User talk:Nn123645/2008/July

Stub bot wait time

Hi Nn - 12 hours is probably enough in that case. I'd forgotten how quickly the new pages file through (though the last time I was doing NPP I was going back more than 100 pages - preferably up to 500, since there are still quite a few that haven't been checked once you get out of the newest hundred). Even so, 500 articles would be less than 12 hours, so extending it beyond that probably wouldn't make too much difference. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Christl Verduyn

I hope that there is now enough internal linkages to permit the removal of the "orphan" tag. I am fairly new at this and so don't know how these tags should be removed--by me or by an editor-- once put on. I prefer an editor's opinion Dreadarthur (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Orphan tag is not for internal links to other articles, that is what {{wikify}} is for. What orphan is for is pages that link to it. Right now there are no mainspace articles that link to Christl Verduyn (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Christl_Verduyn to see how many articles have links to it]]. The Orphan tag should not be removed until there is at least one article linking to it(talk pages, wikipedia space pages, user pages, and anything else not in the mainspace doesn't count). --Nn123645 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now linked Christl Verduyn directly to three other Wikipedia pages (Edna Staebler, Hugh MacLennan, Marian Engel) where her work is referenced. Is this now sufficient linkage to remove the "orphan" tag? Dreadarthur (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the orphan tag can go. -- Nn123645 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for highlighting the initial problem in my setup. Dreadarthur (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:65.29.202.156

He didn't actually revert it. He changed to El Presidente instead. Enigma ^message 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok, there was a vandal before him that changed John McCain to "Big Pee Head" or something along those lines. -- Nn123645 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Observation on UnCatBot

Firstly, well done on the terrific bot. I spend a lot of time on Category:Category needed doing my bit to organize things, and I see that the bot is doing a lot of good work.

One thing I did notice, though, is that a lot of the articles that end up there have been vandalized. For instance, check out the edit history for this article. I think that if an article has a recent previous version that's

• substantially longer than the current version, and
• has a category tag

then the article should be tagged as having possibly been vandalized, rather than being uncategorized. I say this because uncategorized pages can languish there for a long time, but vandalism should be dealt with ASAP. Just a suggestion.

Cheers, Reyk _YO! 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can have the new bot pull a list of the last 15 revisions of a page and if there is any significant change in the number of bytes have it look for vandalism and revert it. Though that is currently beyond the scope of the bot and would require a new BRFA as well as access to a Toolserver account to really make it be able to do anything remotely close to real time, since the special page is uncategorized. Tagging the vandalism doesn't really do that much good. The only really other somewhat pratical solution is to pull the RSS feed of recent changes and look for all removal of categories, though really a type of revert functionality would be better dealt with by one of the existing anti-vandalbots ( like ClueBot ). --Nn123645 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Reyk _YO! 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EAST Pakistan

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article EAST Pakistan, 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. Natebailey (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)