User talk:R'n'B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1 2 3

Contents 1 Smile 2 Xena: Warrior Princess 3 help on image in my article Besiyata Dishmaya 4 Category:Italian-Irish people 5 Disambiguation RussBot fixes? 6 Empty by year categories 7 Supreme Court of the United States 8 Zeravshan: circular redirect 9 Ambiguous link 10 Strange wikilink edit by RussBot 11 Napoleon 12 Xxxx Yyyy to Xxxx yyyy move(s) 13 RussBot and more than double redirects 14 Z3 / Z3 (disambiguation) 15 category redirects 16 Indian -> India (RussBot) 17 Musette 18 Bot edit to disambiguation page

[edit] Smile

[edit] Xena: Warrior Princess

Xena: Warrior Princess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] help on image in my article Besiyata Dishmaya

hi R'n'B,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Category:Italian-Irish people

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

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

[edit] Disambiguation RussBot fixes?

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

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

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

[edit] Empty by year categories

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

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

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

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States

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

[edit] Zeravshan: circular redirect

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

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

[edit] Ambiguous link

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

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

[edit] Strange wikilink edit by RussBot

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

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

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

[edit] Napoleon

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

[edit] Xxxx Yyyy to Xxxx yyyy move(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whilst I was writing, so were you.

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

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

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

I will reply properly at another time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] RussBot and more than double redirects

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Z3 / Z3 (disambiguation)

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

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

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

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

[edit] category redirects

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

[edit] Indian -> India (RussBot)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Musette

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

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

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

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

[edit] Bot edit to disambiguation page

Hi Russ, I intended the link to go to a specific article about rocks (geological definition). I didn't want someone to have to hunt for the type of rock I was refering to. Why was it changed? [1] Mudgineer (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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