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.

I hope that you might be interested in participating in the discussion here -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the redirect and re-created the article. Please do not nominate it for deletion- i will remove a tag. I am putting up a big heck of a fight to save this article. In case you didn't know, the books are now notable, and google results hits are good. DO NOT put back the redirect. Thank you

DONMARDON ( Donmardon ( talk) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I see that Rick Bot is able to add two or three co-nominators. I think this is good, for the sake of recognizing collaboration. How does it know how to do so? Cheers, Marskell ( talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A related question; pls look at Transformers (film) and Planet. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Serendipodous is listed for Planet, if that's the person you're thinking of on the second one, Sandy. I actually noticed that the bot does it itself, when I went to add Serendip. Marskell ( talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my concern; I try to provide articlestats as these situations arise at FAC, and I wonder if that is what Rick needs/uses in these cases? Transformers (film) is a similar case. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I run the bot manually assisted. It looks for the first line in a FAC nomination file that contains a link to a username (something like "[[user:...") and suggests the indicated user as the nominator. If there are two (or more) on the same line, the bot suggests the first two. When I run the bot I look at the FAC file and if the bot's suggestion is incorrect I (manually) tell it who to use as the nominator(s), i.e. the bot basically says "I'm going to use <somebody> as the nominator for <article>, OK?" and I either say "yes" or "no, use <somebody else> instead". With this algorithm the bot gets it right maybe 80% of the time. If we used a template in the FAC files that explicitly identified the nominator(s), the bot could get it right 100% of the time and I could run it completely automatically. I haven't pushed this (yet), but it is getting a little tiresome to do the manual assist.

Sandy - are you suggesting the attribution in Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2008 is incorrect for these two articles? If so, please just fix it. WP:WBFAN is rebuilt (from scratch) every time I run the bot, using the by-year nomination lists (like the 2008 one) as its input. The primary reason the by-year summaries exist is to avoid reparsing the raw FAC files to figure out the nominators (it's done once with manual assist as described above for each promoted FA, and recorded in the by-year summary file). -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the template idea, would you mind running that by Gimmetrow, since he now has a pre-load? On the noms, I'm suggesting that Alientraveller should be added on Transformers. If I see blatant situations like that in the future, should I just edit them in myself? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I ever pursue the template idea I'll run it by Gimmetrow. If you ever notice problems in the by-year summary lists, yes, please just edit them. The bot is a little sensitive to the exact syntax in the table (specifically there have to be spaces around the "&"), but if you follow the examples that are there it should be fine. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the situations are rare, but now I know what to do. Can you doublecheck my last edit to the by-year list? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:US state dinosaur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I deleted it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the history of the Down Beat article you appeared to be the person who provided the list of all the inductees into the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame. I am currently involved in an attempt to implement a navbox for each segment of the inductees and I would also like to put more information and history into the Down Beat article itself. My question is: "Do you have a source for the list of inductees and also do you have some recommended readings concerning the history of the Down Beat magazine?" Thank you, -- Jazzeur ( talk) 03:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I laboriously found all the summary articles at downbeat.com, like this one (if you change the sid in the URL you'll get to another summary article - the polls seems to have consecutive sids by year). Google finds some (no clue why not more) of them with a search like this [1]. It would probably be easier to find a library with all the back issues of the magazine (!). History of the mag? No clue, although I've been aware of it (never subscribed) since the 1970s. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. You have been very helpful. -- Jazzeur ( talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick, it's been a while. I haven't been very active in recent months, but I seem to have jumped back into things in a big way in recent days.

I've just started work on a radical proposal that would get rid of AFD and PROD. I'm inviting a few people to look at it before I present it in a larger forum. The hope is that this would be much simpler, expand the scope of Wikipedia, be much less traumatic to newbies and get rid of the dichotomy and arguing between deletionists and inclusionists. Anyway, the proposal is called PROMTUS -- PROposed Move To User Space. I would very much appreciate your feedback, and perhaps even your help getting it going if you think it has merit. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be movement on the Category Intersection front. There's discussion at WT:CAT about repopulating categories and there's discussions again on the tech mailing list about implementing Category Intersection. As a first step the developers are considering adding _HIDDENCAT_ as a switch for category pages that would keep the category from appearing at the bottom of articles. This means that all category intersections can be hidden, and the top level index categories repopulated. People will be able to navigate through categories to user-created intersections, and people will be able to make these intersections to their hearts desire without cluttering up pages. This small step will get us on track to repopulate primary categories. Eventually, perhaps, they'll add our check-boxes, and dynamically created intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In further discussions with the developers, it turns out I missunderstood them. _HIDDENCAT_ has already been implemented. I'm going to bring this up at WT:CAT. Please chime in. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam - I noticed HIDDENCAT, but don't really see how it might help CI unless you're thinking we'll create some set of hidden intersection categories that are maintained by a bot. I think most of the power of the CI idea comes from the ability for the intersections to be dynamically computed, as needed. I'll respond over at WT:CAT as well. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:BDInCentury requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Regarding this edit, the bot recreates the list every time I run it from the by-year summary lists, e.g. Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007, which are created from information mined from the FA logs, e.g. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2007. This is all publicly available information (anything anyone does is public, edits concerning FAs perhaps more public than most). You can remove yourself from WBFAN by editing the by-year summary lists (these are kept current with respect to main page appearance date and current FA/FFA status of articles but the nominator[s] are not updated after they're added except manually), but I'm curious why you might want to opt out. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day Rick,

I reckon that list gives people the wrong impression. It counts FA nominations, which is a purely procedural matter, but the average Joe will think that this equates to FAs written. One of the FAs that I nominated was mostly written by Casliber, and a couple of the FAs that I mostly wrote were nominated by others. Even the ones that are correctly against my name were a collaborative effort and it doesn't seem right to credit them entirely to me.

Having said all that, I don't see it as a very big deal, and I don't intend to waste my or anyone else's energy by fighting over it.

Hesperian 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll figure something out, or not.... Either way, I won't make it your problem. Thanks for the advice. Hesperian 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see; thank you. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As there's a WT:RfA discussion concerning it (as good as an excuse as any), I was wondering if you might be interested? - jc37 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interested in being a bureaucrat? Do you think I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of passing? I don't frequent AFD. I don't IRC. I'm pretty curious why you'd think of me. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the same criteria I have for suggesting an admin: knowledgeable in policy/process; is active in such discussions; is responsible in such discussions; is active throughout other talk pages; and is civil/agf/eq (I don't think you need the bluelinks to know those shortcuts, by now) even in the face of some of the more challenging situations. The last is a big clincher for me. The question of how one will determine consensus is, for me, a question of thought process. Anyone can count "votes" - can one read for content? - I think you can. I'd trust you to make those decisions, and to use such extra tools responsibly. I hope that clarifies.

As for WP:SNOW, shrugs. "Nothing ventured..." - jc37 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I certainly could do it, but I don't have any particular expectation that I'd pass (not that I have lots of enemies or anything, but I'm not really a very active admin). My overall activity level has been a little lower than typical lately as well (real life has been intruding, in fairly major sorts of ways), so now is perhaps not the best time. I am flattered that you'd think of me. If real life shows signs of intruding less (and it certainly will eventually) I'll give it serious consideration. -- Rick Block ( talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (And I tend to resemble those remarks, at times, myself...) - jc37 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Rick bot thinks there are 0 active administrators on WP:LA. I find it useful in my own bot to build in sanity checks before uploading. For example, it might be possible to check that there are at least 800 active admins before making the daily edits, in case a changed interface leads to bad results. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the immediate problem (url for Special:Listusers changed to Special:ListUsers !?), but building in better sanity checking is a good idea. It should (but clearly doesn't at this point) fail benignly. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For arranging work for me by months! :) Slade ( The Joker) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address this issue, please see my latest contribution to the talk page. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are actually multiple issues, the Venn diagram section is but one of them. It might be very helpful if you could continue to pay attention to the talk page for a while. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick, sorry to not get back to you sooner. I've been meaning to comment on the latest versions you've been working on, but I'm burned out on the problem. I'll probably return to it in a few months.-- Father Goose ( talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This version of the Solution section looks fine to me. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an svg editor. I've been searching for one. Do you know where one is? Undeath ( talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have GIMP, but I don't have the plug in. I'll see if it's on their site. (In GIMP, the standard version you download, SVG doesn't come with it.) Undeath ( talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Inkscape. It's what I did the Monty set in. It's not trivial to learn how to use, but none of these graphics editors are.-- Father Goose ( talk) 04:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rick, pls watch for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giants: Citizen Kabuto when you run the script; the nominator is a retired editor who had never edited the article and had no input on the FAC. The principle editor is Jappalang, who did respond to the FAC issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads up. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps unorthodox, but could anyone watching this page please take a look at Monty Hall problem#Solution and Monty Hall problem/draft#Solution (just the solution section) and offer your opinion about which is more understandable at talk:Monty Hall problem? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem 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. - Chardish ( talk) 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice Monty Hall problem has moved from FAR to FARC. I would like to vote keep but I think some of the accreted redundant and variant sections may need to be jettisoned, including the three sections noted as unsourced. 67.130.129.135 ( talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rick, and congratulations for successfully steering Monty Hall problem through another FAR. 67.130.129.135 ( talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Rick!

