User talk:ThaddeusB/Archive 2010

I've been in touch with the MHT, and they've redirected the old main page to the new main page, but all of our links just go there rather than to an error page as they did before. It's therefore marginally better, but the links are still effectively broken. I don't think we'll get much father with them, as they don't seem to be interested in redirecting their 1400-odd subpages, since they're dynamically generated as far as MHT is concerned. Therefore, I'd say we should go ahead and make all of our links to www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net point to the new address at mht.maryland.gov. Acroterion _(talk) 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll start up the bot within the next couple days and report back to you when it is complete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ... just wondering where this bot request is in queue. User:Pilch62 has started to manually change links from www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net to mht.maryland.gov Thanks in advance --Pubdog (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A small nudge, now that the Olympics are over - any chance of a bot run? Thanks, Acroterion _(talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay - I've been mostly inactive this entire year. :( Finally getting caught up now. I'll have by bot run through this by the end of the weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that real life tends to take priority (or should). Acroterion _(talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ready, T. Next lesson? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could follow up your plans to add sources and improve the article? [1], [2]. It closed as no consensus with only you voting to keep. When it closed it still did not have any references, and it remains unsourced today. I looked but did not see enough information in independent reliable sources improve the article beyond a stub. And I'm personally not comfortable using the autobiography and the website as the only sources. If we are relying on them, then I would prefer to make the article about the autobiography "Recovered, not cured: a journey through schizophrenia" since it will not grow stale. This needs to be addressed because according to his own website, he no longer is employed by the The Age. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attempt to fix the article before the end of the month. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#NY_Times_content --Cybercobra (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Next issue

Content

Been waiting for you to complete this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)&curid=23326133&diff=339076007&oldid=338323744 -- ends with a dangling sentence. ~

Thanks for the heads up. The extra text was just some thoughts that I worked in elsewhere and then forgot to delete before hitting save. Now corrected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Ucucha 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi ThaddeusB/Archive 2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

(refactored) Ikip 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Schwa had 11,000 or so views of its DYK hook? Well done (although I like medium rare). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot's down again. Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's working again now. Not sure if you are responsible for that, but if so, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on

The name Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to bodly change any of the proposal as it stands.

Please note at a time that you and co-founder Fritzpoll were editing less, I proposed then created a subpage of the incubator project to incubate the articles in wikiproject Australia. There was disagreement about this, so this ceased, 70 articles remain on this sub-page. I would be happy to explain this to you, at your leisure....

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that user page if possible... Ikip 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) I picked a good/bad time to lose access to the internet for a week: bad because I would have liked to do my bit to steer us out of last week's shit; good because I was getting very worked up and achieving absolutely zip. A week of quietly writing stubby content offline is just what I needed, though not at all what I wanted. Hesperian 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thaddeus

21 years ago, i bought a car that was stolen. I turned it in as a 26 year old NYU, London School of Economic PhD working for KKR.

It would not have mattered if I did not allow Tawana Brawley to stay at my house during her ordeal.

It is quit obvious that civil rights issues do matter much in your world.

One of you wrote that poor article. It is not a crime to hire a ghost writer. I would not take the blame for the poorly written article.

I have contributed to the betterment of humankind and will get my documentations to you. The internet is not research.

(Wstoke (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC))wayne[reply]

Hun? I'm not sure what you want/why you are posting this here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here:

WRE) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey ThaddeusB, just letting you know I sent you an email the other day, hope it got to you okay :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I replied via email. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThaddeusB, first of all, thank you for reading my article in the incubator MULTICUBE. You decline my request for moving to the mainspace telling: decline move to mainspace - article seems to demonstrate notability through third party references first; some minor cleanup

I'm not so expert and I did not get what do you mean. If you think the article is lacking and should be improved before moving to the mainspace, can you please tell me more explicitly what can I improve? If instead you believe the article is fine, can you graduate it and move to mainspace please.

Thank you --Marianig (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noted in my talk page your detailed comment... I'm going to work on it. Thank you. --Marianig (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MULTICUBE article updated

I updated the page MULTICUBE with some new references. Mainly:

• HiPEAC newsletter: HiPEAC is an important
  Network of Excellence
  concerning the related research topics in Europe.
• DATE Booth: Design Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) is the major conference in Europe in our field. MULTICUBE is represented there with both, scholarly publications, and in the space reserved for EU funded projects in the conference Booth.

I did not add all reference from scholarly publications since they are quite a lot. I just placed a link where readers can find them all: MULTICUBE publication list.

If your suggestion is to place some of the articles published in conferences and journals (Many of these are published in major conferences outside Europe). I can filter out the most relevant.

Moreover, I believe the major reference is still represented by CORDIS, which means the relevance of the project is recognized by the authority represented by the European Commission which is funding the releted activities.

One of the two developed tools is also distributed within sourceforge Multicube explorer. If you believe this link is more relevant than the one actually on the proposed article (MULTICUBE explorer), I can update it with your suggestion.

Please, let me know if you believe these references are enough and your suggestions about how to organize them.

I really thank you for your time. --Marianig (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of

Thanks for the encouragement. I am definitely considering taking it to FA, but that's something I've never done before so I'll have to read over the requirements first. I also have ordered a couple off-line sources from the library that I want to (potentially) incorporate first.

