This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
tagging as minor and bot edit
ShepBot made this edit here, it's a correct edit, but it's not flagged as "mb" as it should be. The bot should use the adequate flags when making changes like this, please fix it. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this one. It's marked as minor "m", but it still needs the bot tag "b" damn, I can't find the "b" tag anymore, I don't know if it's no longer used, you should ask in Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) or to other bot owners about that flag. Maybe it's still being used for internal purposes even if it no longer appears on the history. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably still being used because on "My preferences", under "Watchlist", you can mark "Hide bot edits from the watchlist", so you should look into usinf that flag if you didn't already. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read Template:Unsigned you would see the bold print that says it must be substituted. My original request was for template substitution; the list at AWB was to show a general idea of templates that would be used and I shouldn't have used the word only. Unsigned does appear on user talk pages though and is now on the list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User talk templates. I'm contacting a member of the BAG to see if I need to file a BRFA. §hep • ¡Talk to me!18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline on template substitution says "Some have suggested that since user sig templates should be substed, {{unsigned}}, {{unsigned2}} should be substed for the same reasons. However, the latter are all protected and will change much more infrequently than most signature templates; also, they are significantly longer." It doesn't change often, but it did change 7 times last year. RossPatterson (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note however that, that another bot was approved for the same task speedily. Since that bot is no longer active ShepBot would just be clearing up at 35,000 long back log. I'll wait for a reponse from the BAG and file a BRFA if necessary. Feel free to voice your opinions there if is one. §hep • ¡Talk to me!03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About mb edits
I would like to quote Happy-melon:
"If I remember rightly, the "b" only shows up in Special:RecentChanges and the watchlist - try clicking "show bot edits" in your watchlist and see how many "b"s appear - but note that no bot edits have the "b" next to them in the history. IIRC, it's because the bot/not bot status is stored in the recentchanges table, which is purged on a 30-day rolling cycle, so it's only used for watchlists, RC and other things that can't be viewed months after the fact (the IP addresses used for CheckUser are also stored there, and a whole host of other data to make those feeds more comprehensive). All edits by a bot account are unavoidably recorded as bot edits for as long as the bot remains flagged. Happy‑melon22:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
"My preferences" has a "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" checkbox. I have it unchecked and still can't see the "b" thing on my watchlist Under the "Recent changes" list, I checked the "Enhanced recent changes (JavaScript)" box, and I can now see the "b" flag on both RC and WL. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Stepshep, VanTucky told me about the infobox you created for the Chicken breeds. Well done for that fine effort. I work on domestic pigeon breed articles, and have been thinking about using an infobox also. I took a look at the code on your template and think I could probably adapt something to suit my needs? Then I figured probably better to just ask you as you could whip something up in five minutes that would take me all day to work out? I'll give you my ideas. I was thinking to start off with similar options to the Infobox Chickenbreed, but when you get down to the "apa" section as pigeons are recognized by different organizations world-wide. I think that section might be better linked to a "Breed group" section (such as Fancy pigeon#Major breed families of fancy pigeon, with the options being: Asian feather and voice pigeons, Color pigeons, Frills and Owls, Homer and Hen Pigeons, Pouters and Croppers, Exhibition Tumblers, Flying Tumblers and Highfliers and Utility pigeons. (I plan on doing individual articles on all those in the future). Under characteristics male and female weights don't differ a great deal so no need for that. Egg color is all the same in pigeons and skin color is not noted as such (Utility breeders do look for squabs with light skins though). Feather ornaments are an important consideration. Things like: Crest, (peak, spade or shell). Hood (as on Jacobins), beak crested, eye crested, Muffs (feathered legs), Grouse (smaller feathered legs), Slipper (another feather leg version. All those could go in a "Notes" section though? Let me know what you think please.--StingBuzz Me...02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great. Thank you very much for your effort. I'll start adding it to a few breed articles. If my fellow editors on the pigeon breed task force think of anything that needs adding. I'll let you know. Cheers,--StingBuzz Me...12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD
Didn't quite understand the comment on my talkpage. SportsMaster was the creator of Pioneer. He knew of the AfD before I could inform him. He tracks activity on "his" pages. But Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Have to tell you, I'm sick of people claiming ownership. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but things could unfairly snowball here. The fact that high school conferences were noted as non-notable in the past should be objectively looked at. I know I have conflicts of interests with pages I've created in the past. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously other than spending hours doing each article separate I thought it was in the best interest to bundle them so that this ordeal is taken care of in one full swoop. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And I will definitely notify individuals in any future AfD. This was just a bundled 30, 40 affair. I don't have the time:p But I do want things to be fair and an ultimate good decision. