold true for television stations, TV shows, movies, etc.
Unfortunately, all too often people will do the first step and miss the second, which means that the talk page doesn't actually get created. Sometimes the talk page gets created later on with basic talk page posts, but remains untagged for the relevant project. So, what I'm wondering is whether it's possible to create a version of this tool that would look for articles that are using a particular template, but that either don't have a talk page created or that have a talk page that's not included in a particular category.
Does that make any sense? Mlaffs (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Tools

Hey, just wanted to thank you for your Image Existence Checker Tool, it's so helpful. Would it be possible to make a tool that would search for all articles in a category that don't have a .jpg image? It would be really useful for finding articles that are in need images (there may already be a tool that does this, but I haven't been able to find one). Thanks! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, THANKS! This is great, although I'm not really sure how to use it...what is the "exlcusion category"? Let's say I wanted to find articles in the talk page category "B-Class plant articles" that don't have images. What would I put for the exclusion category? (the example link you left on my talk page didn't work unfortunately). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 12:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see! Smart idea. Thanks again, I've been looking for a tool like this for months. You're my hero :-) SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Free Article tool

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For making the "Image Free Article" tool for me. Thank you!! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For providing the Wikiproject Biography great tools. Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another editor already awarded you some hours ago! Shame of me for being late on that but I was really online these two days. Anyway, thanks again for the tools. It's very nice cooperating with you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's #3 in 48 hours, but I don't mind, it's nice being appreciated. Hold on a sec, haven't we got an encyclopaedia to be improving? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbogast & Bastian GA Review

Hello, Jarry1250, and thank you for taking the time to perform the GA review on Arbogast & Bastian. I believe that I have addressed all of the suggestions made in your review, with the exception of "short summary of what happened 1905-1939 and 1945-1970." Although I recognize the omission of this information is an inherent weakness in the article, I could find no information about these periods in any of the reference material available to me. I hope that these modifications meet with your approval. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Habibah bint Kharijah ibn Zayd ibn Abi Zuhayr

I fixed the redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

COA of NRW

I couldnt get back to you b4. Rhine province was a good call. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just noticed that you corrected some problems on my user page. I must say that was kind of you, so I thought I should give you my regards! Thank you! --Aciram (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Russell Patterson

Hi, Thank you for fixing the repeated references on the Patterson article. As for the headings, your changes do not reflect my intent at organization, though I now see problems with the way I had it. Perhaps if I omit the 'Biography' heading it will be possible to make more sense of it. The main issue I see now is that the 'Work in other creative fields' heading should be equal to the preceding ones: 'Early years' and 'Celebrity illustrator', as well as to the 'Legacy and awards' heading that follows it. 'Work in other creative fields' alone should have subheadings: 'On Broadway', 'On the silver screen', and 'In the funny pages'. I am new to wikipedia, so I am asking for your input on my thinking in this regard.Artofmine (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again...

Go on, you've earned it...

Just wanted to say thanks again for all the bits and pieces you've put together for myself and WP:FILM over the last couple of weeks. I couldn't possibly bestow another da Vinci barnstar on you when you've just scored a hat trick, but do please feast on the cookie to your right. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

hey

I am divya singh former indian basketball player, i edited geethu anna jose page , can you please put her pic on the page because i dont know how to put it. thanks for making her page. Divya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya4india (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New toolserver request

I see from your status that you might not be around much to see this, but I'll throw it up here for whenever it's convenient for you, if it even interests you. You've created a monster… and I'll try to keep it concise!

Articles for AM radio stations are supposed either to use all three of {{AMQ}}, {{AML}}, and {{AMARB}} or to use {{AM station data}}, which automatically includes all three.

Articles for FM radio stations are supposed either to use all three of {{FMQ}}, {{FML}}, and {{FMARB}} or to use {{FM station data}}, which automatically includes all three.

Articles for low-power FM radio stations are supposed to use all three of {{FMQ}}, {{LPL}}, and {{FMARB}}.

