Jump to content

User talk:Addshore/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Physical examination

Hello. The change made on the physical examination page, where the sentence "...do not provide any health benefits" was changed to "...do not help prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease", was reverted. Why is that? The source's results included 16 trials, where "Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12).". That should mean the health benefits only apply to those two conditions. Claiming that physical examination has no benefits in preventing any diseases is bold and potentially dangerous. And it at least seems to be "free interpretation" of the results of that study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.176 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"...do not help prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease" is far to specifc. The source reads "General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes". Note "overall". Your change implied that health checks provide benefits for everything except for cancer or cardiovascular disease. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus

First things first: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Thanks for protecting the article. However, you preferred not to revert the last edit by an IP (very probable sock-puppet) who imposed their POV against a consensus three times in a row. I have been watching their talk page but cannot see there, let alone a deserved block, a simple warning by an admin. I am a bit disappointed... --E4024 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
After reading the edit by the IP I am going to leave the article as it is protected currently. I think before any further changes are made discussion needs to happen on the article talk page. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, that IP is blocked. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion Banner from Protagonize

I would like to request you as a Admin to please look into the page . I did what the SDbot asked me to do and Added a Contextual stub too please remove that dreadful banner T_T Protagonize

The.ever.kid (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The template was re added by a bot due to you, the page creator, removing it. I have since reviewed the tag and have removed it as I can see that it was added when there was no content. I hope this helps! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a Ton, You Sir, are awesome !! The.ever.kid (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Granted it's the slowest time of the year, but clearing the entire RPP backlog is still extraordinary. I think I saw a tumbleweed roll across the screen. The list is so short that I accidentally posted at the bottom, since it looked no different from your standard talk page. A very nice Christmas present to all of us on RCP. Thanks for unprotecting my userpage too, btw, and if no one gets to this before you, I've filed a rather unusual request that might interest you. (I'd link to it, but the pipes in the section header seem to screw with anchoring, and I'm too lazy to figure out the fix.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this! It is good to know the work is appreciated and noticed! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes (2nd nomination)

At Talk:James Eagan Holmes, both articles for deletion link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes instead of the latter linking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes (2nd nomination). You may want to fix this.--Jax 0677 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Motionless in White

Just wondering, but is there any particular reason for why you shortened the protection time for Motionless in White from 1 month to 10 days? I assume it was an edit conflict, since I had protected it just 10 minutes before you did.--Slon02 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Was just an edit conflict, I had no intention of shortening your protection. I spotted the page on WP:RPP but apparently you protected it before I got around to doing so! Feel free to extend the protection if you feel the article needs it. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
Message added 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Snuggler IRC office hour - Friday, Jan. 4th

See you there!

--EpochFail(talk|work) 22:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your full protection of Help:CentralAuth

Hello Addshore, and once again thank you for helping out with User:VoxelBot. I came here about your recent protection of Help:CentralAuth. While I agree with the feedback protection, I see no reason to fully protect the page. Protections are not made pre-emptively, and the article doesn't even get many views. There has been some vandalism, but sparingly and not recently. This doesn't warrant full protection. Could you please un-fully protect the page? Vacationnine 02:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. This is one of the reasons that I left this protection request for such a long time. When trying to fully feedback protect the page you are informed that "Article feedback protection level can not be higher than Edit protection level." Therefore to protect the feedback we also currently have to protect the page. This is not as a pre-emptive defence from vandalism but is currently the only way to cut back the mass feedback spam from the page. If an edit is needed on the page it can be requested on the talk page for now, I am also planning on raising feedback protection at the village pump. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's horrible. I agree, you should raise that issue at the village pump. There is no reason for them to need to be connected. Vacationnine 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The only documentation I can find about Feedback Protection e.t.c is Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Feedback_response_guidelines#Feedback_disabling. This mentions a blacklist opposed to Protection which would allow the page to remain only semi protected instead of fully protected. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see this log. I seem to have been able to move the protection to semi while retaining the feedback protection at sysop level :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! This really should be better documented. Vacationnine 16:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Hi Addshore. In the context of a discussion regarding the IP socks of an indeffed editor — taking place on my talk page —, an editor told me that you have fully protected Syrian civil war due to the ongoing edit war. I have reason to believe that the warring IPs were indeed operated by the indeffed editor in question and, so, in my opinion, the best course of action would have been to semi-protect the article for a longish period of time, instead of fully protecting it... Would you object if I were to modify your protection? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No objection at all, I will let you pick the length of the protect :). Happy new year! - Written on a nexus - ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! And happy new year to you too! Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

