This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, GoingBatty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 ( talk) 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In case you are unaware, redlinks are acceptable. Please see WP:REDLINK. They simply indicate a need for new articles and exist to show that. Please stop going about and removing all redlinks from articles. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the errors on the Eagles page! I've changed them; but you shouldn't be afraid to be bold and make those changes yourself if they are correct and would improve the article. Thanks for helping improve the pages! Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, GoingBatty. I noticed some of your recent contributions to The Kinks articles, and just wanted to say "Thank You"; you're doing some great work. - I.M.S. ( talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I just saw your edit to my subpage, and I would just like to know that I really do not care if you mess with it, even if most of users' subpages are private. Thanks for fixing the link though; I should have known about that myself. Schfifty 3 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The last link repair after the long quote from John Ardoin was not from the Callas documentary itself. It was from an interview with Ardoin which was included as a Bonus Feature in the DVD set from Bel Canto Society. It was the half-hour Patsy Swank program in which she interviewed Ardoin about the documentary. That's why I added "Extra Features" to the footnote. I will go back and find out what the name of the program was and change the footnote to the name of Swank's program. Shahrdad ( talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Maria Callas article, I didn't remove your "Extra Features" from the reference - I just combined two references so it's only listed once (currently reference #43). Hope this is OK with you. GoingBatty ( talk) 03:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice about using AWB on references: it doesn't always get it right. If you look at your edit to Hyperbaric medicine, you'll see that your script mistook the second author's name (Virginia McCullough) for a location (McCullough, Virginia). I've sorted that out now - the original citation was indeed badly formatted. I would add though that there's no reason to change the |date parameter to |year (and there are reasons why date may be preferred, since a single metadata field is probably more useful for a date than having it split), and your edit summary "Fixing links to disambiguation pages" was misleading. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you very much. -- Giselle Chamorro ( talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just improve incoming links.It is ok?. -- Giselle Chamorro ( talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not going to be of much assistance, as I do not know anything about this topic. I disambiguated some links and fixed a typo. The article really needs a subject matter expert to fix the English grammar. Good luck! GoingBatty ( talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that article is an orphan? There seems to be a tremendous of links to other articles there. Let me know. King Shadeed 19:44, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

When I go to the What Links Here page, I only see three articles, which isn't a tremendous amount. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As to this edit. Yes, it is. Debresser ( talk) 13:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you changing links to Postmaster General, a disambiguation page, to Postmaster general (position), a non-existent article? In what way does this help our readers? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken - I don't think it helps our readers to have links to the Postmaster General disambiguation page, as there's no information there that describes what a Postmaster General does. Some of the links I've been able to change to the correct country-specifc article. Do you think it would be better to remove the link altogether, instead of replacing it with a link to a non-existent article? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better to leave the link to the disambiguation page, which at least gives the reader some possible expansion of information, unless there is a specific country link. There's no harm in sending oneone to a page where they might get additional info, and which, at some future time, could have a specific link to that country.

In general, I don't think it's a good ida to remove links that have even partial value. For instance, in the article Irvington, New York, you removed a link to James Hamilton, apparently because it wasn't specific, but the link went to a disambiguation page which provided a link to the correct person, i.e. Alexander Hamilton's 3rd son (which the Irvington article specified). The most helpful thing would have beebn to change the link to make it go to the right article (which I've done), the least helpful is to remove any chance of the reader getting some additional information by removing the link, which is what you did.

Please be more circumspect in these sem-automated edits. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point with the Postmaster General changes. When disambiguating the articles that link to Postmaster General, I saw there was already an article with a redlink to Postmaster General (position), so I followed that example. If someone actually creates the (position) article, they'll probably add it to the disambig page. I'll go back and revert my changes to redlinks.