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I would just like to say that I have approved you for the english wikipedia internal account creator tool. Have fun and if you need any help please message me on my talk pages. Thanks for helping out the project in this way. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ·Talk19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with posting those comments from your sandbox there. My only concern is if a consensus has been reached as to whether or not we're going to keep the articles in question or not. If we're keeping them, go ahead...maybe we can get more editors on board. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all towns are notable, and though the article did not have much, it had enough content to identify the subject and add more info. Cheers, Dlohcierekim02:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has something to it. But I was under the impression that two templates and a category did not suffice article criteria. Thanks for your time. §hep • ¡Talk to me!03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sometimes the thing to do is to add content rather than tag for deletion. If I can figure it out I go for the former. It is not always easy, though. <<grin>>Cheers, Dlohcierekim03:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not sure exactly what you did here, but thanks for fixing it. I had User:Hersfold fix the template from my initial efforts because I don't really know too much about the parser function. This is why I love wiki though, I can contently write articles knowing I can poke others to fix templates, cats, etc. Have a good evening! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee03:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for explaining it in a way that made sense. You and Hersfold win your gold stars for explaining things in English rather than in code. Have a good day! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Son
Article for Deletion discussions are not games. There is no score and no making a " next move". Also, what's up with the random vandalism to Salmon? §hep • ¡Talk to me!02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I was in the bathroom was trying to be funny. Look at his edit, wasn't exactly crude or in poor taste. Also, no one said it was a game. Just providing evidence into deleting the article. Don't hate just because I'm kicking your tail on the board. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that, he should show some more maturity, but I don't think his actions seem to warrant an admin intervening at this time. My advice is to just ignore his "silly" comments unless he crosses the line. Throwing ketchup packets doesn't seem to do that. --FancyMustard (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Yeah, I'd be interested in helping to lead the organization of these articles. We could come up with a uniform layout for the pages to meet better standards. I'm ready to get the ball rolling whenever!
Frank12 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know of this, what is your point? I have a column with my recommendations. That was brought over from my long list to save space. No one should change what I have in a column with my name on top. Thanks! Just take a look at the context of edits before accusing people unfairly. This isn't a contest. --UWMSports (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stepshep, I strongly urge you refrain from making personal attacks on people's talk pages. We all respect your stance in the Ohio HS discussion rooms, but this is crossing the line. UWM doesn't want anyone changing his opinion column. You wouldn't want that either. That is a far cry from claiming ownership to Wikipedia. Look at it objectively and you'll realize that. I would suggest you apologize or back off your outlandish statement on UWM's talk page. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for his opinion column, it just listed delete/decent, cleanup/ect. I believe that the minor edits David made to the template were not monumental enough for a revert and actually belong in that column. He marked what he believed we should use as our model article. The many charts were combined to save space. If there was another place the information should have gone I clearly didn't see one; or I would have popped it into the correct section. That wasn't a personal attack, but a request that GF edits not be removed but ,if placed inappropriately, placed in the correct area. §hep • ¡Talk to me!21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Huskies got a little carried away in his reply, but I would rather not have my opinion column be the column to gage which articles are the model and what not. I know of WP:OWN as I've fought off many users who think like that. But in any event, I don't consider that page to be a model article yet. I'll update my column accordingly. I really do like the effort from David, Frank, you, etc. I know we disagree on some issues here, but I really respect and admire the work you guys are putting in to upgrade these articles. And the way you're going you will have me sold on your side soon enough. --UWMSports (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reunited the schools and towns with their mascots. I think I see what you were doing, but it ended up linking a stack of pages to some dabs, so I've switched 'em. Happy to discuss and so forth. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the Kent State University Stark Campus article. I never intended to be this involved with the article, but here I am. I'm beginning to think that the same person is operating under different names since the exact same revisions keep occurring. How would I address that? --JonRidinger (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to file a Request for Checkuser, you can do that at WP:RCU. You need to list all of the suspected accounts, since there doesn't seem to be a main one. They walk you through how to do it, but if you need any help I'll galdly lend assistance. §hep • ¡Talk to me!20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your post, thanks. Yes, I realize that, plus during the week I have limited time to look at this page anyways, so it works out. Maybe best to just take a break till later and then revert because this is getting REALLY old. I didn't realize there was such an inferiority complex down at Stark towards the main Kent campus. I still would like to check and see if KentStark and PuroCafe are the same users. At the very least they both have the same COI.