In the mean time, any suggestions you have to improve the article (even small ones) are certainly welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see, I added a few minor things. Remove anything that you don't think should really be there. I look forward to seeing this at

WP:FOUR) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have nominated Callard, Madden & Associates, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callard, Madden & Associates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thaddeus, as a matter of interest, did you consult the original when you changed the punctuation here? [3] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course (although common sense would also say there is no comma there in the original). Personally, I think the guideline is unnecessary, but if we are going to have it we should at least follow it in our explanation of how to use it! Here's the full quote:

Okay, thank you. The reason I asked was to see whether the wording we have in that section is sufficiently clear so that people realize they do need to check. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm really sorry to bother you, as I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you had any updates concerning Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT. The BRFA has been open since September, and the bot has been in trial for seventeen days. Are you planning on running this bot soon, or are there still problems affecting it? Best. — The Earwig @ 22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am working on a revision of the Ivar Kreuger article on my talk page because I wanted to get your (and Kraxler's, who also helped a lot) opinion before editing the actual article.

Yesterday somebody deleted all my work. (Fortunately I was able to revert this.) Do others have the right to edit MY talk page? What would be the point if this is so?

I am very discouraged as it is and wish I had never touched the subject but since I am stubborn and said I will do it I am trying my best to edit a difficult subject matter. (Even Kreuger's financial advisers and accountants did not see the whole picture and Ivar said that he did not know how much money he had.)

Sorry to bother you. Would you please reply on my talk page? Thank you.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the GPI is a real standard used in broadcast video, and I needed to learn about it last week, and did, I thought it would be suitable to create a page describing it. I see you deleted the old page on this topic. I don't know what was on it, but it might be easier for me than starting from scratch since your complaint seems to have been that it was too technical.

At the very least, it should say something roughly like: The general purpose interface (GPI) system is a scheme for sending data between components of a video handling system. It is typically used for broadcast (i.e. professional) video equipment and is based on encoding contact closure information in the vertical blanking portion of a video signal. --Nexus501 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not replying soon - I have been mostly inactive for some time & am just now getting caught up again. The deleted version consists of a one sentence definition and nothing else. If you still what me to restore it, let me know and I will be happy to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case I can start from scratch when I get re-invigorated. Cheers. Nexus501 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at

I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mark#Stability_of_the_German_mark and tried to follow the instructions at editing help on how to embed an external link.

I tried three times and every time I get the message "Server not found". I have no idea of what I am doing wrong and would truly appreciate your help.

The external link is: http://www.planet-wissen.de/politik_geschichte/wirtschaft_und_finanzen/geschichte_der_d-mark/index.jsp

Thanks in advance.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the problem myself. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for all the citation help. WebCiteBOT may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archiving_old_BBC_News_articles. Quick summary: many Wikipedia articles link to BBC web pages which may be shortly be deleted. (I realise there's a similar notice on User talk:WebCiteBOT but I don't know how often it reads that.) Certes (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it running? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this page without cause. The movie has been shown in film festivals in America and Europe, is present in IMDB, has had reviews in several national publications and is currently in distribution through Gigaplex. See http://www.GodWearsMyUnderwear.com/press for details One of the actors is Masi Oka, star of NBC's HEROES.

It takes years for an indie film to build a presence - your untimely deletion of this film means we can't add the very references you want.

Mccainre (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! The article was deleted via the

reliable source

references.

P.S. You might want to be nicer the next time you need something. You'll find it is a much more effective way to get what you want, in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You - I've lived with this thing so long I get a bit emotional about it. I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, so I didn't know the page had been proposed for deletion until too late. When I went to do the updates, I was a bit freaked out... Mccainre (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping with this. I'm happy to hand it off to you and answer any questions you may have. Drs. Foster & Smith educational articles are regularly cited in pet species profiles etc on Wiki; let me know if you need any info to finish the article.

Best,

Brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFSBrent (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your archiving strategy means that you weren't notified by the bot: your attentions are requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT. Josh Parris 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bot approvals request has been expired. Please see the request page for details. Josh Parris 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into

Thanks for the notice. I hope to have WebCiteBOT back up and running by the end of this weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thaddeus, thank you for visiting my user talk page. I am not sure what you did, but it is totally irrelevant to me. I guess it was the right thing to do. Thank you anyway. I visited your User page, and I noticed that under “Things I might be able to help you with... One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is its collaborative nature. Each editor is free to work on what they are best at/like the most, and leave the

PS. Thanks for all your good work. Maybe one day I will ask for your help. Best, --

parley 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Thaddeus, I pray and hope you are doing well. I am wondering if you ever saw my message? I do understand that you have been away on leave of absence and coming back soon. I am looking forward to your response. Thanks. Take care,

parley 12:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Thaddeus, thank you very much for your ample and comprehensive response. Very kind and most enlightening. Certainly I would very much look forward to having further conversations and discussions on the matters of Theology and religion. I am sending you an email, as I would rather have a more private forum of engagement. I am very pleased that you finally responded and I am very excited to know that you are knowledgeable and passionate about this subject matters. Please look for my email within the hour. Yours most truly,

parley 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello,

Please, I updated the Multicube page and I did not received any further suggestion or comment. Your previous comment was that the page was completely lacking of third party sourcing. I added some. Moreover, I referenced some publications (i.e, [1--6]), which speaks about the methodology developed in the MULTICUBE project and which directly refers to the project. Many of these references are published from IEEE, the most important association for the electronics and informatics research communities which grant the quality and relevance of the activities.