So, assuming this is possible, I'm looking to find all articles that are using {{Infobox Radio station}}, that are not using either {{AM station data}} or {{FM station data}}, and that are not using at least three of {{AMQ}}, {{AML}}, {{AMARB}}, {{FMQ}}, {{FML}}, {{LPL}}, and {{FMARB}}. This would uncover situations where articles have been coded with none, one, or two of the individual templates, but not all three of them. Assuming this is even possible, of course. Mlaffs (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jarry1250. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jarry1250. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ListasBot

Hi Jarry,

As the BAG member that approved ListasBot, I wanted to run something by you.

As you may remember, ListasBot's function was to try to fill in the listas parameter of {{WPBiography}} templates on talk pages. Recently, I made a change to the code so that, if all else fails, it will look at the article's page and try to find a DEFAULTSORT tag there (before, it was only looking at the talk page, not the article page), and uses that value, if it finds one. The results so far seem to be very promising, as the bot is now making edits to about 70% of the pages it comes across.

I want to get this question out of the way just so that I have my I's dotted and my T's crossed. My question is, since this falls under the category of "improving the operation of a particular task" in the bot policy, does this need a new BRFA?

Thanks, Matt (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

etc. Nhyty (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Nhyty has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Mary Carpenter GA review

Hi, Thanks for the heads up. I will take a good look at this tomorrow and over the weekend. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would be grateful if you could take another look. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, will try an enlist a copy-editor. Good luck with your exams. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough review. Your comments encouraged me to work hard to make the artcile achieve GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Existance Checker

I was finding your tool very useful but have not been able to get it to work for the last week. Is the problem with the tool or my account/connection? Traveler100 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Electric Car - references

Hey Jarry,

Thanks for going through Electric Car with your tool (I assume it's a tool anyway) and fixing up some a few little slips in the references-- some probably mine, some not.

As you may see from the history, I have been going through trying to check them for bit-rot, and augment them (I can't stand just a [1] or a reference that is just a bald web address, or a link to a home page, not very helpful, especially to print users, and just plain lazy if you ask me).

I'm about two-thirds of the way through now, so could I ask you to check the article again when I am done? (I'll tell you when!) As you can no doubt see, I am trying to be quite vigilant, but inevitably there is the odd slip that another pair of eyes (manual or automatic) can find. It becomes easier once one can see the meat for the potatoes. It's a slow process as I check every link and try to make them as specific as is possible (and reasonable). And also I get distracted because then when adding links, I go off onto other pages and start fixing THEM. Still, it can become incredibly boring fixing up a big long page like this, so a diversion is probably good.

Thanks in advance (and for your fixes already), SimonTrew (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my user page. Yeah, I should maybe get AWB at some point, but I am one of those "slow editors" who like to go through the text. Bots and tools certainly have their place, they are great for finding small slips etc, and doing routine repairs, but we humans have too! I kinda think of bots and tools as the white corpuscles of Wikipedia, and human editors as the surgeon.

Yeah I could do it myself but, whether it's automated, automated-assist (like AWB) or manual, another set of eyes is always handy. When you're fixing a hundred or so references, many of which are just plain awful, it's very easy, however hard you check, to miss the odd little thing, your can't see the meat for the potatoes.

Thanks for the suggestion of FA of Electric Car. Apparently it was nominated before or something-- I can't believe it considering how bad just stylistic things like the references were. It's looking a lot more structurally balanced now I think. I've hardly changed content, except for some syntax changes and adding conversion templates and some internal links (fixing some other articles along the way, that's a bit of a curse with me, I follow a link and then staret working on *that* article, ad infinitum...) I do make content, but I try to keep the "copy editing" and "content creation" tasks separate, otherwise I find I don't get anywhere with either. So, I'm kind "letting" other people do the content and they're "letting" me do the gnome stuff. Seems to work, for this article, no clashes yet-- in other places it doesn't work so well.

In real life, I tend to create the skeleton of an article first, and put in what I want to say, then I go and fill in the details, references, make it conform to whatever style guide is in use, and so on. If I try to do both at the same time, I've forgotten what I wanted to say by the time I'm half way down Page 1.