On a side note, I listed Kent State Golden Flashes in Wikiproject Ohio and would appreciate a third-party evaluation. I have done most of the edits, so I didn't think I should totally evaluate it, though it seemed to fit "mid" importance criteria. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something was up with uw-vand4 (I think it was that one), it has a {{{{subst|}}}}#ifreq in it. I've tested it again and everything seems to be fine. Thank you again for alterting me to this issue. §hep • ¡Talk to me!15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you were able to discover and correct the problem so quickly. No inconvenience on my end; just thought you should know. A quick look at the bot's contributions at the time seemed to show it was an extra-ordinary problem so I didn't stop the bot but I see below there were other occurrences. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk)20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something with {{#ifreq's and {{subst|'s within a template made it go haywire. I think I've fixed the issue. Sorry for the inconvenience. If you see anything else wrong, feel free to stop ShepBot by yourself if you feel the need to. §hep • ¡Talk to me!15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the template was under Category:User warning templates. Per WP:SUBST, all templates in the category should be substituted. I've removed it from my list of items to substitute, but you may consider placing it in another category. Thank you for alerting me of this issue, everything should be resolved. §hep • ¡Talk to me!15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done ... I've removed it from that Category ... thnx fer the heads up. :-)
Hey, thanks for adding the one Allen County NHL. I visited it and edited it somewhat. I think you may not be aware of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator, which is a great tool. It creates a custom NRHP infobox for any given site, for pasting into an article. Try it, you'll like it: http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. Its output is a good start for any NRHP article. For NHL articles, you have to add the NHL designation date separately. Hope this is helpful, keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good... and i am happy to see red-links in List of NHLs in OH disappearing! Perhaps others are active too. In case you don't mind some more feedback, i visited the new Manasseh Cutler Hall, Ohio University article you started--nice start with pic too!--and have a few comments. I guess my comments just relate to this diff which shows a couple changes i edited in:
first, the NRHP date is sometimes the same as NHL date, but is distinct and both are needed. NHL date can be before NRHP date or after it. For this one, NRHP date is Oct. 15, 1966 which is the beginning date of the NRHP, while this site and a lot of others were designated NHLs before then all those were added to NRHP on this date. The Elkman infobox generator provides the NRHP date (added = [[October 15]] [[1966]] for this one), which should be kept.