Among others I listed also a publication on one of the most relevant journals of the field:

• [5] Gianluca Palermo, Cristina Silvano and Vittorio Zaccaria. "ReSPIR: A Response Surface-based Pareto Iterative Refinement for Application-Specific Design Space Exploration " In IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems. Volume 28 Issue 12, December 2009 pp. 1816-1829

ReSPIR reference

ReSPIR pdf document

The reference to the project is within the text of the document... In the case you do not have access to the pdf, I can verify if I have the right for providing you a copy. Other referred publications are also on important conferences of our field.

There is also the reference to CORDIS which is the prove that European commission is funding the MULTICUBE project within the

In the wikipedia page:

Thanks, Marianig (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is correct that the show was discontinued after the first two seasons aired. As for the name changes... when referring to the company it is Drs. Foster and Smith. When referring to the corporation it is Foster & Smith, Inc. The difference in the ampersand is simply what the company/corporation names are. You can use Foster & Smith, Inc., Drs. Foster and Smith, Foster and Smith all interchangably, but if there is a Drs. it should be Drs. and not Doctors to follow the actual company name.DFSClaire (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Thaddeus. Hope all is well with you. I started running SDPatrolBot II (talk · contribs) my self a little bit, and experienced a few errors which I wasn't getting before. I'm pretty sure I've now managed to weed these out, so if you're still willing to run it, I'll send the up-to-date version to you. Don't worry about getting back to me quickly if you're busy :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am starting to get back into Wikipedia "full time" now, so if you want to send me an updated version of the bot, I'll be happy to try and run it again. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have email! - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks neccessary - just didn't want to see these potential articles disappear. Dan arndt (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the process is once I've referenced an article I change the status to eval and let someon else move it back to the Wiki mainspace? Dan arndt (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what's up with User:WebCiteBOT? It says it's active, yet doesn't seem to have run since November. This is a key task - if you can't run it, can you try and hand it over to someone else? Rd232 ^talk 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably caused by this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that down-for-maintenance issue must be recent; I've used webcitation.org plenty of times since November, I'm pretty sure in the least week or two. Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB, I understand that someone's priorities on Wikipedia can change. You get burnt out on something and stop devoting attention to it. Given that, I was wondering if you had any desire to support WebCiteBOT any more? It hasn't ran since November and you have repeatedly said on the bot's talk page that you hope to have it running soon, but it hasn't ran since late November. If you no longer want to support the bot, would you be willing to hand it off to someone who does? If so, I will raise the proposition at

Hello, I appreciate your concern. Fortunately, I am finally getting back into Wikipedia after 3-4 months of being pretty inactive. I should have WebCiteBOT back up by the end of the coming weekend. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus, do you have an update on the bot?—NMajdan•talk 02:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to make a couple changes to the code due to recent changes in the MediaWiki software. I'm optimistic that will happen tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an update?—NMajdan•talk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus, sorry to ask again, but is there an update on the bot? Should we go back to

Thaddeus, do you have an update?»NMajdan·talk 14:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2010 Aug 25 - Related conversation at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Ucucha 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Fritzpoll has left permanently for certain reasons and sadly will not be returning. If you like Thaddeus I can email him and ask him to give you the bot script to continue to download the lists from the others wikis. So far he has done Faroes and Albania and they look good.. Sometime we also want to programme a bot to create batches of articles... Are you still interested? I don't want this project to have been another dud and die out. Yes it is relianlt on a loose group of individuals often working independently but it would be nice to work towards a coordinated way of transferring articles together. Hope you are well. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is overwhelming me!... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time for any of my bot projects recently. Maybe this coming week, I'll have some time... Failing that, I have a lot of free time coming up in about a month. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would it be possible to update

Yes. I am finally back on Wikipedia "full time" now after a 4+ month absence. I'll try to update the code, by week next, but if not I will at least run it to get an updated list. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be annoying but...

books} 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Any update?

books} 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please, it's been 10 months since it last run. A new report without any code updates to the code would still be immensely usefull.

books} 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll get it done this weekend, 100% for sure. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started the download/uncompress/run program cycle this afternoon. If it goes at the same speed as previous runs, new data should be on wiki on Tuesday. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party time!

books} 04:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for United States v. Ballin

On 9 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Ballin, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Australopithecus sediba, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review, ThaddeusB! I have followed your advice and made trims to the article. I have given some replies to your initial review on the GAN page. If you have any additional issues with the article, or feel I have not made sufficient progress on your present concerns, please advise there. Thanks again! G.W. (Talk) 02:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, your talk page is huge. You might consider archiving it! G.W. (Talk) 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I haven't archived in several months, so its about time that I do so. :) Also, I replied on the GAN page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! G.W. (Talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finished a brief description of Leontius and his contribution. G.W. (Talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the review page. G.W. (Talk) 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you at User talk:ThaddeusB-public. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you should fix the log in module of your bot. vvv^t 09:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take care of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit:

On Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI, you objected to the material, arguing it was recentist. Yet now you deleted the references from 2005 about a legal statement by the U.S. government which is of lasting importance today (as well as the CBS article about the current debate, which is much more thorough on the legal background than the Times article which you left as only reference. I think Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is of relevance here.