VoxelBot Editing Frequency

Hello Addshore! Our BRFA is going well and we are currently in trial. User:Legoktm has expressed his opinion that an edit every five minutes is too much. I don't want to sacrifice accuracy just to decrease the speed so I was wondering if you could take a look and comment saying what you think. Vacationnine 18:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Whoops, sorry about that. Surprised there wasn't an edit conflict. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

HAHA! That is beautiful! at least we both came up with the same conclusion :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore

You indefinitely fully protected this page [1] by mistake. I think you wanted only semi protecting it ([2]). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! Fixed. Maybe I shouldn't start editing so soon after waking up... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy of deleted page

Hello, could you get me the last revised copy of the deleted page Contour (hands-free cameras). Thanks JZP709 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the following link ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!JZP709 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Addbot tagged with Bad Format

Hello please see - File:Articles of Incorporation Self Realization Fellowship Church.pdf - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Articles_of_Incorporation_Self_Realization_Fellowship_Church.pdf&action=history - don't understand what Addbot thinks is wrong - please let me know, so that the problem can be rectified. Thanks. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The tag is simply to categorise and notify. The reason it is tagged is as it is a PDF(non-image format). It advises that the image could be stored more efficiently in another format and could possibly be put on wikisource. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When is an orphan not an orphan?

I thoroughly applaud this newly turned on feature to unorphan those articles that have been tagged as being orphans, but no longer are so. I thoroughly applaud how an article that I created (Paul-Henri Rebut) is one of the ones that has benefited from this. Unfortunately, though, I also continue to work on the WP Orphanage project (Wikiproject Orphanage: You can help!) and, for me, the Paul-Henri Rebut page would have remained tagged as being an orphan.

The guideline that work to says that it needs to have at least 3 articles linking to it. But, when I click on the "What links here" tool, I don't count any pages that begin with "User", or "Wiki..." or ends with "redirect" or "disambiguation". So, for me, the Paul-Henri Rebut article only has one article linking to it.

This is not a complaint. As I say, I applaud the move, in general. I just thought you might find it useful to receive this feedback, though, on the details of its performance, as I see it. Well done, though. TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I remember last time I had my tagging ang un tagging sections of Addbot running there was one massive discussion about what an orphan was, when it should be tagged and un tagged e.t.c As per Wikipedia:Orphan#Step_4:_Remove_the_orphan_template 'Once the article has one or more links that fit the criteria, remove the tag, if one is present.'. Although 3 links is ideal, when you have 17 thousand articles all tagged the consensus was to lower change it to just one until the backlog was cleared as it could then always be changed to say, 2.
When the bot checks what links in, Firstly it ignores everything except for the main name space, so no worries about User: and Wikipedia alike. The bot also makes sure the link it is looking at does not end with (disambig) or (disambiguation) and does not start with 'List of' or 'Index of' as I seem to remember lists being excluded from orphan links also. After the name is checked the bot also goes through and checks the content of the page of each linked article (until one is the 'perfect link' and the tag can be removed). It checks for hard and soft redirectes and again for disambiguation templates.
So on the whole hopefully only pages with 1 or more articles that fit the above criteria have been untagged, although as you can see on this talk page there is one bug which I need to patch up. I hope I have answered all of your questions! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. That all appears to make perfect sense, and does indeed answer all my questions. I will also now modify my own algorithm/behaviour accordingly :-) TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Just thought you might like to know so far the bot has removed 41 thousand orphan tags :) Still waiting on February 2009 to finish running (the massive month) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yarraville West Primary School

seems to be a bot stuffup here Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. As with the message above I am going to build a check into the bot to ensure it does not blank pages. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Rschen7754ACS2012.pdf

