User talk:ST47

[edit] How can I get the "Hall Hunt" page posted again?

Hey. My name is Hall Hunt. There was a page about me that was deleted earlier this month. I just noticed that it was deleted. I don't know anything about publishing anything about Wikipedia except for looking articles up, so I am amazed that I even found this page to ask you the question. How can I get the page back up? I think it said said something about plagerizm. I didn't create the page to begin with, but rather I think it was an organization I am a part of. Maybe they plagerized there other webpage or something. I am not sure. The bottom line is I would be willing to do anything I need to so the page can be posted again. Please let me know what, if anything I can do. I guess you usually post responses here, so I will check back. Otherwise just email me at HallHunt@comcast.net . Thank you very much!  ;o) 67.129.185.89 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Hall Hunt

Hi there!

Looks like I deleted your article because it was copyrighted material, and we can only use free non-copyrighted text (see at the top left of this page where it says "Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia"?) If you do believe that we should have an article about you, you can write a draft, making sure that you can back up your information with links to reputable web sites, and visit WP:AFC for more information. Before you do, please note that we cannot publish your article unless it is written in a neutral way (You can't say "Hall Hunt is the best because he is awesome", you can say "Hall Hunt has won so and so competition in the field of competitive eating," granted, of course, that you have actually won that competition) and contains links to reliable sources, like newspapers or other websites, or even this article, which is what our old article was copied from. You might also want to have a look at WP:COI first, since writing about yourself in a neutral way is often a difficult task - but if you do happen to slip up, there are plenty of eyes around to help out. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tell your bot thanks...

...I totally forgot to add a license to it. Thanks =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that is the point of the bot ;) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly advice

Hi, just a couple of friendly words, because I'm worried that you may be rubbing some editors the wrong way, and potentially scaring them off from Wikipedia. I think it would be very helpful if both you and your bot provided a little more information about what Wikipedia, and your bot, expect to find at a non-free image page - and to let editors know what it is they've missed out from their rationale.

It is clear from your comments on your talk page that a number of editors feel their images already satisfy the requirements, and that the template messages left by the bot have not made it clear if, or why, this is not the case. Your first replies rarely help them to understand why they are in error; in some cases ("Stop being stupid and fix your image") they are downright rude - especially coming from an administrator.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of your bot, but I suspect you would reduce the number of irate posts to your talk page if your bot's message gave the user clearer instructions, which could perhaps be made more specific according to which of the bot's rules was broken. I'd suggest something along the lines of:

“

You have tagged this image as fair use, but you didn't provide enough information for a bot to verify that the image meets these requirements. Please go to the image's talk page and check that it clearly describes why the image satisfies all the posts listed here and here. You may find it helpful to look at this guide. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we have to be very careful that Wikipedia abides by copyright laws. If you have any questions about the copyright status of your image, or of Wikipedia's copyright policy in general, you could ask here.

”

Also, please do read template messages you post on user pages, check they're appropriate (you recently tagged my burgeoning talk page with a message saying "Welcome to Wikipedia!" when a quick glance would have shown you that I'm not exactly new to the site, which didn't exactly make a great first impression) and check that they provide the editor with a clear "next step" through the complex copyright mire. I usually find that editors are more willing to spend their time doing things, such as providing a fair use rationale, if I take a couple of seconds to speak to them helpfully rather than just bombarding them with unhelpful templates.

I hope that that will help to engage editors a little more in the copyright process and encourage them to improve rationales, rather than thinking "sod it, it's not worth it", and leaving useful images to get deleted unnecessarily. Besides, I'm sure you get pretty frustrated wasting your time messaging people telling them why your bot was right and they were wrong - which is clearly the case in the majority of instances! I hope that a more helpful bot message would reduce the number of people requiring such a response.

Anyway, I hope that's of some use.