Also, I assume that you know that Dawkins is not a police officer and therefore is not "starting to arrest" Benedict, but that he and others are mounting a legal campaign which could - theoretically - result in an arrest in September, and even then of course not literally by Dawkins, Hitchens etc. themselves. I am trying hard not to assume bad faith, but it is difficult not to see this as an attempt to summarize the issue in a distorted way to ridicule Dawkins and downplay the significance of the underlying legal question.

I agree that issues like this need to be weighed carefully (and I hope we can find a good compromise even with some editors who apparently let their faith and their emotions overcome their sense for Wikipedia principles). But it is just not appropriate to dismiss material that has been covered by numerous reliable sources out of hand as "irrelevant" and of undue weight.

(I started to write this before you commented on the article talk page, will reply there later, too.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to the weight be given to the whole matter and pointed out that it only looks important b/c it is recent. The 2005 legal request is unrelated to the story and, as such, is an unnecessary aside. Let's try to keep the discussion about the incident to one paragraph.

Also, please note that the "started to arrest" was simply a typo, which I fixed a minute later to read "started a campaign to arrest". --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the minute was seven minutes long, which happened to be the time span during which I saw your edit and started to write the above comment. But thanks for the correction.

You cannot dismiss something as recentist and at the same time ignore evidence that the same question has been discussed since at five years ago as "unnecessary aside" because it is not about the current news story. POINT came to mind because the only reference you left standing in the article was the one to which your objections seemed to apply the most.

I am a bit puzzled that you appear to be referring to me as "less experienced" editor in [this request to keep the edits by me and others "under control" (I have been active on the English and German Wikipedia since 2003).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring anything. The legal status of the pope has little or no baring on what he wrote it 1985, nor does it have any real bearing on proposed "arrest" as I'm sure you agree that is pure hyperbole at this time.

The less experienced comment was not directed at you, but rather the other 4-5 people who've left comments (on both sides) in the last 24 hours. Also, it was directed at keeping the debate, not the article, under control. I'm sure you'll agree the debate is getting pretty emotional and unproductive.

Let's try to keep the personal accusations out of this, and instead stick to discussing the correct wording on the talk page. I have just set up a new subsection for that purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Thai political protests, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Nice job! Looks like you're becoming an ITN regular! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you could say I'm hooked. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get many complaints- there's a dearth of regulars and a dearth of admins at ITN/C and since I seem to be the offical postman, you don't even need to worry about anything but the blurb! Out of interest, have you read

WP:ITN/A? I wrote it a few days ago and I'm looking for feedback from those with less experience of updating the template (kind of ironic since, as a non-admin, I have none) so any comments would be appreciated. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't previously read

WP:ITN/A, but I did a couple days ago when you sent this notice. I did find it helpful and as near as I can tell, it covers everything it needs to. My only suggestion for improvement would be that the language is a little informal at times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please take another look at the situation. I was attempting to mediate between two other editors who were actually edit warning, as such I restored the original version (once) and added a NPOV dispute tag (once). I hardly think that qualifies as edit warring. As it so happens, I was not even a fan of the version I restored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then my apologies. I just saw an ongoing edit war and you appeared to be invovled... I was trying to warn all parties that the war needs to stop and that the version that should be preserved would be the less inflamatory one as it deals with a BLP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just glad you and NW stepped in to end the war (at least for now). Incidentally, I agree the Dawkins line is irrelevant to the article and said as much on the talk page. Originally it was 2 entire paragraphs on the subject - I cut it to the one sentence as a compromise... I didn't feel comfortable removing it since like 4 people on the talk page wanted it & only myself & Jenn (who is obviously non-neutral) were opposed. Granted all these people except for one are clearly inexperienced, but I didn't want to make it look like I was "imposing my will." Thankfully, that is no longer an issue you, myself, and NW all in agreement that the statement doesn't belong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that Jeanne might not be neutral on the subject, so far I haven't seen her take an unreasonable stance (Although I've only witnessed two discussions on the page---the one concerning this fringe position and another related to a noted vatican journalist that the guy who wanted the fringe position wants to remove.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThaddeusB.

I respect that you provide your time to wikipedia monitoring - but the fact of the matter regarding your reverting my changes to this page (regarding the bombing) is that all media opposing Abhisit's government has been censured (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869273.htm)

The red shirt protesters are constantly the victims of government slur campaigns.

My interest in this is the freedom of speech and true information - I am a Thai national who has immigrated abroad due to being disgusted at the state of affairs within Thailand.

My brother is currently protesting with 'red shirts' and was in the vicinity of the bombing and watched his comrades/friends die as a result of the military bombing - where is the justice for them?

110.174.10.22 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite a logical jump from "censored media" to "ordered attacks for which there is no direct evidence". And in any case, Thai media being censored doesn't mean international media will also be censored. What you really want to post is your opinion (point of view) about what happened, not fact.

I understand your motivations and sympathize, however Wikipedia has strict policies against this sort of thing, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. Accusations like the one you inserted absolutely must be cited to a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot simply take your word for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 April 2010, 2010 eastern Indian nor'wester, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page .