I would appreciate it if your bot would stop tagging files such as the above - that's the second time I've had to revert it, and I meant for the files to be in PDF. --Rschen7754 02:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Badformat tagging section of the bot should honnor {{nobots}} so I have added this to the three files I think you are referring to. If I have missed on just do the same ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

AddBot creating pages

See Torreslfchero/common.css. FrankDev (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I thought I had fixed this by checking to see if the page I requested had no content, but apparently this did not work. I have added another little check to make sure that when posing a page it does not just contain a string the length of the tag (71 chars) and then added a margin of 4 onto that (75). I have also added the page noted to my watch list so I should notice if this ever happens again ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Addbot maintenance tagging

Could you please explain a change made by your bot, as I don't understand how it is constructive and I think it could be an error. This is the change to Gustavo Mendonca. All it was, was changing {{multiple issues}} to the deprecated syntax and adding a second {{orphan}} tag. -- Patchy1 23:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! The edit you have linked to was using WP:AWB so I am guessing this is a bug. I will file a report on the AWB pages. Personally I have no idea why the second orphan tag was added or the change to the old style of multiple issues ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see the bug report. Bot run has stopped. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikify

Addbot inserted the wikify template with this edit but that template does not transclude as it has been deprecated. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit was made while running AWB. A bug report has been filed and as soon as I noticed the edit I made AWB ignore all edits with 'wikify' in the posting text. I am also working on a bot to keep checking the use of the wikify template and remove them from articles as I imagine many people using AWB will still be having this problem (as well as other scripts TW and so on) until the codes are fixed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Addbot and orphans

I notice that Addbot is removing orphan tags, for example in Finger Point (South Sandwich Islands). Referring to WP:Orphan#Criteria the article should still classed as 'orphan'. Best wishes. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 10:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the link. The in-comming page that the bot seems to have thought was an 'okay link' was Finger Point but as it is a disambiguation this should not have been counted. The bot does not seem to have matched Template:geodis to being a disambiguation but I have now added this. Thanks again for the link! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You might want to look at this as well (and I've seen dozens of similar cases so far). The article only has one incoming link from main space (and even that one is from a set index—something you probably need to account for as well), so I'm not sure how the bot sees it as not an orphan?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2013; 15:09 (UTC)
if you know of any other cases that appear different to those above it would be great ton see them so I can change the not regexes to also account for these pages. The not won't run again until the next revision of regexes seems to be done. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The ones I saw all popped up in my watchlist; the ones I spot-checked were for the most part similar to the Novopetrovka example above (although some were genuinely not orphaned any more). I don't know an easy way to give you a list without having to manually go through my watchlist, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2013; 16:31 (UTC)
Here are a few most recent ones (although I haven't checked their incoming links—some may actually be OK, but probably are not): Pochinok, Kirov Oblast, Pechki, Oryol Oblast, Ozyora, Tver Oblast, Novopetrovskoye, Republic of Bashkortostan, Nazarovo, Yaroslavl Oblast, Mologino, Tver Oblast. Hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2013; 16:36 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes every little helps, there are just so many small words templates and parts of page names to look for and no defined list of those anywhere ! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but most of the ones I found only have one incoming link from main space (if that). Regardless of the linking page type, those are still considered "orphans" per definition and should be easy to catch, no? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2013; 21:34 (UTC)
This regex used to match to page text on the links to the orphan now matches all of your above links. "/(may refer to:|# ?REDIRECT|\{\{Soft ?(Redir(ect)?|link)|\{\{.*((dis(amb?(ig(uation( page)?)?)?)?)(\-cleanup)?|d(big|ab|mbox)|sia|set index( articles)?)).*\}\}/i". ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll take your word that it works :) By the way, you might want to check out this script, which can detect the type of a link (without loading it first) and color it accordingly. Among other things, it catches dabs and set indices. Don't know if the principle used in that script is easier for you to work with or not, but I thought I'd mention it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2013; 21:54 (UTC)
After the fixes mentioned above the bot has been running daily on different months of the category and all bugs seem to have been fixed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Roller coasters are generally considered notable"