Smith609 Talk 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am cautious about telling users exactly what is wrong with the image, because if they know exactly what the bot saw, they can fix that issue and then not be seen by me again, whereas if the image has many problems that the bot cannot detect, it is preferable to have them fix all of the issues that they can find so they comply with the policy, not with my bot. The problem arises not when they can't find out what the problem is, but when they refuse to read and understand policy, even though the relevant policy is linked from the deletion tag, the warning message, and the bot's talk page. It seems to me that no amount of handholding, short of fixing the image for them, of course, will help. There's an old adage about giving a man a fish... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the assumption on the part of the uploaders that my bot is in error, as evidenced by the section title "fix your bot" is ever so slightly annoying. Perhaps that contributes to the "irate" nature of my responses. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy is a mess, and I totally understand that many contributors have trouble following it, especially in a way that makes bots happy. It sounds like you have two ultimately contradictory goals: you want it to be obvious how to follow policy, but you also want it to be non-obvious how to pass your bot's check. But in an ideal world the bot's check would be equivalent with policy. The fact that it's possible to "comply with policy but not with your bot" requires that there is a significant difference between your bot's rules and policy. It's an understandable situation, since the policy is so complex, but it shouldn't be taken as a desirable situation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aubrey Gibson image and your bot

Well, I guess I'm one of the users the subject of the discussion above. An average user, average editor and - I thought until now - diligent reader of wikipolicies as required. The difficulty with your response just above is that I can't see what your bot saw. Some time back I uploaded an image - Image:AubreyGibsonRosebowlJacket2.JPG - for use in an article I created. It has just been tagged by your bot. Fair enough. Now, if I've read the policies correctly, the justification I've given for the use of the image is adequate. However, I took the point that maybe I've put the justification in the wrong location on the image page. I confess it's a while since I've uploaded an image, so I tried to edit the image info page - and this reminded me that the process is semi-automated. I couldn't work out how to shift the justification for use from its current location to a location next to the link to the particular article (and only article) in which the image is used. I'm taking the tag off, not to be difficult, but because (a) as far as I can see I've complied with WP policy, but more to the point (b) at the moment I'm only visiting the site every couple of weeks and the bot / WP / whatever is only giving me 7 days warning. I'm sure you'll set me on the right track. I have the fish, thanks, but my problem is not understanding your bot's message but in successfully responding to it. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fix your bot - restored section

Per [1].

Since you didn't answer, I'm going to ask one more time; please direct me to the 'machine readable' policy on en. Furthermore, how does this affect Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg (hint, it already had a {{Non-free fair use in|Banqiao Dam}} tag and was therefore machine readable).

Let's be really clear here: this image is classic fair-use. It had a rationale. Your bot tagged it because it didn't have a particular template. There is no requirement that this particular template be used on fair-use images. Instead of admitting that you are a lazy bot writer, you first blame the image, then me, then some 'machine readable' policy that makes no difference since the image page already had a machine readable tag.

This was a difficult image to find, and it should not be deleted every couple of years because some bot writer all of the sudden decides there's a particular template that must be used.

If you want this image to use a specific template for fair-use, go ahead and add it. Otherwise revert your edit and fix your bot. --Duk 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please show me where your bot was approved to mark for deletion fair-use images With a rationale. --Duk 13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot tagged it because the rationale is not complete. Why in the bloody hell do you not realize that? You fail to address the most important point, the lack of a free equivalent - Why must we use this non-free image? Why is there not a free one? You fail to address 10c: There is no mention of the page it is used on. You fail to address 8 to my satisfaction: You say it is an educational use, but why is this particular image the only way to educate readers? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. You might challenge that quality, which is fine, but if your bot fails to pick up a fair use rationale, no matter how poor, and tags the image for deletion, I'm going to re-block the bot. --Duk 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to flag templates

Hi, when you remove images from flag templates such as Template:Country data Réunion, please replace the image with a placeholder instead of nothing. Image:Sin bandera.svg is usually used for this sort of thing. As it is, your change effectively breaks every page that transcludes that template with the region parameter, and the template documentation code certainly offers clues that something is wrong. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI blocked

After reading Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline again, I see that Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg contained both the copyright tag a specific fair use rationale as required. Your bot tagged it for deletion anyway. When this was brought to your attention, you failed to acknowledge the bot's error and attacked myself and the rationale instead. This is unacceptable.