-- tariqabjotu 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - People have been adding the above system to the NIO cyclone season and off course it doesn't belong there. I bring it too your attention as you may be able to use some of the bits people have been adding to help you in improving the article on the system.Jason Rees (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look at the provided sources and see if there is anything to add. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know, if you don't hear anything from the original submitter of this article, that I'm willing to try to work on the changes you listed to get it to GA status. Drop me a line if that's okay with you. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly anyone is allow to both improve the article and participate in the GA review. The nominator has no special claim on the article... Just be prepared for more suggestions once the first round are cleared up - my initial review was far from exhaustive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some improvements to the article. I'm not sure about the lead though. It seems like it does a decent sweep of the content, rather than having original content that isn't repeated later. Let me know what you think of the changes. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more work on the page to address your most recent set of issues, and a few other editors made minor changes as well in the last couple weeks. I believe we should be ready to move on to the next step. Let me know what you think! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't noticed... I was watching only the GA page. I probably won't have a chance tonight, but I'll post a full review shortly now that the "big" problems are out of the way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my submission and send me the source to your discussion please. It was relevant and should be included, as in the UK it's receiving high-profile media coverage (which you may not notice in Ohio). —Preceding

First, I assure you we have plenty of access to plenty of media coverage even here in Ohio. Now, to answer your question see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI where the issue has been discussed extensively. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ! thanks for correcting me. have a nice day! God bless :) Jpuligan_12 (talk) 2010 - 04 - 17 19:29 (UTC).

On 20 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've sent you an email - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Thai political protests, which you substantially updated and recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article April 2010 Baghdad bombings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More mail :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants

Where do we draw the line? Does every movie release get its own entry in the Current events page? Will we mention it when the DVD comes out? What about the Director's Cut? Why don't we also list the releases of Furry Vengeance and Please Give? Does every foreign film deserve a release mention?Woogee (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm is not appreciated or helpful. Obviously, it is a judgment call, just like every single other type of story. To say because one highly anticipated (not by me) movie release gets an entry that every other movie will as well is ridiculous. Should we not list a large natural disaster because that would lead to every thunder storm being listed?

The top few (international) movie releases each year are major entertainment news and deserve entries. To say otherwise, is to say this area is simply never worthy of inclusion, which is not supported by any current rule/guideline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on the Current Events Talk page. Was there an entry on the day Avatar came out? To be honest, I don't know the answer to that. But you're starting a bad precedent, because now we'll have every Bollywood film listed there on the grounds that we're being prejudiced. To be honest, I am looking forward to seeing NOES, but I don't think it belongs here, it's just too dangerous. Woogee (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Avatar either, but there certainly should have been. I don't see how providing readers with more news (that may or may not interest them, just like all news) is a "bad precedent", but I certainly don't mind a discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can just see the next Tamil film release showing up on Current Events and an edit war starting over whether it "deserves" to be there. Then the next French film, then the next Greek one... ad infinitum. Woogee (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very seriously that anyone will care enough to edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of a movie, but I guess you never know. That said, you still are making the same argument of exclusion of all b/c of the theoretical problem w/some. This is an invalid argument. Do we exclude all elections b/c of the possibility of someone edit warring over the inclusion of their local city council elections? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator GAN backlog elimination drive . It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Kentucky Derby, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Finally, i get to template someone for something I posted! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/The GNG and notability for actors and share your thoughts. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- tariqabjotu 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Johnson & Johnson children's product recall, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

- Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. [4]

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the Nefer Tweety account to back Arab Cowboy on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform me if im wrong, you just protected the song as i requested, but why is there no little logo saying its protected? ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The icon is independent of the protection due to software limitations, so it has to be added/removed manually. I forgot to do it, but will do so now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Thank You =) ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you to reconsider this protection. Unsourced edits are not a vandalism issue, and what this user considers vandalism isn't actually vandalism. We don't page protect because IPs are making good faith edits that aren't quite right. For example what he's claimed as vandalism here [5], isn't remotely vandalism. It is a content dispute. The last act of genuine vandalism I can find was April 30th, 4 days ago, and 4 days before that on April 26 there were a couple. This is not a high rate of vandalism and doesn't remotely warrant a month long protection. 3 incidents of vandalism in 8 days isn't even worth consideration.--

I protected because of the large number of edits that needed reversion recently. You are correct, though, that they weren't vandalism. Protection is primarily, but not exclusively, to stop vandalism. In this case, I felt that protection would do more good than harm, but it is certainly possible I erred. As to the length of protection, it was based solely on the article's history of granted protection requests. Please feel free to remove the protection or reduce to a length that you feel is more appropriate. I will defer to your judgement since you have more experience in this area than I do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ones that needed reversion were stylistic choices. Several times IPs were reverted for the same thing because they didn't provide a source, but if the editor had bothered to google it he would have found sources rather than continually reverting the IPs. I would change it but I'm not an admin ;) That's why I've asked you to change it. In the last two weeks it seems like the total reversions on the page is only averaging about one a day which isn't excessive.--

Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Got ya. Protection removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into this Thaddeus. You seem to be understanding. Here 212.100.250.207 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thank you. There won't be anymore edit warring and just as a side note the user Ophois was the editor starting the reverts in the first place. Thanks for looking into this matter and doing such a thorough job. Oh and thanks to the other IP editor who pushed this matter.99.243.113.181 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I explained in my initial reporting, both anons are InkHeart, who has a way to switch IP's to avoid blocks. She was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and has come back numerous times using anons that have subsequently been blocked. Her MO is to appear as an innocent anon to try to gain sympathy of admins unfamiliar with her previous abuse, even though a glance at the edit history will show it is her. She only convinced you to unprotect the page because she is concerned that her future anons won't be able to continue the abuse. Ωphois 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have jumped to a conclusion not backed by evidence (unless I missed something). Just b/c a user abused the article in the past doesn't mean every anon that shows up is that user. I will, however, keep an eye on the article for future problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just that article, it is many articles. However, most of the ones that she goes for have been semi-protected against her. She is easily identified for adding improperly cited episode ratings and vindictive editing, which looking at the edit histories of these two anons show. I would suggest you take a look at the edit histories of Style (TV series) and Princess Hours to see her work. Ωphois 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Removing unsourced edits by a banner user is not edit warring, and I was specifically given rollback rights to deal with this user. I tried to fix the situation the official way by getting admins involved, but you undid another admin's actions and are continuing to allow InkHeart to edit. Ωphois 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reverting over and over again over "bad content" is edit warring and is not a solution to the problem. What you needed to do is report the user, not the page. Page protection is normally for vandalism by multiple users, not one. The "final warning" I gave seems to have worked for now, but just drop me a note if the edits resume and I will block. In the mean time, I am checking on the nature of IPs to see if I can block as open proxies.... give me a few minutes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally that would work, but I have been dealing with InkHeart since last fall. She has a way to avoid blocks by switching IP addresses, and there have been days where she would keep coming back even if three or four IP's had been blocked. Semi-protecting pages is the only way to deal with her. Anyways, thanks for your assistance. Ωphois 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I haven't explained myself well. The user can switch their IP by using proxy servers, primarily

open proxies

. These open proxies represent a threat to Wikipedia, so in a way the user is helping us out by finding these and alerting us that they need blocked. The problem with semi-protection is that it just encourages the user to find a new target, perhaps one that is poorly monitored. And, of course, it also shuts out some legitimate editors.

I much rather shut down their proxies one by one than encourage them to find holes to exploit. Yes that means, we'll have to deal with useless ratings and what not for brief periods of time, but it is the best of the various alternatives available. Eventually, they will get bored and give up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 May 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 World Snooker Championship, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Thanks for taking the time to sort it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to acknowledge for noticing that KnowIG is making unecessary edits which rubs people the wrong way and edits that were done by more experienced editors. My Thanks and Gratitude Dencod16.

Dencod is bullying KnowIG 08:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

Hi there,

I'm reaching out to people who I see have been active in Webcitation.org threads in the past.

I started the above-mentioned thread at VPM, which

1) asks how things are going with the webcitation.org bot (because i think it's SUCH A COOL idea), and

2) inquires whether WikiMedia should create its own archiving service, to avoid the risks of relying on another organization's services (e.g., the downtimes experienced now).

I hope you'll take a look. user:Agradman editing as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion seems to have fallen off the table. I see no sign that the bot ever got fixed, despite ThaddeusB's wonderful intentions. Please, please, Thaddeus, if you can't spare the time, at least let us know what's necessary to copy or build a replacement from scratch ;-( LeadSongDog come howl! 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WebCiteBOT_still_down.2C_replacement_growing_more_urgent. I sure hope you're back on-wiki soon. We miss you! LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! (heartily seconded) See #New Discussions in August 2010 —— Shakescene (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What's going on? I according to wikipedia rules as long as you add references and sources things should be fine why did you remove the post in the Personal Preference page? 189.90.240.21 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that you are edit warring using proxies. I won't tolerate this behavior... I suggest you stop wasting your time, as similar edits by new IPs will be blocked on sight. However, thanks for helping me find proxies that need blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: AIV report (since removed) —

talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

ec And this just in. —

talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

But I see that this message has overlapped with the conversation above. --

^"talk" 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

you might like to look at

^"talk" 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Listen, I'm the one that's supposed to make redundant posts. :D —

talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I am willing to

assume good faith on Yimiju for now, but the account obviously bears monitoring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There is now no doubt, looking at the edit histories, that the IP and Yimiju are one and the same. He is on final warning for vandalism; whether blanking messages on his own talk page using an IP can be classed as sockpuppetry is an interesting and unclear question. But using both to attack you is socking beyond argument.--

^"talk" 09:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InkHeart --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more mail ;D - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that about sums it up. Good edits there, I didnt realise that someone had removed that line. How can we protect this article from users who dont have a log in? Or something like that, I dont know it works. Best wishes ValenShephard 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

WP:RFPP. However, it is primarily intended to stop vandalism and only used to stop POV edits in extreme cases. As such, it is unlikely to granted at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. You've been doing a pretty good job defending the article from biased edits yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. With ref to May 2010 Greek protests article, pls dont blind revert. The phrase "protesters blamed police for starting the cycle of violence, police brutality for the escalation of conflict" does not stand. Which protesters are those??? The other phrase about the bank management's prohibiting participation to the strike does not stand because participation to any strike is constitutional right.--Vanakaris (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blind revert, or

reliable sources, which is the standard for inclusion. Yes, I know the line doesn't have a [1] ref directly on it, but that is a result of various people messing up the refs at different points, not b/c it is unsupportable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