As for as the James Hamilton change, I just messed up. The Irvington article said "James Hamilton, the third son of Alexander Hamilton." So I went to Alexander Hamilton#Family to get more information, and thought the article said his third son was born on May 16, 1796. Then I went to James Hamilton, saw there was no one with that birthday, so I removed the link. Now that I re-read the "Family" section, I see that his sons are not listed in chronological order. So you're right, I have to be more careful. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, thanks for letting me know -- I've no problem with mistakes, I've made more than my share, I'm sure, and I appreciate your willingness to go back and clean up. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also at a bit of a loss to know why Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Ireland), during the period of the Irish Free State is being directed to Postmasters General of Ireland, an office that ceased to exist in 1831 following the Act of Union 1800, not-withstanding the common usage of the term 'Postmaster General'. JJ Walsh was the first holder of this new position, not the inheritor of one dating to the 18th century and which hadn't existed for almost a hundred years. RashersTierney ( talk) 13:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi RashersTierney - you're obviously more knowledgable about this topic than I am. Are you concerned about an edit I've done, or the articles in general? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've revised a few entries [1] [2] [3] to clarify matters as I see it. No big deal, the ambiguity did not entirely arise with your revisions but they did highlight them. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad you've made these clarifications - thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious edit I don't understand why on this edit you de-capitalized the first letter of template names and removed links and styling from the publisher field. How is this better? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks That's what I figured, but just in case... — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So how do people describe the stadium--is it "Tubby Raymond Field at Delaware Stadium" or something like that? Figured that would be good to have in the infobox ... Blueboy 96 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

People describe the stadium as "Delaware Stadium". While it would be correct to describe the field as "Tubby Raymond Field at Delaware Stadium", most people wouldn't be so verbose. Thanks for all the work you've been doing to improve the Delaware-related articles! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for combing through Kelly Rowland (album) using AWB. However, when script tools such as AWB are used they conflict with MOS:ITALICS because they removed '' marks from the references. Per MOS:ITALICS only magazines and publications etc. should italicized but because the {{ cite web}} automatically italcizes anything which appears in the "work=" field the '' are required to unitalicize websites etc. -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 14:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reread {{ cite web}} and MOS:ITALICS and agree with you. I've submitted a bug report to AWB for this issue, which has already been addressed.

However, you may also want to see the discussion on this topic at Template talk:Cite web There's a claim that web sites should be italicized, so I've asked if MOS:ITALICS should be updated. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, when you've answered an editsemiprotected request like you did on Talk:The Beatles, remember to change the {{editsemiprotected}} into a {{tlx|editsemiprotected}} to remove the request from the open request category. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stickee - thanks for educating me, although Template:Editsemiprotected suggests that we use {{tlf|editsemiprotected}} instead of {{tlx|editsemiprotected}} when the edit is complete. What's the difference? GoingBatty ( talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter which is used; tlx and tlf just change how it looks. tlx looks like this: {{ editsemiprotected}} and tlf like this: {{editsemiprotected}}. I personally prefer the tlx with a link in it but whatever is fine. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed some edits of your using AWB. You may want to activate "Restrict orphan tagging to linkless pages", which is the current consensus for orphan pages. You tagged some articles as orphan which have 1 or 2 links. This is correct by the strict definition of WP:ORPHAN but current consensus advices that we focus in pages with no incoming links. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 16:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis - Thanks for the message. I've read Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria and set the AWB option as you suggested. GoingBatty ( talk) 22:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I have noticed some of your edits using AWB, and think your orphan tagging is still a bit draconian. At least two of the articles you have tagged as orphans recently ( turret sponge and encrusting turret sponge ) were marked as orphans despite having several links.

I hope this can be fixed, though since I don't have any knowledge of how AWB works, I cannot suggest a course of (automated) action.

Thanks. Seascapeza ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've set AWB to only tag articles as orphans that have no incoming links, because Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria states "it is recommended to only place the {{ orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." Special:WhatLinksHere/Turret sponge and Special:WhatLinksHere/Encrusting turret sponge indicate there are no incoming links from other articles. Could you please explain what is Draconian about following this recommendation? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 04:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

The sponge section of Wikipedia is very sadly underrepresented. So. We have to start somewhere. We have overall sponge articles and some articles on class and family and precious little below that in zoological ranking. The articles I am writing are about species and genera which fit in below class and family. All of them link in to classes and family and finally (working upwards) to sponge phyla. Is that not enough? These are children articles, if you will, of other articles, not weird offshoots which have no place anywhere on Wikipedia. I notice your specialities are mostly in popular culture -- please can you try to see that zoology doesn't work in quite the same way?