I tried to search for the person who did it but it wouldn't give me the most recent (2008). It kept giving me 2004-2005. HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajiru ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

For some reason it kept giving me only 2004 - 2005 instead of 2008. MAN! I wish Wiki would let us put our names on articles and stuff so we know who did it. :(

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ ( talk)Usertalk:Hajiru —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curious to know if your bot can be adapted to also work for WP:WBFLN? The concept is the same, it's just a different group of articles to cover. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be a great idea. Gary King ( talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good list, and I'd rather have them than not. So, please continue. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I removed the column. Gary King ( talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I only looked at a sampling from every year, but they look correct. Gary King ( talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I was about to ask you if you could auto update WP:WBFLN but the last edit was made by your bot, albeit its first edit on the page. Will it autoupdate that page from now on or was that a one-time thing? Gary King ( talk) 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense that after I requested the automated lists for WP:FLC then this list is also autoupdated. Great! Gary King ( talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The nomination for El Señor Presidente should be credited to Mfreud on the WP:WBFAN. See here. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick, The President was promoted tonight, and also watch for Malleus Fatuarum and Deacon of Pndapetzim on Walter de Coventre, which was promoted tonight. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification - could you please remove any credit from Awadewit for El Señor Presidente on the WP:WBFAN? I really did nothing but nominate! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Sure. This edit will do it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed since I began soliciting feedback on WP:DOY. It looks like about 8 editors have commented with no new comments in the last week. I've also seen a rise in the number of editors pointing to the guideline in edit summaries. Where do we go from here? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Raul654 to take a look at it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

12-April-2008: In attempting to categorize the intent of Template:Infobox_Country_styled as a sandbox or a fork, I suppose it is both. That answer is not intended as a confusing contradiction, but a recognition of the complexity of the situation. The problem revolves around the concept of testing "real-world" results versus a hypothetical change to an implied template-upgrade bureacracy. The apparent contradiction is a form of " catch-22" situation about testing: people want to test new Infobox styling on a real article, however, formal sandbox templates cannot be used on real articles, hence the testing would not be real, thus the "catch" in the system. The implied bureaucracy stems from the concept of pre-approving Infobox style before changing, whereas the reality is that hundreds of Wikipedia real mainspace articles are changed per minute without pre-approval, of course, even allowing anonymous changes. A simple solution is to create a limited-use fork template, as a type of sandbox-like non-sandbox. Users focus on changing actual template features, rather than the approval process for changing a template. As a result, Template:Infobox_Country_styled can be used in real mainspace articles, with the understanding that the usage is somewhat temporary, with the need long-term to reconcile new features with the standard Template:Infobox_Country, balancing Wikipedia's mode of non-pre-approved changes with the after-the-fact adjustment of changes to align with broader policies. Restating that concept: the usage of the template fork fits the reality that changes to Wikipedia are approved, just not pre-approved. Non-pre-approved changes can be made to T:Infobox_Country_styled without the danger of changing T:Infobox_Country, which is used in over 500 high-importance articles: in the major articles for each nation of the world. Those same 500 articles could each be hacked in many other ways, but using the variation Infobox_Country_styled attempts to find patterns and purpose to that change, without the widespread risk of affecting the prior Template:Infobox_Country impacting 500 articles. Note that changing anything can be approved by a "consensus" of perhaps 6 people, but agreement doesn't ensure real-world testing against mainspace articles for weeks, which a fork has allowed. Perhaps 80% of readers who comment about a real article, using a fork template, would not join the hypothetical template discussion to improve Wikipedia. I hope these viewpoints about configuration management for controlling uncontrolled changes with real-world readers make sense, in explaining the sandbox-like non-sandbox. I regret that most of Wikipedia is written by mere skeleton crews of volunteers, but that's why formal approval processes can be fatal in causing volunteers to quit. Wikipedia's mode of open changes creates upgrade clashes with pre-approved templates, and I guess I'll stop here for your opinions about the concept of balancing of non-pre-approved changes. - Wikid77 ( talk) 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to Template talk:Infobox Country and replied there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I move everything unless it's very clear people feel the article is back to status. If it's iffy or unresponsive, I move it. Really, it's a procedural thing as much as anything. Because FAR is closely watched by known people, nothing gets accidentally removed. No real worries if its in the FARC section. Just make sure to update progress as it happens. Marskell ( talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your moderating comments, I hope cooler heads prevail. I am so discouraged now, and feel that the thrust of this is all motivated by disagreements origionating on the talk:Scotland page over other issues there, things there are very acromonious I'm afriad. I know that no page belongs to its "regular contributers", and trust that almost all edits are in good faith, but with the rheteric eleswhere and this issur mushrooming, it is crazy! I have no issue with reaching concensus, however even the other editor hasnt allowed the opportunity for more people to voice their opinion on the subject and reverts everything back! We have been working on this for more then a week, and ... wow to see it all ruined like this is daunting... and to see Wikid77 pushed away from Wikipedia!

Why can Ireland have a nifty infobox, yet we can not? To be honest, it is that style of info box that I had envisioned, in light shades of red for Wales. That is another thing! The editor deny's that there are colors associated with Wales... which can easily be seen on the Wales flag. Doh! Lastly, as the info box is currently already in place, I see no reason why it can not stay up pending "consensus". Anywhos, I like what you wrote on your main page, it is meaningful to me. ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Not irrelevant is that I work in a certain Protocols Division (the same one that recently got fined $1.35 billion by the EU. That wasn't my particular fault - it was the poor, desperate, suicidal sod in the next cubicle :-), so I am fairly well-acquainted with the need to conform to strict, established standards and provide references.

The problem I have with your reversions is that I was adding to the section entitled "Aids to Understanding," which might reasonably be thought of as a looser section that explains the problem in clear, simple terms to laypeople who come to Wikipedia in hope that it will help them understand the world.

I was aware that I was duplicating the argument of the "Combining Doors" section. That section contains 236 words in 9 rather dense sentences that, to a casual reader, seem to be continuing the mathematical arguments given above. Noticing that it provided no references, I seriously considered replacing it with my 112 rather plain words in three sentences, and adding appropriate references to articles relevant to the “always switch” strategy, but thought that might be considered impolite.

I tested my wording with our local, annoying mathematician, using three Dixie cups and a nickel. He immediately clutched his head, then stole my Dixie cups (he also tried to get the nickel, but I’m Scottish :-)

So, advice please? Somewhat against my will, my job in life has become explaining things clearly to a given audience. The Wikipedia audience is … well, everyone, not just math geeks like myself and perhaps you. I think I did a good job of explaining the strategy clearly to anyone, without resorting to Bayesian analysis (good grief!).

I was happy to leave it in the “Aids to understanding” section, but would you have a problem if I instead deleted the entire “Combining Doors” section and replaced it with my three sentences, with appropriate references? (Even if you don't, I'm sure I'd hear from the people I'd just deleted.)

Thank you for your attention. OutRIAAge ( talk) 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutRIAAge ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I only now discovered the roiling underworld that I accidentally stirred up by posting my little addition. I will back way the hell off and promise to not come back until (if ever) the review is finished.