Thanks once again SimonTrew (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

John Wark

Hi. If you compare the two versions, you'll see why I've reverted your good-faith unsubsting back to the substd version. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, why? What harm's it doing? --Dweller (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Subbing

I've finished my first pass subbing, if you want to take a look please do. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you had a quick sub at Léon Gard. I just translated this as it had been machine translated and was quite an old entry on Wikipedia:Pages requiring translation or something like that. THanks for the quick look-over (are you stalking me? Can't believe you would just randomly pick that out, even out of Recent Changes!) glad you didn't find much. I presume, of course, you checked it against the original French WP article for accuracy :)

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Jarry1250 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 6 has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Image checker

Will check it out, but very busy right now. Good luck with the exams! --Stefan ^talk 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm von Reden

yes google german is pretty bad, i will return, but will gladly accept any help. pohick (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, redirected to existing article added some details from deutsch pohick (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you deleted it, you explain the toolserver steps

Well I see your deletion request was completed.

Since you successfully destroyed my days and days of work, it is now up to you to demonstrate to me how exactly to use the toolserver to replicate what I was trying to do.

Thanks for wiping out all my good faith work to improve Wikipedia. Why should I bother to try contributing anything to the project if you're just going to follow behind and wreck it? DMahalko (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Checker enhancement

I am finding the Image Existance Checker very useful for sorting out the request for photographs categories. In most groups it has a hit rate between 30%-50%, which is acceptable. There are always going to be articles with maps and other images that do not meet the request. There are however problems with articles that have project icons on the page. A good example of this is Category:Plant articles needing photos which shows most article as having an image. If you look at some of the articles in the list you can see that there is a small image in the page that belongs to a project stub template. Is there anyway you can change the program to ignore images brought into an article via a template? Traveler100 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update. This will make the work easier. Traveler100 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Federici

The 7 days for PROD are up on this one. How does it actually get deleted then? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Thanks for the tip but it doesn't really matter anymore, I'm almost done with the article creation for now. But good to know for the future if I start any new project like this. Thanks! --Skizzik ^talk 12:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping self

http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/talkcatintersect.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&pcategory=Living_people&tpcategory=Biography_articles_without_living_parameter&limit=50000 - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

My BAG membership nomination passed today at 8/0/0 unanimously. I sincerely thank you for participating in my BAG request. I appreciate all the kind words that I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me....Have a nice day. :-) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know it's your day when you get thanked for things that have very little to do with you. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo request removal tool

It could be me, but I'll gladly show you where I had problems. I added articles under the English Wiki and the Category:Valley Metro Rail stations. As I stated on PhotoCatBot's page, I really haven't has such good luck with tools. In the past I've had trouble moving images to the commons via Magnus' CommonsHelper. As it turns out, my browser was often too weak to complete the job. I don't know what the issue is with yours. ----DanTD (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw, drat. I thought it was for articles that already have images but are incorrectly tagged as needing them. ----DanTD (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Some of them are right on target and should have image request tags removed(Crestmont (SEPTA station), Crestview (Amtrak station), most of Phoneix's light rail station articles). Others have image details requested(Medford (LIRR station)), while some have only maps and logos(BMT Broadway Line, BMT Nassau Street Line). I also see one where somebody tried to add an image that's little more than a redlink(Niles (Amtrak station)), as well as some where the only images are in templates(Angora Loop (SEPTA station)). ----DanTD (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong perception and the subsequent truce offer

Hello, Jarry1250. You have new messages at Threeafterthree's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drone2Gather (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can LivingBot work on various wiki projects or only wikipedia?