The sponge articles (in this instance) have their place in Wikipedia, are not orphaned, in terms of the fact that they fit perfectly well into their rankings in the overall Linnaean scheme of things, and there is a serious possibility that they will never have any incoming links to them. They however, cannot be considered orphans because unlike say, an article on my great uncle Sydney, they do fit into the overall grand Linnaean scheme of living things.

good enough? Seascapeza ( talk) 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Seascapeza - I'm concerned that you seem to think that because I tagged your articles as orphans, I was labelling them as "weird offshoots which have no place anywhere on Wikipedia." On the contrary, it's obvious that you're doing a great job creating articles in the specialty you're passionate about. Yes, it's true my specialties are mostly in popular culture. On the day I made the edits in question, I was spending time reviewing new articles when some of the articles you wrote came in to my queue. Many new articles have much more serious problems than being an orphan that require assistance from other editors, but yours are better than most.

Whether an article is about popular culture, zoology, or any other topic, the definition of an orphan on Wikipedia is the same. I urge you to read Wikipedia:Orphan, where the first paragraph states "These pages can still be found by searching Wikipedia, but it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages; it is therefore helpful to add links from other suitable pages with similar and/or related information. De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web."

Deleting orphaned articles would be Draconian, which of course I didn't do. Tagging them with a template that encourages you and other editors to "Please introduce links to this page from related articles" is far from Draconian - it is simply asking people to help make your articles easier to find.

Maybe someday you or your fellow editors will create additional articles to complete the Linnaean taxonomy, so that Haliclona links to Haliclona (haliclona) which could link to turret sponge and encrusting turret sponge. Your article in process of a list of marine animals of the Cape Peninsula would be another great way to de-orphan the articles.

I hope you'll see that I was acting in good faith by making edits which I thought would improve these articles, or help encourage others to do so. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've never been scuba diving before, but I'd love to try it sometime. The closest I get to seeing marine life is taking my kids to aquariums a couple times a year.

Hello, just to let you know a Community Good Article Reassessment of an article you recently contributed to, Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier, has been made as an editor doesn't feel that it meets all of the GA criteria yet. The reassessment can be found at the article reassessment page. Please feel free to make any comments there. Regards,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom ( talk) at 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

At present, the Uncategorized Articles list doesn't recognize {{ uncategorized stub}} when differentiating between "tagged" and "untagged" articles, so if I don't use the main {{ uncategorized}}, then the article fails to drop off the "untagged" list (and that makes it impossible to actually clear the "untagged" backlog, which is still over 10,000 articles even after I've spent two months doing almost nothing but tagging articles).

I've already asked User:JaGa to revise the toolserver programming so that it recognizes articles with {{ uncategorized stub}} and/or {{ morecat}} as being tagged — but until he actually does so, I have to use {{ uncategorized}} as it's the only one that actually reduces the size of the untagged articles list. Bearcat ( talk) 03:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How would that fix the problem of the number of articles on the toolserver list? Bearcat ( talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. For what it's worth, the last time I checked in, he assured me that he hadn't forgotten about my request and just hadn't had a chance to get to it yet. I agree, it would make things better all around (and would save me the hassle of constantly having to explain why I'm tagging articles that have stub categories, too...) And for an added bonus, I've also had to try to sneak around a completely different bot that automatically detags articles that have category declarations on them — even if they're hidden maintenance categories like Category:Year of birth missing that also don't actually count as "categorized". Grrrrrr.