Dammit though: I completely agree with the review’s concerns (and your concerns) that the page is too sloppy-long, repetitive, and grievously underreferenced. If I was given it as an assignment, with final edit rights, I could polish it to a fine lustre in half a day, with the whole thing fitting on one screen-page (for instance, the entire Bayesian section would be banished as being too much tool for the job). But this is the real world, which in this case means many interested fingers in the pie, so I know that phalanxes of Exocet missiles would quickly head my way. And besides, that’s what I do all day (including fending off the missiles).

As a parting gift, I found one new, recent reference to the combining-doors argument. It's not formally-written, and it unfortunately itself references Wikipedia, but it’s perhaps not useless: http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Monty-Hall-Problem Stephen Foster ( talk) 02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Just curious whether the aforementioned page can be updated by your bot, as it currently updates WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 08:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love that too :) Gary King ( talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how does your bot know if a co-nom is present or not in a nomination? For instance, would this be picked up? Gary King ( talk) 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think WP:FP would be higher priority, although if someone were to manually put together by-year lists like WP:FA2008 for topic nominations it would be no problem to have the bot regenerate WP:WBFTN from these lists. There are few enough topic nominations that automating the whole thing seems like it might be overkill. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As a programmer, I don't see how programming anything and then letting it work would be overkill :p Don't just a few variables have to be tweaked, namely the page names? Also, if this list were to be created by hand, then would your bot keep that list updated? Also, the word 'nominated' should be changed to 'promoted' everywhere because that's the case. The dates marked are the dates when the items were promoted, not nominated. Gary King ( talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you do a test run on the data here: Wikipedia:Featured topics nominated in 2008? Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you've filled out all of the WP:FT2008 pages; when will WP:WBFTN be automated? Also, regarding the change of wording from 'nomination' to 'promotion', titles such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations will have to be changed, too; of course, I by no means consider this a crucial change. It can stay the same, or just all redirect to a newly titled Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list promotions page. Gary King ( talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting on approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. I'm not sure WBFAN etc. need to be renamed - the lists are literally of wikipedians whose nominations resulted in featured articles/lists/topics. One way or another I think it's appropriate to keep "nomination" in the title. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA2008 has the following sections; they should be merged: Promoted in May 2008, Nominated in May 2008. Gary King ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a bug - it's fixed now. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. Q ^{T C} 06:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rick, heads up to add User:Ceoil and User:Johnbod on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of discussion recently about CI recently on the tech mailing list. Carcharoth left me a note with the very surprising information that category intersection is already available! Check this out. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed my name from Davnel03 to D.M.N. at WP:CHU a while back, so thanks for changing it for me. :)) D.M.N. ( talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick, where are name changes verified ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Rick: found here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I think you've been doing a good job with the Monty Hall article improvements. It's not as optimized for the lay reader as I would like it to be, but given that Wikipedia must serve a variety of audiences, you've done a pretty good job of it.-- Father Goose ( talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So far I've really only done fairly minor stuff like add references. I think we're now at the point where some hard decisions need to be made about the remaining unsourced content, including the "Why the probability is 2/3" section you mostly wrote. I'll bring this up at talk:Monty Hall problem. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you add to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations interwiki to pl:Wikipedia:Lista wikipedystów-autorów artykułów medalowych ? PMG ( talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rick Block ( talk) 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article MERLOT online community, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

...that "article" about that album was little more than a declarative statement and a track listing and therefore a speedy under A1 and/or A3 for lack of content. I've seen that you've done some work to it, which is terrific. Thanks. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do try to look deep...I gave up being an admin because of the hassles...but it's up to the original poster to add some meat to an article IMO. Even Jimbo has stated he'd rather see quality over quantity. When I write articles, I've always made it a point for them to be useful from the get-go. Just my two cents'. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that there was an article on this singer. With all of the band vanity that comes down the line, I thought this was another example. You're right; I should have checked. However, I don't think I'm biting anyone by hanging a deletion notice. Lots of first-time edits get deleted and I did leave word with the guy a few minutes ago offering to help. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your bot appears to have made a mistake at WP:WBFLN, List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks was nominated by User:Noble Story and Philadelphia Phillies seasons was nominated by User:Killervogel5, but your bot credited these two nominations to User:The Rambling Man. You can use WP:FLL to see who the correct nominator was. Regards, Crzy cheetah 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The error happened here. I've fixed the source list (and the problem in the bot) and the bot will fix WP:WBFLN the next time it runs. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, somehow I'd really like to jump on Hollywood and say "You guys really fucked it up, even after seeing everybody else fuck it up." But that would be a bit overboard, and I'd have to say to myself WP:DBAD. As long as "correct" isn't included... Smallbones ( talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have slightly edited your proposed "solution" section for MHP. The change tries to cast the "uncon/con"-ditional formulations in terms of population statistics versus a decision problem. I think "population" and "decision" are terms that have at least an intuitively correct meaning for the lay person in this context, whereas "unconditional" and "conditioal" do not (if they have any lay meaning at all). The Glopk ( talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{{ TOCRight}} is being used in thousands of articles. I just checked a few, and didn't see any good reason for its use in these articles. What can be done (I'm thinking of approval for automated approval from article space??) ? Also, does Joseph Priestley (specifically the TOClimit) comply with accessibility? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I found a featured article ( J. R. R. Tolkien‎ ) that was out of compliance, using TOCLeft. Is there any way to generate a list of FAs using TOCRIght or TOCLeft? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

special:search should do it (looking for featured article tocright). It doesn't find any. As for what can be done about TOCright, I guess the place to start is Wikipedia talk:Accessibility to verify it really is a problem. If yes, then WP:TFD. Note there was a previous TFD for TOCright. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a TfD might not make sense as it may be useful in non-article space? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think TOClimit is a problem. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a steep learning curve ahead on accessibility. Also, can you teach me what I'm doing wrong on that search? If I search on featured article toclimit, it should turn up Joseph Priestley, but returns nothing, so I'm not sure how to do those searches. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - search doesn't seem to find toclimit at all (very curious). One of the main differences between our internal search and, say, Google is that our internal search indexes article source (rather than the rendered html version), so wikitext (including templates that are used) should show up. It clearly isn't working in this case (don't know why). So, back to your original question about finding FAs using TOCright - since search doesn't seem to work, it would be fairly easy to write a little tool to do this. I don't have time to do this at the moment but will likely be able to get to it over the weekend. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick ! Could the same tool find TOCright, TOCleft and TOClimit in all FAs? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much; my first attempts to deal with a TOCright were met with hostility, and I detect general apathy. Suggestions? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about if we get a comment from a blind user I know ( Graham87) with an indication of how much of an issue this is. I find it hard to believe anyone would intentionally ignore an accessibility issue pointed out by someone affected by it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually - a specific example where you encountered hostility might be helpful. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who jumped on me currently has an RfC/U up for the same issues, so I didn't engage. It's at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien; I unwatched after seeing the environment there, so I don't know if the change stuck. I removed three of the remaining four in the last hour; we'll see how it goes. The last one, I'm not touching. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied about the timelines at my talk page. Graham 87 10:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick,

I must be a glutton for punishment, but I've started yet another discussion about repopulating topic categories. The discussion is here. I always appreciate your input. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

how on gods earth is a miss print VANDALISM. I am very offended by yuor mishap and will be reporting you! How dare you!

Truly 901023 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloughy96 ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, criteria G3: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and ... If your claim is the information in the article you created was not blatant and obvious misinformation, please feel free to open a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be one of the more active WP:GA producers. Is there a way to create a WP:WBGAN-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no GA records because, unlike any other process on Wiki, they don't use separate pages or keep archives, as do FAC, FAR, AfD, PR, etc. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a process that I don't think would benefit from such a ranking, since some people would try to game it to reach the top. Also, the nominator of some GANs aren't always the one that ends up resolving reviews, etc. The process is just so very different from FTC/FAC/FLC. Gary King ( talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Portals?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by game it?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is there will no doubt be some people who will do things like tag team with other people to get more GAs under their belt. The system is just so easy to take advantage of; there is no oversight to it. Gary King ( talk) 04:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of WP:WBFAN (and WP:WBFLN and now WP:WBFTN) is to encourage folks to go through the processes that are required to produce featured content (I should probably do something with images). FA pretty much implies GA, so to some extent I think this is already covered. GA is a fundamentally different sort of process than the F* ones, much more like DYK. I spent some time on a DYK tool a while ago that never really went anywhere. Partly this is because the unprocessed backlog is overwhelming, but I think it's also partly who should get the "credit" is far less clear (if I expand an article including a DYK fact and you nominate it, is it mine or yours?). The solution at DYK was to attempt to credit both, but this makes creating a tool to handle it much more difficult. Similarly with GA, should the GA nom get the "credit" or the GA reviewer? Lack of structured logs is a definite issue as well. I think the bottom line is that I'm neither sure what such a tool would precisely do or what behavior we'd be attempting to encourage by it (is it writing, or nominating, or reviewing?). Do we really need three lists, GAs by author, GAs by nom, and GAs by reviewer? Given how lightweight the GA process is, gaming these lists is somewhat of a concern as well (FA is extremely difficult, so it's inherently hard to game).