I looked at STBotI's last seventeen edits. It failed to recognize three existing fair-use rationales [2] [3] [4]. Another edit added This image or media is claimed to be used under Wikipedia's policy for non-free content... when the image made no such claim [5]. That's an unacceptable error rate so STBotI has been blocked.

To fix this, I'd suggest a) searching the image page for key words that would indicate a rationale, or b) propose at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline that {{Template:Non-free use rationale}} be required to aid bot work. Didn't think about how to fix the last error, but I'm sure you'll figure it out.

It is not acceptable for your bot to make these errors, but it's even worse when you refuse to acknowledge the errors and attack the messenger or the rationale instead. And it's sure as hell not acceptable for your bot to evaluate the validity of a fair use clam.

I'm not unsympathetic to your work, having processed thousands of copyright violations (before you made your first edit) and done automated work myself. I know what you have to do to fix this and that it isn't very hard. Sofixit.

--Duk 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no rationale whatsoever on [6], [7] is not sufficient, and the tagging on this is correct because there is not sufficient information to be sure that there is no copyright info. The rationale on your image is not sufficient. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Duk in a few of these cases. Image:Broom by Bundies2.jpg is just a bogus rationale, it's true on that one. But Image:Brother Is To Son.jpg is a decent attempt at writing a rationale by the kind of contributor who hasn't yet passed the bar in wikilawyering. In the cases where there is a rationale but it is not "sufficient" for your bot -- generally based on an out-of-policy requirement that it has to include the literal title of the article -- it's wrong for your bot to go around saying "there's no rationale". There's a rationale, the bot just can't find it.

This is an area that is extremely daunting and confusing to most contributors, and its typical enforcement by bots (using an article title as a proxy for a rationale) only confuses the issue more. We either need better heuristics for criterion 10c, or we need to re-examine the assumption that 10c can be enforced by unassisted bots (remember that many NFCC criteria aren't). One proposal I would make would be to tag images where the bot can't confirm the existence of a valid rationale with a template saying basically that, instead of a deletion template making the bald assertion that "there is no rationale". A person can then check the description, and tag it for deletion or fix it.

Yes, it's a complicated issue. That's a good indication, though, that there isn't a simple automated bot solution. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May I also suggest adding a link to FUR Templates in your message to get people started. It might make the process easier on unfamiliar editors. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A category page full of templates? No, nobody but an experienced Wikipedian is going to have any idea what to do with that. I think a better thing to do would be for the message to provide a template for them to fill in and tell them how to add it to the image page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True, based on the licensing template, it should be able to recommend a FUR template. Morphh ^(talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the argument 'some of these rationales aren't sufficient' doesn't fly. A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. If it is a poor rationale and the bot misses it, I will re-block the bot. This isn't about how good the rationale is, it's about the bot working or not--Duk 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait. You are saying that if the bot tags an image for not having a sufficient rationale, you'll block it? Well, that's the last time I try to follow policy. Make sure that you don't follow any policies in the near future either, I'll be watching you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your behaviour to quite extraordinary for an administrator, and really setting a rather poor example. How many people have you thrown insults at, or tried to intimidate, in the last 24 hours alone? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Less than or equal to the number of people who have thrown insults at me, that's for sure. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And that makes your behaviour acceptable in your eyes does it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make your unilateral accusations acceptable. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You let yourself down once again I'm afraid. Why not aspire to be one of the best administrators, instead of spiralling towards becoming one of the worst? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could stop harassing ST47, go on with your wiki-life, leave him alone and stop continuing the fight, and you won't risk an uninvolved administrator coming in to take note of the uncivil way you have been treating ST47 on his own talk page?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You wikilawyers do make me laugh. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error with Bot/WP/EN/ST47/BLPWatchBot/1.2

Bot/WP/EN/ST47/BLPWatchBot/1.2 needs to be logged in! BLPWatchBot (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy ping

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#STBotI --Duk 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI blocked again

I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale [8] [9] [10]. The final link should have been tagged orphaned fair use, not lacking a fair use rationale. How did this bot ever get approved? --Duk

[edit] Vandalism alert

You have been paged because a user has reported a high level of vandalism and you are listed as a contact.