But then again, once I do finally get that list under control it'll be a lot easier to stay on top of category maintenance all around, given that I'm identifying and asking for fixes on the problems that crop up as I'm going through the list. Short term pain for long term gain, I guess. Bearcat ( talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Why would you unlink the publisher of some references, as you did in this edit? Please respond on my talk at your earliest convenience. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser I never got a response the last time I asked (and sorry for bothering you again.) Sigh. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hope springs eternal! — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

In this article, you changed the variable "authors" for "coauthors" in the template {{ Cite web}} a couple of times. This caused the names of all the authors not being shown as this template need to have an "author" filed before the "coauthors" field is considered. I had to use one of the author in the field "author" to fix the problem. I'm just letting you know that for your future corrections. Pierre cb ( talk) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I made the change because the "authors" parameter is not valid, but I should have previewed the results before saving my change. I've updated the {{ Cite web}} documentation to make it explicit that the "author" parameter must be used in conjunction with the "coauthors" parameter. Thanks again! GoingBatty ( talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop you a quick note regarding Actor Rebellion of 1733: I've reverted your "typo fix" since the title actually does read "Commedian". Thanks, and keep up the good work. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{♯ ♭} 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem, and thanks for letting me know. How about we change the code to {{sic|hide=y|Comm|edian}} so it will still display as "Commedian" but no one else will make the same mistake I did? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly didn't know such a template existed. I've added that in now; thanks for the tip! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{♯ ♭} 03:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. InBetween [sic] is the name of the festival, it is not a type. Try checking out the references before attempting to fix things which don't need fixing! Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem, and thanks for letting me know. I have gone back read the reference as you suggested, and confirmed that "Inbetween" (lowercase "b") is the name of the festival. I apologize for presuming it was a typo. Similar to the solution in the comment above, how about we change the code to {{sic|hide=y|In|between}} so it will still display as "Inbetween" but no one else will make the same mistake I did? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the change suggested above - please let me know what you think. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Nice work of typo fixing! bender235 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I think you should apply for Reviewer status. — bender235 ( talk) 00:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Bender235! I'll have to read the requirements to be a reviewer and see if that would be a good fit for me. Thanks again! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Typo Team Barnstar
		Here's another one for ya, keep up the good work! ;) œ ™ 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've added the Typo Team userbox to my talk page. GoingBatty ( talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good news...finally got the change implemented, so pages tagged with {{ uncategorized stub}} don't get listed as "untagged" anymore. So I can finally start using that template properly! (*grin*) Bearcat ( talk) 17:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks for sharing the news. GoingBatty ( talk) 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have specified that two of the source are in English because (a)this is a subject where at one time all the key publications were in Italian,(b) the sources are published in a German journal (where most of the articles are in German) and (c) one is by an Italian author (who usually writes in Italian). Please stop blindly reverting me. You are not a bot, there is no need to act like one. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem, Elen. I picked up your article from the Check Wikipedia list. I think I accidentally picked it up twice because AWB was not successful in cleaning up the identified issues. (I'll leave those for you to resolve as part of your construction.) It appears AWB removes the parameter language=English because the {{ Cite Journal}} documentation states "English is assumed and should not be specified." Even without the "(in English)" note in the reference, I would assume the sources are in English because the article titles specified in the references are in English. You may want to modify your references to find another creative way to specify these are in English, so no one else "fixes" them in the future. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Sorry I was a bit snappy - it was doing it twice that annoyed me, and I tend to mistrust automated tools anyway. The other two 'problems' are no such things - one is the correct formatting for the footnote anchors (AWB obviously not picking up on the pipe here), and I can't tell what it's looking at in the other one, as the formatting does not look like that on the page. Ah well. Thanks for explaining. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your follow-up, Elen. I took a closer look at the two syntax issues that Check Wikipedia found:

1. The same reference - <ref>[[#Rathbone1991|Rathbone (1991) p1]]</ref> - is used twice in the article (second and third paragraphs). AWB normally does this kind of combination - maybe it's the wikilinks and footnote anchors inside the reference tags that it doesn't expect? Per WP:REFNAME, I suggest these be changed to <ref name="Rathbone1991p1">Rathbone (1991) p1</ref> in the second paragraph, and <ref name="Rathbone1991p1" /> in the third paragraph, so they're grouped together in the Notes section at the bottom of the page.
2. In the second paragraph, the reference tags are inside the quotation. Per WP:REFPUN, I suggest this be changed to "one of the largest coherent groups of documents from the [[Roman Empire]]."<ref> etc.