I'm always willing to listen, but I'm not seeing how (or why) this would work. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Two articles I have been credited for were part of the WP:CHICOTW. LurkingInChicago deserves credit for Chicago Board of Trade Building and Speciate and maybe Zagalejo deserve credit for South Side (Chicago). How do your credits work for group efforts?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The system changed recently; those FACs are months old so no doubt might have been missing some nominators from the list. Right now, from what I recall, the creator of a nomination is added as the nominator, and the the first user mentioned in a nomination that is not the original nominator is manually considered a co-nom or not by Rick. Gary King ( talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN is recreated daily from the source information in the by-year lists like WP:FA2008. Changes to the nominators in these lists will show up in WP:WBFAN the next time the tool is run, i.e. if you correct the by-year list WBFAN will take care of itself. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you are currently online. Is there any chance you could move Talk:Al Harrington (NBA player) to Talk:Al Harrington? This move is non-controversial, as the main articles have already been moved. Thanks. Bash Kash ( talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. Bash Kash ( talk) 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Rick Block, thanx for sorting out that thumbnail for me! Regards, Technopat ( talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now renamed the account, so you should be able to go ahead with the merge. Thanks, Archer7 ( talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent request for bot approval, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rick Bot 3, has been speedily approved. :) krimpet ✽ 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're the last admin I posted on the User Talk page. Please semiprotect Laser? I posted at WP:RPP (at Wikipedia:RPP#Laser_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29) but it's dead there in the past few hours. Gary King ( talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a while, and looks like user:Bibliomaniac15 just protected it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, after I poked him a bit. Gary King ( talk) 03:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

so basically not everyone can contibute to wiki? I was in the middle of building this page, I have permission to use the image and you delete the page...even though I added the hang on tag.? That basically sucks. It took me ages to try and figure out how to properly create a page. I am seriously annoyed at your actions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahfc ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Congratulations! Your leadership, perseverance and editing talent have all contributed mightily in keeping the wonderful MH article in the FA column. hydnjo talk 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but I'm sure you realize it's always a collaboration. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've been (somewhat jealously) following the progress of this FAR over these past several weeks and have indeed noted the significant contribution of others. However, in my view, were it not for your leadership and perseverance this review might well have had a different outcome. -- hydnjo talk 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Colorado article, the state symbols obviously don't belong in the History section. Most state articles place state symbols a short way before the See also section. Any ideas? -- Buaidh ( talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Oklahoma is the only FA for a state. It has the state symbols in their own section before the See also section (not in an infobox). A perfectly reasonable approach would be to emulate it. Once upon a time, I worked on a way to include the state symbols in the state infobox and at the time the best I could do was put them in their own box attached to the state infobox (templates didn't support conditional parameters at the time). States tend to have so many symbols that including an always visible exhaustive list in the main infobox is probably not a great idea. OTOH, templates can be much more sophisticated now. One idea might be to put the "major" symbols in the infobox and do a show/hide for more (although I'm not sure if there'd be a widespread consensus for what the "major" ones might be). Theoretically, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states would be the appropriate place for a general discussion about this. -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello! The reason that I am creating so many asteroid stubs is that I saw redlinks for asteroids in places such as List of named asteroids (A-C) and List of asteroids/1001-2000 (both have since had all the redlinks created.) As there were redlinks there, I assumed that they were being advertised to be created by someone. Also, User:ClueBot II was approved to create asteroid stubs. I figured that if the redlinks were there and a ClueBot had been approved to create the articles, I had no need to worry about notability as that must be inherent and covered already. In all honesty, I have no policies or guidelines to back myself up, but I have seen plenty of reliable sources covering the asteroids so that might cover the notability statement that subject of articles need to be covered in reliable sources. Also, it may just be easier to leave the asteroid articles where they are now as there are over 10,000 articles on asteroids in existance right now. And yes, these articles are likely to stay stubs, but there is plenty of information that can be added about them. I have created them in a very bare form just so I can create more articles faster. I am willing to improve the asteroid articles that I have written if that will make them more suitable for inclusion. I am also willing to discuss more about the asteroids in some public forum or another if necessary. I will do whatever is necessary to keep the articles on asteroids. Captain panda 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Asteroid articles. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the value of what you suggesting and definitely think that it will be a good deal easier to maintain. Do you think that it could be possible to have all of these information tables as well as the articles? I have been working on adding infoboxes to some of the asteroid articles and I know that it would be difficult to have all of the information of an infobox on one of these tables. I think it would be a good idea to add redirects for the articles that do not have much information yet, but allow a redirect to be removed when significant information it added to the article it links to. The asteroid's place in the table could still remain the same, but one could also go to the article for more information if it has been added yet. Captain panda 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - this is basically what I'm suggesting. The tables would contain the most significant data about all identified asteroids (with a redirect into the table per asteroid), but if there's more information available about an asteroid making it worth creating an article the redirect would become an article. Having 10s of thousands of stubs (and, I'm not sure adding an infobox makes these any less stubby) that have not much chance of ever being expanded just seems like a bad idea. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Coaches, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have any physical copies. I relied on web resources, some of which are cited in journal articles that are on the web. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Yeah, it looked as though we had rather different interpretations of WP:LEAD, among other things, and I felt the discussion wasn't particularly productive. However, I'm happy to leave it at that, and have no real problems with the article remaining featured. Well done! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

for fixing my edits at Template:Infobox Ethnic group without just reverting. -- Matilda ^talk 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States

No problem. If you're an ethnic groups sort of person can I ask for your help over at talk:Native Americans in the United States? There's an ongoing edit war regarding the "related groups" to be listed in the infobox. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have had a look at the article Black Indians as I think the source of some of the problems is whether or not this is a related group. I don't like the underpinning research for the article - I believe at best it breaches WP:SYNTH if not being just straight original research. Once that article is either dismissed under WP:NOR or improved to comply with WP:V then maybe the linking will not be such a problem. Regards -- Matilda ^talk 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I figured it would be better for the original writer to get credit for it, but it's not a big deal. Sorry about that. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, would you be willing to give a short interview-style piece that would be used for the Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop that runs in the Signpost? It would be tied in with your bot and WP:WBFAN. Leave me a note or email me if you're interested. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - write an interview style piece, or respond to some questions? If you want to ask some questions, go for it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, background: he's referring to this and you can find sample (past) Dispatches at {{ FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, ask away. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Content moved to Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop/WBFAN, as per your suggestion. I've left another question as well. Thanks for the answers so far! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, this is now up next, at WP:FCDW/July 14, 2008 (although they never publish on time). I'll start working on adding a front-end over the next few days. Please feel free to correct and edit anything I goof. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, I'm curious why the bot goofed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Horrocks; it's not Ealdgyth. Is there something I can do to make that one easier? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Leithp has a custom sig that generates [[User talk:Leithp|Leithp]]. The bot is looking for a User: link, not a User_talk: link. I missed this one eyeballing the bot's suggestions. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emmy Noether is an example of the kind of FAC entry I'd like to make easier on the bot. What can I do? There are a gazillion names before you hit the nominator's name. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a nominator line at the top, and in the preload file. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. Will see how that goes (one less thing for me to check). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, see what the noms did at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea; does that work for you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The tool will only pick up the first nom from this, since the co-nom is not on the same line. This is not an overly big deal since I don't have any plans to make it fully automated. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Will it help you if I put them on the same line? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're on the same line, the tool will pick them both up so, yes, it would help. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Could the number of columns possibly be increased so all the stars show on one line? Same goes for WP:WBFLN; WP:WBFTN, too, but it doesn't need it for now. It would be nice if all the stars for a single person was on one line, so then looking at the page can be like looking at a bar graph. Gary King ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On WP:WBFAN the max number or stars is 57, which in a single line per entry format makes for a very wide table. I made it 20 per line so that at most browser window widths no horizontal scrolling is necessary. This would not be difficult to change, but I'd prefer not to do it without discussion on the talk page. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As you wish Gary King ( talk) 05:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember much about this? I raised it recently here, following MER-C's comment here. I'm going to mention this to Rebroad if no-one else does before me, but wanted to ask you about it first, as I thought you might be interested. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember the general topic, but don't (and didn't) know anything about the specific image (if that's what you're curious about). I remember thinking at the time that we'd lose a lot of good images (and editors) over this. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asking about the specific image, which, although PD, appears to have been uploaded without proper attribution, something that wasn't discovered until it was put forward as a featured picture candidate. That's why MER-C used it as an example at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism (I am assuming here that Image:SPSM.05.5.JPG and Image:SPSM.05.jpg were the same - but regardless, PD-self for South Pole stuff raises an eyebrow). I did see your comment at that discussion: "I think it's extremely unfortunate that the purge resulted in at least dozens if not hundreds of perfectly legally uploaded images being deleted, and doubly unfortunate that it was done in many cases without making any attempt to contact the users who had originally uploaded the images." I once tried to put together a timeline of image policy on Wikipedia - would you know the specifics of what happened in late 2005 and early 2006? I was mostly looking at the non-free image stuff that resulted in BetacommandBot and all that, but even today there are people that, while asking for a source for images, or even improved source (a link to both the file source and the webpage documenting the details of the picture), catch a lot of PD images in their efforts, and some of those get deleted for lack of source. As least now the uploaders get contacted, though whether they are still here or do anything about it is another thing. Anyway, thank for taking the time to look and reply. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