Hello Jarry, I was looking at your LivingBot project, it is very interesting and I would like to implement it. Specifically I will be doing some work on wiki projects such as wikibooks and wikiquotes. Is LivingBot able (through the parameters) to work on wiki projects other than wikipedia? Or would the php code in Wikibot.php have to be adjusted for that? Lwangaman (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambig report

Nice, I've categorized it in the Category:Wikipedia statistics. If you know similar works, please add them to this category, otherwise they loose much of their usefulness (since they are almost impossible to find). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

LivingBot errors at Good articles/recent

Hi. Just a quick note to let you know of this edit (see the first two entries), showing a LivingBot glitch.Thanks. –Whitehorse1 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done for now. Gimmetrow 18:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Stand Up Against Corruption and Poverty

Hi, Just want to bring it to your notice that, Stand Up Take Action is a Global campaign against poverty but The Art of Living Foundation is mobilising single handedly the campaign called Stand Up Against Corruption and Poverty and that Art of Living is also part of the Global campaign against poverty ( GCAP).

The foundation is taking this campaign to over 80 countries this year through its volunteer networks. We therefore look forward to a page which details the campaign.

We have the full content for the sub directory/directory for this and we need your help to publish in wikipedia as we are completely new to adding content to wikipedia

Thanks in Advance Suact09 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Falaise Pocket map

That's excellent - very impressive, and much clearer than the existing image! I'm going to be cheeky now... would it be possible to make some minor changes:

• Some of the unit designations (eg XV Corps) are black and the rest are blue; can they all be the same colour?
• Would you mind doing a version without the text box/legend etc in the corner? The reason is so it can be used on non-English language Wikipedias (maybe flags could be added to the arrows to indicate nationalities instead?)
• I'm wondering if the map might look better in different colours (maybe shades of green rather than white/red?)

If you don't mind, these alterations would be great. If not, no problem - it's still better than what we've got. Thank you very much! EyeSerene^talk 10:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! EyeSerene^talk 16:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed you produced the image in Inkscape - can I ask how you got the fonts to render correctly? I've had all sorts of problems getting them to display properly on stuff I've done, to the extent that I ended up saving them in png. EyeSerene^talk 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those tips - much appreciated! EyeSerene^talk 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The United Kingdom in World War I

On May 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The United Kingdom in World War I, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator 10:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:WP:Good articles/recent

Thanks for letting me know of that. Dough4872 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks Jarry!
		For LivingBot, a cold glass of motor oil in appreciation from us humans, because nobody likes tedious work. I can finally sleep at night knowing his glowing red eye is watching over me, er... I mean watching over the WP:Good articles/recent page. Thanks for responding to my request so quickly and professionally Jarry, cheers! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurostar

The Bot listed Eurostar, but the article was merely put on hold. I corrected this. Hekerui (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Humans! lol Hekerui (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks

hi, thanks for help. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wierd...

Hi there. You went to put a tag or message flag on my talk page I think, but I'm not sure what the plan was... Can you enlighten me? Cheers! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, that is a task I had been thinking for months should be automated, so I hope your bot pans out!hamiltonstone (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for the info. Just a rowdy user complaining about me using huggle. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain during World War I

Jarry: I see that you you are at work right now. I have proposed ways to eliminate each of the nb footnotes. Do with them what you will. I want to be helpful, not obnoxious. Best of luck to you and Jim from here on with your article. (Can't help saying that I remain on a rather different wavelength than you and Jim over Churchill.) Hartfelt (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry: I suggest that you or Jim take a look at the con objector section. I can't tell for sure, but it seems that there is some redundancy, with the same numbers being talked about twice. If so, this should be streamlined to cover the info once and more concisely. Also, there is at least one long and convoluted sentence in the current version that could be broken apart for ease of reading. Hartfelt (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PFO

Would you have a look at User_talk:Centrx#RV. -- User:Docu

#Result. -- User:Docu

Fake timestamp to help archivebot - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 12:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcahic tags

Nice work. If necessary push the date forward to the oldest dated category for that tag, please, or re-create the cat - which seems excessive. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Coat of arms of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

Do you have any more sources? I'd like to see it rated Start class, but I would have a hard time rating it as such with only one referenced source (and a rather wishy-washy one at that). I'm not saying the Heraldry of the World site is an unreliable source to be avoided, but it doesn't work very well as a stand-alone source. I use it sparingly and try to get further verification. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Grandiose to have a look at it. Bit busy at the moment myself. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