I'd be happy to help with manual (non-AWB) edits if you like, but don't want to get in the way of the rest of your work. Just let me know. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The effect I am after is the last example at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods, which I'm doing with wikilinks. My understanding of refname is that in order to have Rathbone (1991 p1)etc I would have to create a full citation for p1, a full citation for p2 etc. However, from what you are saying, I could create one citation for Rathbone's book and give that a refname, then use the <ref name=Rathbone>Rathbone p1</ref> format. How does this format the references section - can I still use both reflist and reflist|2 to create notes and a bibliography? Elen of the Roads ( talk) 12:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I updated the references for "Rathbone 1991, pp. 1". Do you want to try to do a few? GoingBatty ( talk) 18:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. RL intervened (whaddya mean, I've got to work). Actually, I don't think what you did was a right lot of help, as it just converted the references to Harvard refs, which wasn't what I was trying to do at all (did I point you to the wrong bit in the link?). However, let me test what I said above, as this may work. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I misinterpreted your link. The important part of what I was trying to do was combine two instances of the same reference into the same note. Whether you use Harvard refs or not is secondary to that. Good luck with your edits! Let me know if you want any help. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

S'okay, I figured it out. I think what you did will prolly work. Thanks for all your help. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, you can see the problem [4]. The Harvard template isn't allowing me to specify page numbers in the footnotes, the way the linked version did. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was that you were using the same ref name = value for different references. Try looking at the edit I just made to combine references and see what you think. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Also, now, when you click on the link in the notes, it takes you to the reference, which the links method doesn't. So the first time you cite the page, you do <ref name="Foo2000p1"> {{Harvnb|Foo|2000|pp=1}}</ref> and the next time, you just do <ref name=Foo2001p1/> I think we've got there. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the typo fixes in this article! Herostratus ( talk) 06:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you cleaned up my Tatra T77 article some time ago, and I see that you are of typo team. Could you please copy-edit Vítkov arson attack of 2009 for me? Thank you very much. Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help with that! Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 10:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Going batty, if you want to rename an article it is important to use the move function rather than use cut and paste, especially if you are then going to propose the article for deletion. This is because the edit history includes the attribution to the original authors. I've cleaned up Dr Dr. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to use the move function on Doctor doctor please, but got an error because Doctor Doctor (UFO song) already existed as an article that simply redirected to the album. I understand your concern about the attribution and apologizing for not reading the error that I see now is in red and bold. Thanks for setting me straight - I'll get it right next time. GoingBatty ( talk) 22:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems, you might find wp:merge useful next time you want to do something like that. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Can you be specific about what you had in mind in this edit? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael - one of AWB's general fixes is to append {{ Wikify}} if article has less than 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of the article's size. I also added a link to finite group theory, which you may want to readd. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello GoingBatty,

Thanks for edding links on the Albert Muis article wich I have also translated in dutch and french on wikipedia néetherlands and French who needs also the same links, but I'm only a beginner on the wikipedia community,links: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Muis and http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Muis

Altough Albert Muis was a Dutch artist for presicion and singularity of this project, if you can see and look for the justice of this article.

Thanks a lot, Sincerly Jurgen borgers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurgenborgers ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jurgen - thanks for the feebdack. You may want to read Wikipedia:References for beginners. I only edit on the English Wikipedia. If you need any assistance with the Albert Muis article, please be specific as to how I can be of service. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty,

Thanks for edits via AWB on the SAP Sourcing page. I am also a newbie. I did a comparison of the last 2 versions and though the comparison highlighted about 5 sections, in only one could I see any difference. What exactly was changed?