After more careful review, I remove the one small part of the phrase that appeared to be based on blog reports, not actually reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you keep an eye on

I won't be up that much longer myself, but I'll keep an eye on it for now. I've made requests to monitor high-profile article on

WP:AN before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You're currently running an older version of it. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you do switch over, could you revert the most recent edit to User:SDPatrolBot_II/Warning and User:SDPatrolBot_II/run. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped the bot and will restart shortly. I think I accidentally restarted the wrong version after it crashed this morning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nominate ) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Your DYK I approved your Provenge hook. talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks. You weren't the only one who found it interesting: it WP:ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ] InkHeart question Hey, EunSoo has been adding unsourced info to Princess Hours‎, and has been reverting it back. I know that it is InkHeart, and I saw on her userpage that you, too, believe it to be her. She posted on my talk page as EunSoo, and I've dealt with her so much that I know there is no point in trying to reason with her, so I was hoping you could help. Thanks. Ωphois 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't it just be easier to reference it (like I just did) than argue about it? Most the rest of that section is unreferenced as well, so reverting an unsourced addition to it is a little silly when the addition is obviously factually accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] You blocked only one of his proxies You blocked the IP address 118.122.88.5[6]. Another IP address even states its the same guy as the one you just blocked. At [7] he says proxy, I'm same as 118.122.88.5 by the way, hoping these I found in a :blackhat SEO pool that haven't been caught by your net will be block...') You might want to also look at [8]. All of these have been posting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CarsDirect and they and perhaps other IPs keep editing those articles affected in that mass nomination for deletion. Dream Focus 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] hanks for the heads up - I blocked the 208.67 now. There are always new proxies opening up, so its impossible to get them all, but I'll certainly block any I'm made aware of. 24.11 is not a proxy and appears to be unrelated. I'll take a look at the history and so if any other blocks are warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] DYK for Provenge nominate ) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) user Agent4453 and his prolific IP hopping insanity Bringing this directly to you since you have some background with it. Special:Contributions/207.69.139.145 should tell you all you need to know. The weird thing is that some of this character's edits actually appear to be constructive, but there so much fabrication that I tend to roll 'em all back. In any event, this is obvious socking to somebody with a bit of background (read: you), so do what you think is best. Majorclanger (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] The problem is he is on clearly the same guy on sight. If he remains persistent, I can semi-protect the affected articles, but since that will affect many people it is best to try and discourage him away through blocks first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ] P.S. If you have a chance, run through the main account's contributions to see if this are legit or not. Some are clearly harmless, but others need knowledge of the subject to tell, of which I have none. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] I figured it was something like that (the dynamic IP). The more I look at it, the weirder it becomes. The named account is on right now, and the edits seem to be legit - he's changed some dates back to what they were early in the life of the articles (a common gimmick for these kids' TV vandals is to mess with the dates to the point where it's not at all clear what's accurate, and next to none of 'em have citations). Most of the misinformation seems to be coming from the anon socks. Maybe a case of good cop, bad cop, where he vandalizes anonymously and cleans it up later with the named account. Honestly, I don't have much knowledge about this stuff, apart from a small handful of series, none of which this guy has touched. I ended up with a lot of these pages on my watchlist by following vandals around. Many of these cartoon articles are so full of cruft and subtle misinformation that they're practically useless. The "episode guide" ones are a bit cleaner, as there are decent sources around for air dates, at least. Regarding semi-protection, I'd recommend considering it if this goes on much longer, at least on pages that should have relatively static content - episode lists and ended series. Almost all of the action on such articles is vandalism reversion, with next to nothing useful coming from anons. Anyway, thanks for your attention to this. I'll bring any near-future action here. Majorclanger (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Your message Hello mate. Just to make you aware, I use an ISP that assigns a different IP address to users each time they connect. Therefore, I got this as a message from you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.143.196.68&redirect=no despite the fact I haven't touched that page. Just wanted to make you aware, because it's very unlikely the same person will connect twice on the same IP address, so these kinds of messages are a waste of your time if not directed towards a specific user ID. Thanks. (78.143.196.68 (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC))[reply] 3O My bad..., sorry about that. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Violation of article protection The article Nuclear program of Iran is protect for editing due to disruptive editing caused by you, please don't violate that protection as you continue to edit that problematic text.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] First of all, it was YOUR disruption that locked the article. Your continued refusal to accept any responsibility for your actions is very troubling. Now, in response to your accusation... If you are going to accuse me of something, you should at least READ the policy first. Are you seriously suggesting that removing a duplicate sentence (that you yourself complained about) is anything but a completely non-controversial edit? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] ANI-notice Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] 2010 thai elections ive no beef with you move back, but as an aside the "next elections" articles, which i think you are right about, do exist across wikipedia. ive seen it on numerous countries' elections.Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2010 May newsletter We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is WikiCup talk page . Two of last year's final 8, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply ] WikiStatsBOT down WikiStatsBOT is down. Shubinator (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Industrial music/GA2 Hi, what is happening with this review? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Orphaned non-free image File:Mad as I wanna be.jpg 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot , and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page. If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page. Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] New dump for WP:JCW Here's the link to the most recent dump. If you can add improvements to the dump (such as links to the articles which are citing "journal" that are cited less than 5 times, and the search links) that would be great and really help with the cleanup of "bad inputs", but if you don't have time for coding the extra bits, we'd still be pretty happy with a normal run. books} 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Latest dump. We did lots of work since the last one, so instead of the top 500 pop/missing, could it be upped to the top 1000 pop/missing? books} 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply ] DYK bot It's broke again. About 13 hours overdue now. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2010 June newsletter We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were WikiCup talk page . Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself. If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Fox and The ed17 FYI You had previously warned a user about WP:BLP article, and a similar issue has come up, again. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User_Trudyjh_at_article_Oksana_Grigorieva. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Sous Vide page, "Moderne Use" Section ThaddeusB, I was reading today the "Modern Use" section of the "Sous Vide" page you added january 2010. In this section you have mentioned the Sousvide-supreme as "the first integrated unit intended for home use" which is at a competitive price compared to other PID controlled unstirred waterbath. To be exhaustive in the list of manufacturers indicated (Freshmealssolutions, Auber...) IMO Addélice should be mentioned. Addélice immersion circulator is definitely affordable to non professional users (its price is very close to the Sousvide-supreme and even cheaper in europe). In addition, historically, Addélice immersion circulator was launched at the same time than the Sousvide-supreme. What do you think? JF —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanFrancois1973 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2010 July newsletter We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by WikiCup talk page . Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards. Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Lapiscalpo This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:18, 20 August 2009 ThaddeusB (talk | contribs) deleted "Lapiscalpo" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Does not meet general notability guidelines. Appears to have been invented by Dennis Sobers to promote his artwork & used by no one else) So If I did create a new form of art and craft that has never been seen in the world, and currently awaiting to be patented would it be wrong to self promote the concept as no one in the world has duplicated. Yes even the name is invented. Lapis means stone and scalpo means to scrape. I appreciate your rules and regulations but must one be validated my many sources in order to be accepted by your standards of submission? Dennis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.45.148 (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Welcome back, ThaddeusB. Have some cookies Cookies! Hi ThaddeusB. Welcome back to Wikipedia. Your fellow Wikipedians have missed you very much. Join in the party as your fellow Wikipedians say Hi to our old friend. Have some cookies as we celebrate your return. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply] To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Stats tool Can we get the tool that does the stats at T:DYK/Q#Current_number_of_hooks_on_the_suggestions_page off of your puter and onto the tool server so someone can fix it when it breaks? It breaks constantly and right now it's been broken for over three days. Shubinator was working on a replacement but he's not finished it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] WikiCup 2010 August newsletter We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight. Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare. Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology. Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology. Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock. The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago. The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats. The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock. The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas. We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions ) for these. here - the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list. Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply ] if you have a moment... Could you please evaluate Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Demarco Morgan? It was sent from AFD to incubation for having potential but no sources[9] and was a messy redlinked stub besides.[10] Now it has been cleaned up, expanded, and properly sourced. I believe it's now ready to return to mainspace. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well actually you will have to evaluate it in mainspace now, 'cause I moved it there. :) By the time you read this, who knows where it will be! Regards. Franamax (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good job, and thank you. I know how busy weilding the mop must be for you, so I was attempting to lessen your load (chuckle). Many hands make light work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Restore Hello! Can we restore this page? I would like to see it, and fix it, as some of those are regarded as national symbols, per some, so it may be useful to see it. If we find it unneeded, it can be easily deleted. Thanks! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 19:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] User:ThaddeusB/Celebriducks You userfied this and never did anything to it. Still planning on doing something? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2010 September newsletter We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. WikiCup talk page . Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon ! WP:WikiProject Bacon ? :) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants ! You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject. The User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011 . Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2010 October newsletter The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round. Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three. The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the Fox and The ed17 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply ] WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation Awarded to ThaddeusB, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. Fox and The ed17 09:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply ] dead link on Bridlington page Hi I have been trying to ammend a link which is dead on the page regarding Bridlington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridlington, the link is http://www.bridlington.net/history-foundation-priory.htm and it needs to be ammended to the following link http://www.bridlington.net/bridlington-history/history-priory.htm Thank you for any help you can provide Tracey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoxon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Closing an RFC at Template talk: Ahnentafel top Hi, Thaddeus, this is nothing too urgent in your busy schedule, but I was looking for a previously-uninvolved administrator to close the long-open Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1 (last new comments in October). Your technical expertise is definitely a plus. If you could add a parameter to allow editors to vary the background color, that would also be helpful. Thanks and happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Marathon winner succession Hi, I had a question about Template:Marathon winner succession. Basically, the auto-category part causes problems with category sorting. As a result, most transclusions just include the category twice. Would you object to removing this part of the code? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Euan Blair I was disappointed to find out that the Euan Blair article had been deleted after it had graduated from the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. This was some time ago, but I found out that it was put up for deletion after it was deleted. You had given my a message congratulating me on bringing the article up to standard. What can be done about this? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] WikiCup 2011 Hello. You are being contacted because you have WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply ] Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusB/Archive_2010&oldid=1142491228" Toggle limited content width