Sure. I have not looked at this deeply, but there seems to have been somewhat more of a relationship with Flynn than a single letter. Not sure if it is enough to make him notable, but I think that it could do with a wider review. I admit that in its current state the article fails to provide any good reasoning, but when I dug a bit deeper, there could be something there, so I prefer to err on the side of caution. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DrilBot

Thanks for the approval of DrilBot 2; I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't any major opposition to running it on a different list, with a slightly different goal in mind (setting DEFAULTSORTs). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon

Ah yess! I remember now, it's been a long time since I did my History GCSE - would it be possible to scan me a copy at all? 79.72.194.53 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I

Hi you mighty want to look at British Army during World War I I have just been tinkering with it (you might recognise some of it from elsewhere) --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you jumping in. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		This medal is for your bot's great work maintaining the list of recently goodified articles. Great job! (And yeah, that's right, I said goodified.) – Quadell (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

h3/h2

If you want to do some tests ('script assisted editing'), there is now a report for a new check #083. It should grow gradually with the ones that don't match the new definition of #007. I wouldn't go much further for now though. Personally, I'm working through the longer pages listed here. -- User:Docu

I looked at a few of LivingBots contribs. I hadn't thought too much about how to go about check #29 before, so I'm a bit hesitant to comment on this. Personally I think this might be more tricky than #83. Ideally, if it finds a series of headers that are all two steps lower, it would rise them by one as it did on [2][3][4]. I'm not quite sure about these changes [5][6]. For [7], I'm not sure about the correct structure, but I doubt the bot could know it either. A good thing that CFO did, was to adjust default appendices (e.g. References) to "==". -- User:Docu

It might block it at another stage, but I tried the php link on Gholam_Ruhani. It adjusts the h3 to h2 despite the presence of {CSRT-Yes}. There are a few cases where default appendices shouldn't be changed and I think your script gets them right (e.g. "References" in The Red Spectacles": it's not part of the last headlines; "see also" in Live in Unity: there are several and they are not at the end of the text). -- User:Docu 14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working through the list from PFO's edits. When my edit summary starts with a ".", the change it made wasn't ideal. It looks like this happened when two headers followed each other with no lines in between (possibly a regex problem) and when the first header was placed directly at the start of a page (no lead "section", likely the same problem). In addition, there is the problem with math tags identified earlier (probably also on "Thermal properties of nanostructures"). If you edit the headers, it might be worth to do some normalization at the same time (e.g. "External [Ll]inks?" => "External links", "Reference" => "References", "(Also [Ss]ee|See Also)" => "See also"). It might be worth tagging or listing articles with many headers for later review. -- User:Docu

Hi, as a short test, would you try your bot on these ? -- User:Docu

Thanks, the tests are more for #7/83 so they are bit different from the ones you already did. BTW, please check this one: [8]. -- User:Docu

From the 10 with the most headers: [9][10]. [11][12][13]. -- User:Docu

A lazy way to validate the result could be to read the numbered TOC (<table id="toc" class="toc" summary="Contents">) on the page before and after the change. -- User:Docu

You might want to double check [14]. There are a bit too many similar pages to say much about the others. BTW, there seems to be a mw bug with the TOC generation on [15] -- User:Docu

re: A request

Thank you for the kind words. Sure, I should be able to have a bit of a look over the article tomorrow. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Albert Vanloo

Hi. I've reverted the bot edits n this case. I don't think changing headings by bot is appropriate. IMO a human editor is more likely to be able to structure an article appropriately, and that shouldn't be changed. Thanks. --Kleinzach 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer, the problem is that heading level are visually irregular, so sometimes it's appropriate to avoid level 3 and use level 4. --Kleinzach 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on my own talk page to keep this in one place. --Kleinzach 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach: the skipping of hierarchical levels in headings is not proscribed and is sometimes suitably crafted to structure and content. Please supervise the bot's operation in this respect. Tony (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)