so for the NHL date, you get that from the NHL summary webpage (which you are familiar with). I cut and paste from another article, and then edit as necessary to add a fully described reference to the NHL webpage: designated = [[December 21]], [[1965]]<ref name="nhlsum">{{cite web|url=http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=439&ResourceType=Building
|title=Manasseh Cutler Hall, Ohio University |accessdate=2008-06-16|work=National Historic Landmark summary listing|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref>
then besides that, i move the NRIS reference up to support the NRHP date (the added= field) because it looks better there in parallel to the NHL reference supporting the NHL date
and then i re-use the NHL webpage reference in the article
and i often add a county category, using county available in the NHL webpage, tho this is not important
About the Ohio list, I am hopeful that, besides eliminating all red-links, that we might be able to revisit all pages and ensure that NRHP infoboxes have the NHL designation date and NHL reference. Again though, any/all help is appreciated, particularly where you use your more specific knowledge of Ohio, which is great. Thanks! doncram (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did, only slightly; it was a work in progress, I put the links there then worked on converting them to {ref}s. We just happened to be working on it at the same time. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, something that might be interesting for you to check out is the Fairview High School page from the conference. It looks like there is a rudimentary conference history on the page, and it's implied that the conference formed in 1962, but I haven't been able to find any sources for anything in the vein of formation/realignment yet at all. I left the person who expanded the page a message on his talk page, but he has only edited the school page and not at all since February, so I'm not optimistic about getting a reply from an inactive SPA. But if it's correct, it's a starting point on what we should be looking for, perhaps. matt91486 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they joined in '62; but I have references that go back to championships in the '40's. But it looks like that section lists pasts members, like Paulding! Good find. §hep • ¡Talk to me!01:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know those schools were in the conference when they won the championships, or just that they won them in their school history? matt91486 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just had no idea. I'm used to working with high school conferences in Minnesota, which seem to have a lot more movement between conferences than the ones in Ohio. Some schools over a ten year period are in three different ones, so I know when I'm working on stuff over on those articles, I'm always having to check on if a school was actually a conference member when it won something, so it's just me being a little paranoid from that. I haven't found any real indication or hint that they might have been in a different conference prior to the Green Meadows, I just thought it could be a possibility. Did you get any word on a conference website yet? matt91486 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on word from OHSAA. I emailed a few of the schools as well; maybe a secretary can hook up up. ;) I know my school has been with the same league since the 60s not much movement here. §hep • ¡Talk to me!01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existing banner - Template:Composers - can be used as is. It's currently on only 800-odd articles.
If you have time available for this I hope we could do it one cat at a time to start with - to check nothing is going wrong. (Ideally it would be good to auto mark articles with stub templates as class stub, but that could be done later if it's more difficult.) Best regards. --Kleinzach07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (Japan time) and thank you for doing this so fast! (I thought I'd have to queue up for a week or so.) I've reviewed the test run. This is probably the first one ever for Composers and there are lots of anomalies in the categories. For that reason I think it's better to just stick to the categories above and not venture into any other ones linked to them. I also think some of the stubs at Category:Composer stubs are unreliable for our purposes. Of the 'auto-assessed 20 or so articles' only about half were on target. (Some of the people were instrumentalists belonging in Classical Music etc.)
My understanding is that you have bannered about one third of Category:Medieval composers. Is that right? Would it be possible to continue, putting stub on the banners if they have (any) stub on the article page? Can we also avoid putting the banner on non-article pages (e.g. Category talk:Trouvères).
The project haven't agreed to start full assessments yet so I think it would be best not to copy over assessments from other projects. Best wishes. --Kleinzach01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I tagged everything in Category:Medieval composers; but did not do sub-categories. Sub acetgories can get tricky and just get bot owners in trouble. Stub class is the only one used? Okay then, sure I'll just use that. I'll do a run and let you know when I'm done. Hope that made sense, if it didn't I can try to explain again. §hep • ¡Talk to me!01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the auto-assessments. I didn;t tag any new talk pages, I just updated the classes. It seems many articles may have been tagged incorrectly by others though. §hep • ¡Talk to me!01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to get them all tagged, then recurse and tag the stubs. The problem is that in order to auto-stub articles one has to use a stub category in order to get the article list. Since I can't run through Category:Composer stubs(per above) I have to tag all articles in the given categories, then go back and use a completely different code to tag them as stubs. §hep • ¡Talk to me!02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked a sample of Category:Renaissance composers - it all looks fine and so far there have been no adverse reactions from anybody. I have one question. Sometimes the Composers banner appears at the top and sometimes under other banners. Is it automatically at the top if the banner has just been added by the bot? Anyway we can go ahead with Category:Baroque composers when you are ready. --Kleinzach08:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last batch looks fine - not a single complaint so far! So we can do 20th century classical composers, 21st century classical composers, and Viennese composers when you are ready. --Kleinzach23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you are now bannering a few articles that I removed from the cats. Not a problem as there aren't many of them, but was that because you compiled the article list in advance? --Kleinzach00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, categories take up to 4 days to update themselves depending on their size. I use the freshest data I can get my hands on; which with cats is usally a few days old. §hep • ¡Talk to me!00:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I understand - I was referring to Ned Bouhalassa et al - which you have just written to me about. He was in 20th century classical composers and 21st century classical composers but I took him out before the run. It's true that he is still in 3 composer cats but not the ones we are doing now. We may include his cats later. (There are a lot of Composer cats which are really under the 'primary care' of other projects - hence the conservative bannering so far.) --Kleinzach00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. No earthquake problem here - I'm up in the north in Hokkaido - in fact we climbed a volcano yesterday and then went to a hot spring, so we may have been enjoying the side effects.[reply]
I've answered you briefly on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers page. I'm not sure what WP:1 compliance means, perhaps you can explain and I can propose it on the Project page later?