From my recollection, Jimbo made a unilateral policy change to CSD specifically targeting unlicensed images. I don't know exactly what motivated this but my guess is that the foundation got some heat about use of unfree images. At the time I spent a fair amount of time responding at WP:HD and there were pretty many questions of the form "where did my image go". The CSD change resulted in a fairly massive purge - in many cases with no prior notification to the folks who uploaded the images in question. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. They should have implemented the imange undeletion option first. Or maybe that was done after the purge, or in response to the purge. Ah well. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image undelete was considerably later, not obviously connected. At the time, the best way to recover an image was to find a copy on a Wikipedia mirror (like answers.com). It was quite a mess for quite a while, as far as I know never satisfactorily explained (and certainly handled extremely poorly). -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that note. I'd like to follow up on it. Since it started on my talk page, I'll post a reply there, and I hope you'll respond to that. Noroton ( talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Tony Rezko#Ties to Barack Obama? It's actually got maybe a bit too much in it (I took a brief look). I think a good-sized paragraph in the primary election article would be fine (and if it comes up in the general election, in that article too, but we'd have to see how prominent it gets). But the election section of the biography article is going to keep growing between now and November (same with the election article). If Obama loses, the Rezko information should stay in the article, and not in the campaign section, I think. If he wins, the Rezko info will probably have to be forced out by lots of new, more important information. That's my thinking, anyway. I've been trying a new approach at the bottom of the Obama talk page, asking people to look at specific, small parts and seeing what agreement we can get. I'll probably ask about "questioned his judgment" language last. It's a bit slow going, but so is everything else. Do you think this format can work? Noroton ( talk) 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote the message just above, I'd only seen the first part of your reply on my talk page, none of the rest (I first looked at it in a diff and didn't scroll down). Now I saw all the rest of your reply and I see I misjudged you. I'm sincerely sorry if what I said on the Obama talk page hurt you. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation, so don't reply on my talk page. If you want, feel free to reply here and I'll read it, but I'm going to stop reading if it looks like your motivation is to hurt rather than be constructive. Noroton ( talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not mad or hurt. I'm trying to be constructive. It sounds to me like you're saying you're finding what I'm saying hurtful. I'm sorry about that. That's not my intent. I am attempting to give you some feedback. If we don't continue on your talk page it's very difficult for me to respond to the questions and statements you've made there. I will say one thing here about the judgment thing. I agree we can include an attributed POV opinion per NPOV. My point is that when we do this we need to make sure we avoid any appearance that we're endorsing this POV, particularly one that may be politically motivated. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was done for archival purposes. It was arbitrarily split down-page at some point in the past, which was even more confusing -- several editors've told me they're finding the discussion impossible to participate in because it's all over the place. I see I actually missed a few sections in between, but that's fixable. I'm sorry you found it confusing, but I'm confident merging the discussion back to one thread will be more helpful to less experienced editors (as well as those using the archives later on down the road). Shem ^(talk) 04:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the "above/below" continuity errors. Thanks for pointing that out. Shem ^(talk) 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton ( talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think WP:DOY is irrevocably deadlocked? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly gone quiet. I just entered a suggestion. We'll see if it generates any activity. -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations#Star_columns. Also, is it intentional that there are WikiProjects listed at WP:WBFAN? I'm guessing yes, but would like to know if that's the case. I don't really mind since it's better to have them there than not since they can be filtered out mentally, but just found it a bit odd. Gary King ( talk) 07:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikiprojects listed at WBFAN are there because folks have explicitly included them in the FAC nom files. The first time I noticed one it seemed a little odd, but on the other hand why not? -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have any other sources for this contention of yours, which appears to be contradicted here:"...when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it..." Bdell555 ( talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to talk:Barack Obama and replied there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I brought it up here because I suspected that we'd largely just go over the same ground and end up splitting hairs unless there was something significantly new with respect to sources, and, indeed, I think we mostly just added to the clutter over there such that no sane newcomer is going to be keen to read the entire section, but what's done is done. Bdell555 ( talk) 06:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and it's a reasonable idea, but I thought the question and answer directly pertained to the ongoing discussion there (which has grown to be ridiculous). BTW - I noticed but hadn't replied to the comment you added and then deleted saying I don't see where in that source it says that Obama wasn't hired by ACORN to run a "voter registration effort" called Illinois Project Vote!. You don't seriously think this is the case, do you? -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rick, I left some inline queries for you at Wikipedia:FCDW/July 14, 2008. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, User:Tony1 made huge adjustments; please let me know if they're OK. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick

I've messed with your text—I hope you don't mind, but it was heavy reading, and I think is much better in a more informal vein, which more frequent exchanges and a slightly conversational tone. TONY (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It does read better, however the impression is that it's pretty much a transcript (which it isn't). I think this should be made clear in the intro. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Change as needed, Rick (even though it's dated July 14, the Signpost always publishes many days late). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to viruses is listed twice at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer. BTW - feel free to fix such things yourself. It is a wiki after all :). -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I wanted to give you a heads up in case it was some sort of strange error in the bot, having to do with the recent re-naming of the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across flippant (no flippancy was intended). Looking into this, if the last nomination added to one of the yearly nomination summary tables is renamed, and my bot or GimmeBot (or someone manually) updates the table before any other FAs are promoted, the bot thinks the nom (which still carries the original name) hasn't been added to the table and will add it again. I think it's technically possible to fix this by always "normalizing" any FA names where the normalization procedure would include checking the name to see if it's a redirect and if so using the "redirected to" name instead. On the other hand, I suspect this specific set of conditions may be rare enough that it's not worth worrying about. A deliberate feature of the way I've set the bot up is that it only adds to (never deletes from) the by-year summary lists (like Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008) which makes it idempotent and also means these lists can be manually edited. If they are edited then the effect of these edits will show up in the table in WBFAN the next time the bot runs. Manual edits to WBFAN outside the table are always preserved as well, while manual edits inside the table are thrown away (the whole WBFAN table is thrown away and rebuilt from the current contents of the by-year summary lists every time the bot runs).