Also, I corrected some of the issues a previous editor cited, and now I want to know how I can remove some of the warnings (without violating any rules). How do I do this?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.b.wroblewski ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - To see what was changes were made on an article, you can click on the "View history" link at the top of SAP Sourcing. The changes I made were to bold the words SAP Sourcing in the lead, remove the underscores from a wikilink, and add {{ DEFAULTSORT}}. To remove some of the warnings, edit the article and remove the appropriate parameters from the {{ Multiple issues}} template. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I was just worried if I removed the warning and the original person who put them there was not satisfied that I had done enough to improve the article, then I would get in trouble. Daniel.b.wroblewski ( talk) 06:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor may disagree with you, but as long as you act in good faith, you won't get in trouble. GoingBatty ( talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi- I wanted to get your opinion on something regarding an edit you just made to the Delaware football template ( [5]). I disagree that the links should be removed even though those years did not field football teams. The reason is because every season will be condensed into decade-long articles (such as how William & Mary Tribe football, 1900–1909 is set up, for example). Very few individual seasons' articles warrant their own article entirely. When there is no team fielded due to World War II, as is the case with 1943 William & Mary Tribe football team, the blue link to that season will just redirect the reader right to the spot in the decade-long article, which isn't inconvenient since all 10 years are on that page anyway. If it took the reader to its own article for pretty much no reason, then yeah I agree it shouldn't be there. The strike-through on the template indicates that no team was fielded that year anyway, so if they want to see the exact reason why then they can just click on the link and see for themselves (again, akin to 1943 W&M). Also, the W&M and Richmond football templates use this stylization, so consistency shouldn't be messed up, IMO. Jrcla2 ( talk) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since your intent is to create Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football, 1940-1949 and then have 1943 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team redirect to a section in the decade article, I reverted my edit. Thanks for taking the time to provide this detailed message instead of just reverting my edit, and looking forward to seeing the articles! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is there anyway you can fine-tune your AWB wikification? Your recent edits The Last Tightrope Dancer in Armenia defaultsorted it as such, beginning with the article "The." When clearly it should be sorted under L for Last. I'm afraid I don't know much about AWB myself, but there has got to be a way to adjust or stop this. best, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shawn - after reading WP:SORTKEY, I agree with you. I manually fixed the article, and submitted an AWB feature request. Thanks for the feedback, and happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your AWB bug reports over multiple issues, it would be more helpful to me if you could report all missing parameters and inconsistencies in one go, rather than piecemeal. Reporting and fixing one by one is going to take much more if my time. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reporting issues as I find them, not trying to find them (although maybe I should). I will be happy to combine multiple {{ Multiple issues}} issues in one bug report for you. Thanks for all the work you've been doing to fix these! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi GoingBatty,

I notice you did a clean up for my new article "John Kenworthy" created on the 25th Nov, but the template at the top is still there. I thought this was supposed to be removed once the article was reviewed & cleaned up. I asked how long this would take via the feedback page on the 27th Nov, but it is still pending. As you have already reviewed the page can you please help with the template. Please let me know.

Thanks Gavin 11:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachforthesky ( talk • contribs)

Hi Gavin - My AWB edit to fix parentheses and remove stub tags was not a complete review. Since you asked so nicely, I have done a review for you and removed the template. Your help to disambiguate the link to Kestral would be helpful. You may also want to use {{ Cite book}} for your references.

When you create new sections in talk pages, don't forget to add a section header and sign your posts using ~~~~. Happy editing! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw your temporary note at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. I think the typo fixer should not attempt to undo any contractions. I set up a typo-fixing run to fix "before it's too late", but quickly abandoned it. If the text uses contractions I think it will usually need a full copy-edit, well beyond anything that AWB can do. -- John of Reading ( talk) 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there there would be too many false positives. I initially thought that all the "good" contractions would be inside quotations (which aren't impacted by the typo fixer). As I hit the "Save page" button, I realized that there would be lots of song/album/book/movie titles with contractions that we would NOT want the typo fixer to change, which is why I quickly self-reverted my suggestion. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit looks like a possible AWB error in inserting "primarysources = May 2010December 2010", although it's possible something else happened there. Please check and file a bug report if necessary, thanks. Anomie ⚔ 20:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not catching this mistake before saving my edit. I've filed this bug report. GoingBatty ( talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I directly reverted whatever changes you made to the Ryan Kennedy page, I just read something and kind of think i souldn't have reverted it, though can you please explain what changes did you made here. Nasirakd ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, but it doesn't appear that you reverted my change. GoingBatty ( talk) 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Yobot/Multiple issues contains a custom module to replace/remove deprecated parameters in Multiple Issues. Feel free to use it if you like it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to the world of custom modules. I had to add a semicolon at the end of "ArticleText = ArticleText2" to make it work with User:GoingBatty/Sandbox I see you've already cleaned up the deprecated parameters, but I can think of another use for this. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)