I am however against using the one-size-fits-all {{WPBannerMeta}} because it's so inflexible. (I've had one bad experience with it already on another project.) In any case I think we need to first do this basic bot run to get a reliable count for Category:WikiProject Composers articles so we can see the extent of the project before we go any further down the road. --Kleinzach09:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to adding WP:COMPOSERS to the ranks of 1305 other projects at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. But this would include using the full assessment scheme, creating new categories, and other minor fixes. I just recommened WPBannerMeta, because it could easily produce the same banner the project uses now and other features as well. If the project decides to go ahead, I can do some ParserFunctions as well and would be happy to offer my services. §hep • ¡Talk to me!14:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Banner nesting
There are a lot of banners on some of these pages. I'm wondering whether it would be feasible to have a bot run to insert Template:WikiProjectBanners. (I'm assuming this is the most elegant nesting available.) Would this be difficult to do, I wonder? --Kleinzach00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now looking through 21st century classical composers and I've found a couple the bot has apparently missed, e.g. Donald O. Johnston. I've had a look but can't find anything untypical about this article. --Kleinzach03:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, perhaps we can set up the other class cats. so these will be operational when they are needed? Maybe I can do this myself if the coding is OK? --Kleinzach23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I can do this quickly I'll do it on my own account. If I did it with ShepBot I'd have to file a new bot request. This is the fastest way I can do this, because BRFAs take a few days. §hep • ¡Talk to me!20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Step. You did a fix on this banner last week, which I appreciated. I usually go to Hersfold with template issues but since he's on vacation, I thought maybe you could help. The project's banner is on Talk:Brigham Young University Museum of Art and its displaying Start class, which is correct, however it's saying it has not been assessed for importance whereas the mark-up shows:
{{WikiProject Museums|class=Start|Importance=Low}}
Is this something you can help with? No worries if you can't. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee17:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they are inisde a <includeonly> and </includeonly> tag, there is no reason why wikilinks should not be on the templatepage, but if the en community wants them sorted on a subpage, simply moving them to the subpage wont work alone. All the iw-links on the different languages has to be changed to point to the sub-page, or the pywikipediabots will either crash and do nothing at worst, or re-add the links to the template again. With regards AndersL (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When a pywikibot updates interwikilinks, it open page A on its homewiki, and searches it for iw-links to other wps. If it find a link to page B on another wiki, it opens page B and searches for a link back to page A on the homewiki. If not, it will write to page B on the away-wp, so it has a link back to page A. So, when someone removes the wikilinks on page B, but does not point page A to the "new page B", the next bot that reads page A, discover the link to "old Page B" on A, and re-adds the link to page A again on the old B. This is what happened here, and is why wikilinks simply cant be removed without updating all the other pages. AndersL (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a new page was created attached to Stow-Munroe Falls High School about their Academic Challenge team. The page is Stow-Munroe Falls High School Academic Challenge team. I tend to see this as a non-notable page; the team did place relatively high at the national tournament, but nothing that would deserve its own page in my opinion. There are obvious problems with the page itself (has a roster), but I don't want to go edit it if its going to get deleted anyway. I wanted to get your opinion on the page before I tagged it for notability issues. THANKS --JonRidinger (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:OCC Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}