Thanks for letting me know about this (and thanks for the follow up as well). -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I glazed over after the first couple of sentences :-) But I'll point Gimmetrow this way. It didn't come across as flippant at all, btw; I'm glad my query led you to discover point out something, as I suspected as much (since I noticed when GimmeBot renamed it). Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton ( talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote#Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship. LotLE× talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo has deleted my comment here [2], claiming in his edit summary that it's a "personal attack." No matter what I say to him, it's going to be described as a "personal attack" with a diff posted at ANI. Please give him a warning about not deleting others' comments on Talk pages. Thanks. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Gamaliel#WB74 - WB74 has also mentioned you at the discussion, and I'd appreciate your view on the proposed (official) article probation. Cheers - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(copying to here from my talk page) - I have no problem at all with this. I completely trust of the judgment of both you and ClubJuggle, and I appreciate your efforts to maintain some semblance of order. -- Scjessey ( talk) 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick! I was not aware that a bot is now commissioned to do this. Sometimes its hard to figure out what has changed on wikipedia after you return from the break! :) I have removed the offending link from the template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 ( talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If I find the time, I intend to nominate several articles for GA status and then FA status. However, as I have contributed little to most of them I want to co- or even tri-nominate for the FA to ensure main contributors are reflected on Wikipedia:WBFAN. Should I do anything specific, is there a precedent? - Roy Boy 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just discuss this with the other editors. When the nom is made there's a step where the nom file is created from a pre-loaded skeleton file including a line that identifies the nominator(s). If you include multiple nominators they'll all show up in the WBFAN file and the by-year summary file (this year's is WP:FA2008). -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I should be credited for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Linkin Park awards. Cheers. Gary King ( talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick, thanks for all your work with the featured content update lists. Would it be possible to expand the bot to include featured pictures and featured sounds? Best regards, Durova ^Charge! 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the effort for either of these would be creating the easy-to-parse by-year summary lists (like WP:FA2008), and then verifying that the summary lists are correct. I could take a whack at these but perhaps not for a few weeks. The FA summary lists include the main page appearance date. Would the date of "picture of the day" be useful for FPs? -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional, I'd say. I was looking at the possibility of correlating this manually, and with over 1200 FPs we seem to be past that point. It'd be much appreciated if you'd do this when you have time. Best wishes, Durova ^Charge! 23:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether it was worth including anything on Ayers. The outrageousness of Ayers' conduct was cited as a reason to include mention of him in the Obama article. The discussion continued on just how outrageous Ayers' conduct was (including his lack of repentance and the fact that he was a terrorist). So technically, it's not off-topic. Practically, the discussion has gone on long enough, so I'll stop, having made my points. The discussion is actually a good record, with good web links, which may be useful if Ayers becomes a bigger campaign issue and we return to this discussion later. When you're not technically in the right, Rick, try a less formal means of notification on the article talk page and user talk pages. And you still owe me an apology for saying I acted like I was a McCain operative. Feel free to make it here, on your talk page. You're still not welcome on mine. Noroton ( talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You already agreed to drop it, here, which I thought was a very generous gesture. On the other hand, the discussion has now continued past the point of reason. BTW - perhaps you missed this post (above), where I already apologized. I'll stay off your talk page as much as possible, but level 2 warnings precede level 3 (stop or you may be blocked) warnings. My reading of the RFAR is that it's time for more formality about warnings. Just to make it perfectly clear I won't block you or anyone else involved on this page (pretty much no matter what) since I'm involved. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

... is requested :-) Some folks want to move some featured content pages to portal pages. I don't know how that will affect bots and scripts. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a duplicate there. Gary King ( talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rick, is there any chance that you can keep abreast of all of this, or are you swamped? I'm unsure how all of this is going to work out, and concerned about the workload. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - I'll be offline for most of this week. I can look into having user:Rick Bot do some of the tasks from User:SandyGeorgia/FA work, although more manual work at this point is probably not in the cards. Processes that rely on automation infrastructure run by volunteers are pretty vulnerable. I have an idea for a generalized "hourly/daily/weekly" bot I'd like to get to at some point that I think would address this in a maintainable sort of way. I've suggested this in the past (see Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 18#hourly/daily/weekly maintenance bots]) but haven't gotten around to it. I now have an account on m:toolserver which might be a reasonable home for this. After I've taken a look at the tasks, I'll let you know which ones I could add to my bot's tasklist. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick; the timing on all of this stinks. Gimmetrow is going to be out mid-August and I'm going to out late August. Concerned, could be hard to coordinate. Happy-melon may be looking into picking up some pieces. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I put together a quick draft Portal:Featured articles. I'm hoping to get some idea of whether such portals would be used/maintained before we create them for all types of featured content. -- CBD 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That is very nice, CBD; I agree that a concern, though, is who will update and maintain it. I can't take on any more pages, and I'm not sure who will. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, if they wouldn't be useful/maintained likely not worth it. That said, the 'article of the day' section is just a copy of what goes on the Main Page and thus needs no additional work. Alternatively the random featured article from WP:FC could be displayed there... again, at no more work than maintaining it on the FC page. Likewise, the 'Recently promoted' section is a copy of what is at Template:Announcements/New featured content. That is currently kept up to date for articles by User:Teemu08 and others. It could be set up so they would make the changes here and then transclude it into that template - again, no additional work. So what would take additional work would be updating the lists of FACs, FARs, and FARCs... basically adding/removing one line each time one of these opens or closes. If they aren't worth that effort those sections could be replaced with additional article showcase boxes (e.g. tomorrow's featured article, random article, et cetera). -- CBD 01:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the decision is going to be made by you folks here then go for it. RichardF ( talk) 02:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this section about my wanting to take my name off of the list of nominators of featured articles. I think the list makes me look like I did a lot of work on an FA article and its nomination, and that bothers me -- my role was minor. I assume the bot will automatically restore my name to the list. If so, can you prevent that? It's also possible that Pgagnon999, whose name is also on the list, although he technically did not nominate that article, perhaps should have two stars. I appreciate your work on the list, but I'm embarrassed because the list looks like an honor roll. Please respond at that talk page or mine or by email. Noroton ( talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am started to get very tired of having to change back the monty hall solution the whole time. I understand that you might be anally obsessed with it since you have written it but you really need to allow other people to make contributions as well! It is not all about you you know ! If you want to make a change I suggest you change your section since it is very confussing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.51.194 ( talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ooohh wait maybe you dont want the article to be clear "since you still are try to help folks understand it" What is it to understand? It is a very easy concept (as you can tell by yourself from my post) ! Maybe people dont understand it because the article is general confussing ! No offense mate ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.51.194 ( talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your suggested change at talk:Monty Hall problem. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick, I'm trying to do some advance planning re: who to interview now for Dispatch articles, and who to put off until all of 2008 Data for WBFAN is in. Would it be possible for you to generate a preliminary, temporary 2008 version of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2007? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. I assume there's no big hurry. I'll let you know when it's done. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick; no hurry whatsoever. I want to set up some Dispatch interviews in a few weeks, but I don't want to duplicate the editors we'll likely be covering at year-end. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if you don't want to get in a pinch by putting out a premature list, just the top five so far will do. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rick; that will help us plan Dispatch interviews. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What's going on with the strikethrough text? Here's a permanent link just in case it gets fixed before you read this. Gary King ( talk) 18:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot doesn't like it when two noms are on the same line (per this edit). I've changed the candidate list and deleted the entries recently added to Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2008. This has happened once before, so I suppose it's worth changing the bot to fix it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I should be listed for both Wikipedia:Featured topics/Noble gases and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Period 1 elements at WP:FT2008. Cheers! Gary King ( talk) 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-noms have to be added by hand - I've done this. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that if this happens again I can just add them myself to the page and the bot will pick up on it? Gary King ( talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The bot adds the single user who created the nom file as the nominator. If you notice missing co-noms (yourself or others), please just add them. -- Rick Block ( talk)

Hey, just to notify you, that your idea at the Village pump to use your bot to create a list of admin hopefuls seems to be met with no opposition and thus I wanted to notify you to tell you that it would be great, if you could set up your bot to do just that. Regards So Why 12:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but I will create a modified version of the admin activity tool to create an admin hopeful list, run it by hand for a while, and then run the new task by WP:BAG. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, whenever you have the time. I just wanted to notify you in case you did not see the latest discussion on the Village pump. Thanks again :-) So Why 14:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Obama talk page, you wrote:

No one disputes the simple facts that Obama knew and worked with Ayers and that Ayers was (20 years earlier) a leader of the Weatherman. The question is why is this in the news, and is it anywhere other than Fox News and conservative talk radio? It came up in the primary debate with Clinton in a clearly political context. It's come up again, but also clearly in political contexts. Is there anything to suggest this is any more or less significant than any other attack launched by the McCain campaign or its proxies? Are the reliable sources discussing this as a character issue or are they instead reporting on the attack like they report on essentially any campaign ad? -- 05:25, 23 August