This is an automatically generated message. If problems occur, please contact User:nathanww.

[edit] Your userpage

Come on ST47, I know you're obviously annoyed about the whole situation with Duk, but calling him an idiot on your userpage isn't helping anyone. I've removed it and I think the best thing to do would be to have a short break, think about things and you might be in a better frame of mind when you return. Everyone gets stressed here - things will get better soon. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please come back

ST47, you are a vital part of this community and a respected member to at least me. Please consider taking a couple days off and returning refreshed to continue this great endeavor. MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; it's a shame to see you go. I'd recommend taking a break from Wikipedia for a while and thinking the situation over a bit before coming back. Good luck, —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to echo MBisanz. I looked things over and all I see is the bot doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Vassyana (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with the above. TAKE A DAMN BREAK. Too much wiki-time is bad :) (especially, in bot-land!) Take a short break, and, come back, with a clearer head :) SQL^{Query me!} 07:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hopefully this cheers you up...

Soxred93 (u t) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia banner

Hi, please can you tell me where I can now find this? Robert C Prenic (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here...

[edit] No!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Well since, you're back, Yessss? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

I'm glad to see you're back; I hope you enjoyed you wikibreak. Cheers, —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was GrandLuxe Rail Deleted? Really makes no sense.

Ok, so I want to know why my new page was deleted by your bot for "implausable typo".

Makes no sense. I thought Wikipedia wanted to encourage contributions from newcomers...looks like you want to scare us off.

Please reinstate.

--User3232 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a user (not me, I just run an automatic bot that told you about it) took your article and removed it, replacing it with something else, and then had the thing he replaced it with deleted. I don't know why he didn't just leave your thing, but you can ask him here. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 21	19 May 2008	About the Signpost

Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case	Board elections: Voting information, new candidates
Sister Projects Interview: Wikibooks	WikiWorld: "Hodag"
News and notes: Russian passes Swedish, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Good article milestone	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 22	26 May 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections: Candidate questions	Single User Login opt-in for all users
Community-related news sources grow	WikiWorld: "Tomcat and Bobcat"
News and notes: Wikimedia DE lawsuit, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured sounds	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

Really, I'd expect you to know better. I ask that you retract your !vote unless you have a serious reason - the bureaucrats will give it very little leverage anyways, and besides, the nom has retracted his oppose. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for the snarky "apparently" - you know very well that opposing per nom only because you've always wanted to oppose per a nominator is highly inappropriate. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 12:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to say you should retract your oppose now - the concerns you gave in the latter comment were perfectly valid. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot to mass-undelete "orphaned talk page redirect"

Thanks for stepping up to the plate on this one. I've replied over on WP:ANI. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to mass-revert a specific list of deletions. I invited people there to talk about it on the ANI page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've replied to you. I'm going to get a number of restores from your criteria for all of the mzmcbride deletions since april as well, and will post those stats. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this at User talk:AGK#RfArbitration, so I thought I should let you know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAGBot

Hey. I know that you did mention to me a few weeks ago that you would send me the code to BAGBot (both on-wiki and IRC versions), was this so I could take over the running of BAGBot or just for backup purposes? I just didn't really understand at the time. Please clarify, thanks. — E ↗^TCB 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was attempting to ensure that there was a backup, since it seems to have been dying recently. (This morning, for example, it was dead for about 2 hours.) If you are able to, I can get you a copy of everything you need in case it dies again. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, email it over to me and I'll set it up so it's ready for use. — E ↗^TCB 02:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking

Hi. Can you possibly re-delete this? If any opera project pages are deleted in error we will see them. This one was not deleted by mistake. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I've re-deleted that page. I also automatically undeleted the following articles from Wikiproject opera - do any of these need to be re-deleted?:

