User talk:Rentaferret/Archive 06-03

Please don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken

I do not really want to get into the football player naming debate, but please read WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken before you use the AutoWikiBrowser again to fix all of these links to the redirects. Combined with the AutoWikiBrowser, it puts more of a strain on the servers. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies, and thanks for the information. I was confusing Wikipedia:Disambiguation with changing redirects to link directly. I was also responding to the comment above from User:VegaDark under the Please cease moving football players until further discussion heading, "...(and without changing all the wikilinks that link to said articles, hence creating a ton of redirect links)". Now that I know fixing redirects en masse creates more strain on the servers, I certainly won't be doing it again—it was a pain, anyway. However, in my defense (now that I've done some research on my own), Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects states: "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link." Since the redirects being used 10,000 times or more is quite likely on football players, I may have saved some server time and expense in the long term; but I was certainly unaware that I was or wasn't doing so at the time I made the changes. I really do appreciate the info; thanks again.—Chidom ^talk  19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't know about that either, I always fix redirects that aren't broken. However I never bother to use an edit specifically for that, I wait for a better reason to edit a page and then fix the redirects at the same time of making another edit, which is fine. My apologies. VegaDark 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed the beer. Thanks! --Kbdank71 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome. You definitely deserve it!—Chidom ^talk  18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Chidom/Permanent Record

Hmm. I suspect this may not be what you want to hear, but in my opinion, if or until you don't have the energy to make an at least marginally interesting article about someone, you really shouldn't make it. No offense, but cookie-cutter articles aren't that much of a benefit.

That's not to say your template wouldn't be useful to get you, or someone else, started... but it really shouldn't be left like that, even for a few days. Even as a stub, every article should have something unique and/or interesting to say for itself. A list of awards, for example. Even one award. A newspaper story. Something that makes this article different from the next five, something that makes a claim for notability. Others can then go and add birth date and shoe size. Not just from the point of view of surviving speedy deletion or AFD but just from the point of view of having something interesting and useful to read, something more than a phonebook entry.

Even more than a filmography, actually - a dozen articles each saying "Joe Schmoe starred in the following 10 films" - aren't really that different from each other, unless you say that these won awards or were written about in the press or whatever.

I realize that's not quite what WP:STUB says, but as long as you are asking me. Sorry if that rains on your parade, and I greatly appreciate the work you've been doing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Stashing them in your user space seems fine, and an ideal use of your user space. User:Dekkappai does something similar. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA section headers

It was thought of before, but because of the TOC on the main RFA page, it would make it too long. It has been attempted several times before (like at Phaedriel's RFA that had 250 supports or so). Czrussian's RFA is not extremely long, long, but not needing of section headers, thus no reason for section headers. — Moe 14:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Arnold schwarzenegger After Dark nude.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arnold schwarzenegger After Dark nude.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the information regarding the image; hopefully this is satisfactory. If not, please let me know and I'll remove the image.—Chidom ^talk  23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AWB Edit Rates

Please do not edit faster than 2 edits a minute using AWB unless you have a botflagged account -- Tawker 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked you untill you agree not to edit so fast and or get a bot account under WP:BRFA Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, either slow down or get a flag, and it shouldn't be too hard to get a flag for this.Voice-of-All 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I just re-checked Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Using this software and it doesn't say anything about speed. As you can tell if you review my edits, I've been using it purely to rename/delete/merge categories. I'm pretty good at keyboarding/editing, so I've been moving at about 11 edits per minute at times (that's when it's a simple change: adding or removing a single word at the end of the existing category name, with no other changes shown on the page).

I'm happy to stop using AWB until I get approval for a bot-tagged account; since I'm not asking for the creation of a new bot, but just the ability to use the existing tool at a faster rate, is there a special process for that?

Also, I can't edit that page to ask for approval while I'm blocked.....

Thanks—Chidom ^talk  21:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You made no mistake, it is just that you flood Special:Newpages when you edit to fast unflagged. I will unblock you right after this edit. Please request a bot account at WP:BRFA, read WP:BOT as well. Using AWB for short spurts of fast editing is ok, not for clearing out a large category. A flagged bot can do that task without flooding the Special:Newpages. If you have any questions, let me know. —— Eagle (ask me for help)

Thanks. I'm still unclear on how exactly to do what you're asking. When I review WP:BRFA, it doesn't give clear instructions about how to ask for authorization to use AWB in a bot-like fashion, which I think is what's wanted here, right?

So—do I just create another request with that as the subject and an explanation in the text? That doesn't match the format of all the other entries, but I'm not writing a bot.