A later posts of mine addressed what you were talking about: [3] and [4] and [5]

Please respond on the Obama talk page. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick Block = Ownership of article -- 92.41.185.67 ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, just an interested editor. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to restore any of my comments removed like that again. It's plain and simple vandalism, and any editor who does it can be reverted – and blocked, now that he's been warned – on sight. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's actually because of a userbox in my userbox archives (one of however many copies there are, the one I'm hosting has 100+ transclusions though). Nothing I can really do. - Royalguard11( T) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually a very big deal, but you could make the categorization conditional on the pagename not being "Royalguard11/userboxes" (see Category:Category suppression-supporting templates). Or, I could hardcode an exception in the tool. Got a coin? -- Rick Block ( talk) 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've suppressed the category from appearing on my archives. - Royalguard11( T) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For the great work you did in creating a script to create and update WP:HOPEFUL, without any hesitation and so much dedication. Keep up your good work. :-) So Why 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to stop by and say your Da Vinci barnstar is the coolest I've seen on Wikipedia! 72.21.155.72 ( talk) 13:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your awesome work with Rick Bot ( talk · contribs). Would it be possible for it to update Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations? I had been doing that manually based on the logs at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Featured log, but if the process could be automated that would be most appreciated. Cirt ( talk) 11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks doable, but I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to get to it ( WP:FP and WP:WBFSN are queued up as well). I'll let you know when I get to it. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, take your time, and thank you! Cirt ( talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Cirt ( talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't gotten to it. Real life has been quite busy lately. -- Rick Block ( talk) 11:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Cirt ( talk) 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your name reminds me of one of my favorite jazz musicians. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rick. I only discovered this list a few weeks ago. I am listed as a co-nominator on only two FA articles. However, I have been a very substantial contributor on three earlier articles where I also helped work through the FA process but did not put myself down as a nominator. Those articles are: W. S. Gilbert (promoted in 2006), Thespis (promoted in 2007) and Her Majesty's Theatre (promoted in 2008). Is it possible for you to add me as a co-nominator to the list of featured articles for 2006, 2007 and 2008, as you did for another user here? It seems silly, but it makes me feel kind of bad to see only two stars here when I know that I have worked so hard on more articles than that. BTW, is there a similar list of Wikipedians who have worked to promote (or nominated) articles to GA-class, etc? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something funky happened here [6]. Cirt ( talk) 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been this edit, which changes the entire format of WP:FT. I'll change the bot accordingly. Thanks for letting me know about this. -- Rick Block ( talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your efforts. Cirt ( talk) 10:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Topics was recently created. Promoted Good Topics go in WP:FTL, just like Featured Topics; however, the bot should only count Featured Topics, not Good Topics. Will that be a problem or do the logs need to be separated? Gary King ( talk) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rick, just FYI, Good Topics shouldn't be counted for WP:FT2008. Cheers. Gary King ( talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly distinguishes a good topic nom from a featured topic nom? Looking at WP:FT2008 it's not at all obvious to me which ones are which. I'll bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Rst20xx#WP:FT2008 Gary King ( talk) 14:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, would creating a new log list help separate GTs from FTs? The bot can ignore the log for GTs and just continue watching WP:FTL. I'm curious, does the bot watch WP:FTL for new additions or WP:FT? I'm asking because in this edit, the bot added List of Ludacris awards with its old name, even after it had been renamed to List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris. The only explanation that I can think of is that it was added as List of Ludacris awards at WP:FL and then I renamed it to the correct name, later, which the bot also picked up on. Gary King ( talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Separating the logs would help, but is there any real difference between a GT nom and an FT nom? The bot watches the monthly log file (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2008) and looks for entries in the log file that haven't been added to the by-year summary file (e.g. WP:FT2008). For lists, the name is parsed from the transclude in the log file (assumes the transclude and the list name are identical). Renames that happen after the transclude is set up but before the bot adds the entry are not handled well. This has come up before, but is actually pretty rare. If the rename happens after the bot has added the entry in the by-year list but before the next entry is added, there's a problem (this makes the bot think the renamed entry has not been added). This is one way multiple entries in the by-year list can happen. To fix this, I basically need to normalize list/article names (following redirects to get to the real article name) before doing any comparisons - but haven't gotten around to doing this yet. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Good Topics now have their own log, at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/September 2008. Gary King ( talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry about that, I only realised after I did it the second time that the bot added them on by the yearly page. I have made the appropriate edits there. Sorry about the confusion, and thanks for telling me. Sunderland06 ( talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on Former Featured Articles! I assure you it's a rarity. Marskell ( talk) 13:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama 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.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to paerticipate in the discussion. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Any chance you might swing by Template talk:Infobox Country#Flag width and/or Talk:Scotland#Saltire and Royal Standard. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Endrick Shellycoat 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you have time to look at my comment here? I think you were the person who suggested some similar system for maintenance categories, either before or at the time they got shunted into hidden categories. I'm also puzzled as to why people feel hidden categories is not suitable for this kind of "statistical" thing, but maybe I'm missing something there. Anyway, if people can obtain dynamic lists in a way other than categories, that would be good. Would you know how to get Template:Death date and age to generate "invisible" redlinks to things like People who died aged 23, if the death age was calculated as 23? And hence allow tracking via what links here for "People who died aged 23"? Carcharoth ( talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply at the DRV. I actually tapped someone else on the shoulder about this, and the result wasn't quite what I was expecting. More details available here. If you could comment again there, I would be most grateful. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rick Block. If you still think I'm worthy, I'd like to take you up on your offer to nominate me for adminhood. I kind of feel like I'm making an appointment to go to the dentist, but what's the worst that can happen? Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here I've been trying so hard to keep FAC pages friendly to RickBot, and yet my name goofed the bot! Where did that space come from? Generally, have the FAC pages been easier to process since I've been staying on top of the Nominator line? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot only picks up the first two noms, so I manually added you (and added an extra space - sorry about that). Except for cases where there are more than two noms, or custom sigs that only link to the user's talk page, the bot has been getting the noms perfectly. I could fix these but haven't gotten around to it yet. Making sure the nominator line is there is a big help. -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ah, ha, I see ! So I'll watch for custom sigs that only link to talk. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[7] What happened with the auto-update on the South Park episode? What caused it to be struck out and the maindate removed? Gimmetrow 14:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was renamed, Gimmebot saw the rename and updated FA and FA2007 (all fine so far), but then it was renamed back and FA was manually updated without a corresponding change to FA2007. The main page dates are kept in a file on the machine Rick Bot runs on and if the bot encounters an entry in one of the by year summary files that is neither FA or FFA it leaves the entry as FFA without a main page date. In cases like this the bot also adds a comment to the end of the table in WP:WBFAN indicating there's a problem in one of the by-year summary files, like this. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so a topic has finally been promoted from GT to FT. Is this edit enough for the bot to work on? Meaning, will the bot know to add it to WP:FT2008? Gary King ( talk) 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I actually added the topic manually to WP:FT2008 (which you can undo if you'd like to test the bot.) I did so because the bot hasn't updated the page for the more recently updated topics, so it seems as though the bot isn't working on WP:FT2008 anymore? Gary King ( talk) 03:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the page is being updated again. However, it's having issues: this, which I removed, and then again, which I also fixed. Gary King ( talk) 16:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gary - The issue was that the nom file was moved from "List of ..." to "Lists of ..." but the translcude in the log file at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/October 2008 was not updated. As far as the bot can tell, these are different noms. Similar issues have come up before because the bot doesn't always normalize names (e.g. follow redirects to get to the "real" name). I may at some point rewrite the bot. Until then, I'm inclined to simply fix these anomalies by hand whenever they come up. Thanks very much for noticing. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vos Savant link Rick, as it happens I do not much like her solution. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to the daily updates of Wikipedia:List of administrators? Kingturtle ( talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The machine the bot runs on blew its power supply. I just got it back from repair, so all should be well soon. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for fixing it so quickly. I had no idea it was a hardware issue! Happy editing, Kingturtle ( talk) 13:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Jedi masters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Jedi masters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. ( CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Jedi masters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 06:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