• 1. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/NovemberOotM
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/NovemberOotM is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/NovemberOotM restored
  2. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/JanuaryOotM
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/JanuaryOotM is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/JanuaryOotM restored
  3. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/DecemberOotM
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/DecemberOotM is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/DecemberOotM restored
  4. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article ranking restored
  5. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive9
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive9 is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive9 restored
  6. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive8
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive8 is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive8 restored
  7. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive7
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive7 is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive7 restored
  8. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive6
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive6 is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive6 restored
  9. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive5
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive5 is still deleted, restoring...
     • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive5 restored
  10. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive36
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive36 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive36 restored
  11. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive35
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive35 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive35 restored
  12. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive34
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive34 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive34 restored
  13. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive33
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive33 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive33 restored
  14. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive32
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive32 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive32 restored
  15. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive31
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive31 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive31 restored
  16. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive30
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive30 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive30 restored
  17. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive29
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive29 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive29 restored
  18. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive28
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive28 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive28 restored
  19. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive27
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive27 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive27 restored
  20. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive26
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive26 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive26 restored
  21. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive25
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive25 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive25 restored
  22. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 restored
  23. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive23
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive23 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive23 restored
  24. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive19
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive19 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive19 restored
  25. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive18
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive18 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive18 restored
  26. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive17
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive17 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive17 restored
  27. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive16
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive16 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive16 restored
  28. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive10
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive10 is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive10 restored
  29. Processing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive index
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive index is still deleted, restoring...
      • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive index restored

Let me know. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these all redirects? If so they can all be permanently deleted. They serve no useful purpose. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused on why anyone would want to delete the talk page archive redirects. The page move to rename the archives was in July 2007 and some had existed a year before that. Redirects are cheap, and we have no real way to track off-site linking. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point of keeping these redirects? Who would ever use them? (BTW to clarify: I didn't delete them myself - I only discovered them when they were being recreated.) --Kleinzach 07:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"we have no real way to track off-site linking" - that is the reason. Most people only stop to check if links have been made to the page from within Wikipedia, but don't consider the other possibilities, or discount them as not worth it (the wrong attitude in my opinion). This mainly applies to article redirects. Redirects in other namespaces are less important, but it can still apply. Imagine you wrote a blog post and linked to several pages. Here is another example: there may be some archives of AN and ANI that are only linked from the archive templates and nowhere else. If at some future point, someone renamed all the AN and ANI archives (not as silly as it sounds - people are still sporadically renaming the old VfD discussions to put them under the AfD headings), then that could result in redirects that no-one has used inside Wikipedia, but that people could quite possibly have used outside Wikipedia. The same applies to deletion discussions. This does vary according to what the page is, but in my mind there is sufficient doubt that it is best to keep all such redirects unless they are misleading, or if they have only recently been created. If, say, such renaming takes place the same day the initial page was created, then the redirect can be safely deleted. If the page being renamed has existed for weeks, months or years, then it is safest to keep the redirect. If this was being discussed at WP:RfD, the regulars there would tell you the same thing. The problem is that many people (including MZMcBride) bypass WP:RFD. And even the regulars at WP:RFD disagree sometimes. I hope this helps explains things a bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit above my head but I'm happy to be advised by you. In this case - if I remember correctly - I was leaving a letter space in some archive titles but not in others so I then tried to standardize them, hence creating redirects. --Kleinzach 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the restorebot paused?

It's been well over 16 hours since I last checked the process of the deledted-redirect-restorebot and it seems to have stalled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for running it. It looks like there were a few errors though, and some important articles are still deleted, mostly those with "funny" characters like Template talk:Es-♥, as well as some archives and non-talk-space articles. Re-check MzMcBride's deletion activities for unwanted redlinks for May 31-June 1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArmorGames

Hi, One of your bots deleted the page I created on ArmorGames. It said that this was because the page had been created and deleted before. I had quite a bit of information on that page. Could you provide me with a copy? Is it possible to undelete it? Thanks KingRyanV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingryanv (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)