Sorry to be so dense.—Chidom ^talk  00:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to start by creating a new account for your bot activity. That was you can have 2 identities, one for human activity and one for the bot. This is specifically not considered to be a violation of WP:SOCK. After that you can create your bot request. I would recommend following the example of the requests by Beta or Mets, both of which are currently transcluded onto the page. Hope that helps.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much clearer; since AWB isn't really a "bot", I didn't think it would go under that heading, but it makes sense now that I see the other requests. Appreciate the help!—Chidom ^talk  23:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that your bot got speedy approval. Unfortunately, I also saw that I was not explicit enough when I tried to give you help earlier. I appologize if you feel that I may have caused you any trouble. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem, and I wasn't trying to place blame; if that's the way it sounded, sorry. I should have read the page much more carefully, so I take full responsibility. It all "came right in the end", as they say. I really do appreciate your help, and thanks again.—Chidom ^talk  03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't think you were pointing a finger, I just felt bad because I probably could have helped a little more "helpfully". At any rate, as you say, "all's well that ends well." Have fun with your bot and let me know if I can ever help out in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Closing your own nominations

Hello. I don't want to make a big deal about this, but you might not want to close and take action on your own nominations. I know that these are just speedy renaming requests, and that you are trying to be helpful to the admins, but it may just be something that you don't want to do. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no objections to them, but I see your point. I'll finish up the one I'm working on since I've made errors on it and don't want to try to do any more explaining; then I'll move on to ones I didn't nominate. Thanks for the heads up.—Chidom ^talk  23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for taking my input in the spirit in which it was intended. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not always hot-headed, and my ultimate desire is to make Wikipedia better, not create issues and problems. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to use my new bot account to do this; it seems to have been missed by anyone else.—Chidom ^talk  05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

DomBot's flag

Hi. Per Voice of All's final approval [1], I've granted DomBot a bot flag. Cheers, Redux 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was speedy!—Chidom ^talk  07:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Angelo on Angelo Loves It DVD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelo on Angelo Loves It DVD cover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD

I didn't but my bot did! See Contribs for Fluxbot. Looks like we were both processing WP:CFDW at the same time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I got that one from WP:CFDW as well. As I'm an admin I usually: recat the articles, delete the cat, then update it on CFDW, looks like you came arond right after I started and blanked that section to your work queue, just timing. I don't do WP:CFDW very often, usually stick to the ones in WP:CFDS, but if I've got my bot fired up I'll look for large ones in there sometimes before shutting it down. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's generally not a problem, as they are both just decategorizing, if multiple bots run at once, one will simply have nothing to do. If you are manually entering that info in to WP:AWB you may want to include a superdescriptive edit summary (if you have a few extra seconds) like Fluxbot's does..it makes it easier for others. If you do blank the section to work on it, make sure to relist the pages under cats ready to delete when complete, or return to the prior location if you dont or cant finish. Being an admin does not give me any "trumping" as far as edits go, especially not when it comes to my bot, just means I can take care of the deletion right away. What you're doing seems pretty good, Thanks for helping! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New User

• NEW Users (usaully 0-4 days old) can't move any pages.
• NOONE can "move" Category pages
• Only sysops can move certain protected pages.

Hope that answers your ? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake on Jeremy Miller. I'll pay closer attention to new porn star articles I find. Regards, Zeromacnoo 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I can't begin to tell you how confused I was and if I hadn't recognized Hank Hightower's photos (I uploaded them) and knew who he was, I may not have caught it, either. As it was, it took quite a bit of sleuthing to figure it all out. Nice to see you active again, by the way. Take care.—Chidom ^talk  03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please no

Please revert your move of Category:National Parks of the United States to Category:National parks of the United States ProveIt. This is an ill-considered move that I would certainly objected too had I even have ever heard of Speedy category renaming, itself I feel a bad idea. National Parks are capitalized because the U.S. maintains named National Parks as well as other areas which represent the same level of protection but are not so named. This move wasn't even brought up at the appropriate Wikiproject. Rmhermen 13:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the {{Cfr}} tag to the category page; you may want to alert members of the WikiProject that discussion has been opened; however, I note that WikiProject tag refers to them as "national parks".(Category talk:National parks of the United States)—Chidom ^talk  16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add further comments on my talk page for this matter.

Comments/recommendations should be added to the nomination. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Forna of <region>/Biora of <region> caregories. I noticed you are interested in this issue from the deletion log.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Is Our Romance

i believe you have a problem with my entry of this topic please let me have access to let me complete the entry as we are a band and i believe people interetsed in our band wanted to have a wipidia entry up so it would be greatful if yo ucould let me have this entry posted thanksCheckmyself 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC) michael kumar

Um, I think you have the wrong person; I haven't heard of your band or an article about it until now. Additionally, I'm not an administrator, so I couldn't deny you or grant you access in any case. I hope you find what and/or who you need, though. Good luck!—Chidom ^talk  03:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Married Men front.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Married Men front.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and tagged this as a speedy deletion (it falls under Housekeeping/Author request, I think). I reviewed the remainder of my images and gave some of the orphaned ones homes and tagged others as speedies.

It was a bit disconcerting to have all the images I've ever edited show up on my contributions list. Since I did some disambiguation/category cleanup, there are quite a few of those. However, I'll probably know which images I edited this time, so I won't have to re-read all of those!

Thanks again. I know yours must be a thankless task; it is appreciated.—Chidom ^talk  19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Getting it firm back.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Getting it firm back.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion template

Are you sure you haven't been writing [[Image:whatever.xxx]] where you should be writing [[:Image:Whatever.xxx]] (i.e. are you sure you're not leaving out the colon at the start, which specifies its a link, instead of embedding it). Maybe that's not it, but that's all I can think of. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 14:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)