When he removes or retracts his various personal attacks, I will remove my response as unnecessary. Until then, no. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 13:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. This is completely unnecessary. It seems that you can always get your own way by being childish, and especially name calling. CalendarWatcher knows exactly what he is doing, and he obviously has plenty of supporters. This discussion has a political basis, which is a pity. Wallie ( talk) 19:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Hi - I'm not sure who started it - I frankly don't care - but the acrimonious posts between you and CW really need to stop. I've asked him to tone down his most recent post at WT:DAYS. He says he will but only after you "remove or retract (your) various personal attacks". In the spirit of everyone getting along, can you please do as he asks? I think the bottom line is that you both mean well but that you both need to apologize. I've suggested he be cool - you should as well. Are you big enough to make the first step here? Full disclosure: I'm an admin but am here at the moment as a fellow editor. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallie"

Dear Rick, I have not attacked CalendarWatcher. He doesn't like what I am doing on Wikipedia, and is attempting to engage me into a fire fight. I am not really interested in this. As I mentioned, I am always willing to be reasonable. CalendarWatcher has reverted nearly everything I have put up regarding the calendar. If he continues to do this, and he gains support from others, as he is clearly doing, then there is little I can do. I personally think he is using bullying tactics, which I must admit are very effective. If it helps I will certainly concede defeat and withdraw altogether from Calendar area, which I have no doubt would be popular. However it does not speak well for Wikipedia is the bullies/more political group always wins, and forces the others to withdraw. Wallie ( talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 20:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

O well. I tried. You can see...

I put this on CalendarWatch's page...

Hi. You are obviously upset with some of my changes to the date formats. Can you tell me why? My main concern about the dates is that they should be "culture neutral". In other words, particular dates have more significance for some people than others. I think the issues here are to do with what country you were born in and what age you are. For example, an older person might consider World War 2 dates, like June 22 to be of great significance. Note that in certain non Western countries, June 22 needs no explanation, whereas the date is unimportant elsewhere. An even older person might consider November 11 or April 25 to be important. A younger person might be concerned mainly with 21st Century events. Wallie ( talk) 08:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from CalendarWatcher...

I am not 'upset' at your changes per se, as you like to self-servingly characterise it, I simply became more and more irritated at your instant assumptions of bad faith for having the temerity to disagree with you; your obsessive edit-warring in place of actual discussion; your absurd reasoning, occasionally bordering on paranoia, your personal attacks; and your rhetorical, intellectual--and, above, actual, as in your laughable claim of not making personal attacks--dishonesty in framing your arguments, capped off by your demonstration that, when it comes to basic facts, you don't even know what you're talking about. Your 'poor-me' whinging about 'bullying' is particularly absurd, given your attempts to bully through changes without discussion and by mindless reverting--and to re-address another of your annoying absurdities, you were reverting, as common sense and the very first sentences of this page ('[a] revert is defined...as any action...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part').

You see, the more one piles on the absurdities, falsehoods, and sheer unadulterated arrogance (as you have and continue to do) the more irritated I become. Your latest, only slightly coherent rationale isn't helping, either. At this point, your opinion has ceased to be worth paying the slightest bit of attention to. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 10:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not 'uncalled for', as it was a simple response to the further self-serving nonsense and falsehoods placed by him on my talk page (note especially the word 'response': who, exactly, is baiting whom?). Perhaps your warnings ought to be aimed at the instigator--the one pestering me with nonsense, personal attacks, and pushing a personal POV--instead of myself, and perhaps you ought to outline for him the very simple and proper steps necessary for him to be in line with civility policy, which I've already explained and which you'll note he has refused to do. No stern warnings for him, funnily enough, though he certainly has no compunction about ignoring your warnings regarding mind-reading. Finally, perhaps you'd care to point out where providing facts about someone else's behaviour violating civility policy--instant assumptions of bad faith, obsessive edit-warring in place of actual discussion, flat misunderstandings (at best) of regular policy and ordinary factual incorrectness--constitutes some sort of egregious mis-step, or, especially, at any point, where any of it is misleading, exaggerated, or false. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope we can move forward... :) Wallie ( talk) 10:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick, Hi. Sorry I hant realised there were sub pages behind this. Thanks. Ceoil ( talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick. I now think we should resume the discussions on WT:DAYS. Wallie ( talk) 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that I try to resolve things. I tried but failed. Note that CW is trying the same tactics on other users too. Please note all these discussions

I think, my bot's mistakes are all fixed now. Sorry for the errors of the machine. -- Obersachse ( talk) 18:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned: This is called poisoning the well and is a form of personal attack. I strongly suggest you knock it off. Consider this a level 3 warning from an admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is grossly unfair. CalendarWatcher has attacked other users in the same way as he has me. I really do not know how to handle this. As you have said, I have been polite at all times. I can assure you that I am not acting in bad faith, and never would. I have sought help from you. You did not reply, and eventually came back with these threats. I don't want to go into some complicated discussion about this. I think you know who is in the wrong, if you are truly honest. Wallie ( talk) 20:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. I invite you to read this comment, where Wallie chooses to interject himself and carry on his dispute. Pay particular attention to the last sentence, as regards your 'perfectly polite' goes--or is 'some people call it vandalism' your idea of 'perfectly polite', not to mention 'he doesn't actually contribute anything' and his bad-faith accusations of 'tactics' I am 'deploying'?

I have not chosen to carry on any dispute, he has. I have not gone canvassing for allies in unrelated areas, he has. I suggest that you make note of that whenever he comes running to you for help. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

'Peculiar' and 'obsessive' are perfectly accurate terms, as I canNOT imagine what possible rationale or impulse is driving this crusade, especially given how obvious a distortion this latest outbreak is of the consensus. I believe in accuracy and so should you, but if you want to bowdlerise the comment, have at it. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this objectionable. To start a topic called "Wallie" and then use it to carry on offensive personal attacks is not a good idea. I have never done this to anyone. If I did, I have no doubt I would be quickly punished. I have always tried to be polite. I have never initiated any attacks. All this is happening as my work is being attacked, and then me, if I respond. Wallie ( talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to simply ignore these low level incivilities, the next step would be to open a user conduct RFC, see WP:RFC#Request comment on users. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put up some national days for the English speaking world, namely for India, Australia and New Zealand. CalendarWatcher has immeditely reverted me. I think this is most unfair. I have naturally put them back. As you are involved, could you look into this. I put a comment in WT:DAYS too. Thanks. Wallie ( talk) 10:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So what happens now? We have had all these discussions, but the articles remain the same. Do we now clean up the articles and leave only those dates you mentioned? Wallie ( talk) 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus yet. I'll try to elicit some responses. -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK and thanks. There should be a concensus very soon now hopefully. Wallie ( talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Bot just blanked Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Was this intentional? Cheers, – Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not intentional - thanks for letting me know. I reverted and reran it, and it didn't happen again. Not sure what the issue is/was. I'll keep a closer eye on it for a while. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the quick response. – Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What bothers me is the requirement here of jettisoning flexibility and common sense in favor of drawing up stricter and stricter rules, all for the sake of fixing firm black-and-white boundaries to rein in one specific editor's eccentricities--eccentricities which, based on some of his assertions about events and names, don't even seem particularly well-founded. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

re the above. I was going to make a response, and as you advised, I will keep my cool. Each time I get such a blatant personal attack, I will advise you about it. Whenever I want some resolution to the problem, I get this sort of personal attack. Thank you. Wallie ( talk) 21:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So I guess we wait... Merry Christmas. Wallie ( talk) 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the incredible code! I have given out around a dozen barnstars in my three years of editing wikipedia, but this barnstar is the most deserved of them all. Thank you so much for your help, you will save me virtually hundreds of hours in the coming years. Merry Christmas and God bless! travb ( talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your help is so deeply appreciated you deserve the unprecedented two barnstars! The 15 minutes of work will help many, many of the newcomers you sympathize with for months to come. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! travb ( talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The user deleted the bot: User:NotifyBot in July 2008. travb ( talk) 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rick; I just ran through the last two promotions for 2008, and will be looking forward to an update of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2008 for a future Signpost Dispatch. I hope you have a healthful and happy New Year, all the best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's updated. Happy New Year to you as well! -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy service with a smile ! (I wasn't expecting immediate results :-) Thanks, Rick ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)