Re [3]: Is there some place this is documented? The claim was made in the debate and challenged several times but I don't see it being addressed head on. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading through all of the comments and doing my own bit of digging I do believe it is notable. There is no page on wiki that outright says that roller coasters are notable although I believe there is consensus that they are or else the a large portion if not the majority of Category:Roller_coasters_by_name would also be deleted. This could be challenged through some sort of RFC across all of the articles that fit the same sort of criteria as Zyklon_Morey, but as it stands, in my opinion, the articles should remain. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about this too. I am also curious how it was determined that the article Zyklon (Morey's Piers) was worth keeping, particularly since there were so many well thought out arguments for delete, and mostly unsigned, unexplained comments to keep.—JlACEer (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I spent a long time reading all of the arguments as well as searching the roller coaster, the disambig link above Zyklon, looked at past roller coaster articles and AFDs e.t.c. Just looking through the category for named roller coasters 10_Inversion_Roller_Coaster, Adventure_Express, Afterburn_(roller_coaster), Afterburner_(Fun_Spot), Alpen_Blitz, Kiddie_Coaster_(Lake_Compounce), Katapult_(roller_coaster) should, in your opinion, also all be up for deletion as most if not all of them only have a reference to RCDB. I think the best way to tackle all of these articles if you feel they are an issue would be at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks#Roller_coasters_and_AFDs ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
My argument was not just the single source, but the fact that Morey's Zyklon was a small, portable, mass-produced coaster with nothing more than a single paragraph for an article. It's hardly fair to compare a Zyklon to large, significant coaster like Afterburn_(roller_coaster). I will add my comments to the page you recommended.—JlACEer (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
A single paragraph for an article is not an out right reason to delete an article, it is a reason to improve an article. Looking again at Afterburn_(roller_coaster), if I were to google Zyklon, the only difference between the links Afterburn_(roller_coaster) shows as refs and those that can be found for Zyklon is the 'official website' link for Afterburn. Therefore the only difference between the two articles is the size. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
My point in mentioning that there are no other sources for Morey's Zyklon is to show that the article cannot be improved as there is nothing else to add. That is why it should be deleted — it is never going to be improved. There is simply nothing more that can be said about an insignificant portable coaster. I'm not sure what you googled, but when I googled Zyklon roller coaster, google came back with mentions of Zyklons at other parks and carnivals. The only mention of the one at Morey's was the link to the wikipedia article in question.
Afterburn may only have two other sources listed, but those additional sources provided a significant amount of content including some interesting history. That content, along with photos, is, at least to me, what makes it a worthy article. Obviously you think you made the right decision, and I'm not going to change your mind. If you think it should stay with the hope that it might get improved, then let's just wait and see. Three months from now, when there is still only one paragraph and one source for the Morey's Zyklon article, I'm going to propose again that it be deleted.—JlACEer (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bank of Liverpool Editing

Addshore

You said on your edit that if I was going to remove the tag I should have removed the section. I am not sure why - it stood as a main "History" heading followed by a number os sub headings, a format that I have used in preparing other company histories. I don't think it matters either way but if it is just a matter of individual preference, aren't things usually left alone? Or if someone wants a new section writing, is this not normally introduced via the talk page?

As you seem to be better informed on layouts than I am, perhaps you could advise on the box at the top: "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)" Having now inserted a fully referenced article, that intro now seems inappropriate - is there a procedure for deleting it.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The empty section tag that you removed was to add the page to a category with articles with empty sections. This invites users to help build the section. Looking at the page as it stands I believe you wanted the History section to be the main sections with the sub sections of 'Formation' and 'Early History' e.t.c. To do this rather than surrounding these sub sections with two equals signs '==' use three '===', this will create the sub sections.
As for the tag regarding footnotes, I have removed it as it was outdated. Looking at the articles you can clearly see the ref tag has been used throughout the article citing sources and therefore creating the reference list at the bottom of the article. The procedure for removing the tag is, just that, simply edit the page and delete the code for the tag (which was at the top) see this edit.
I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the footnote tag - I tried but was not successful; I was aware of all the referencing as I put them in.

I still do not quite understand why it is not possible to have a main heading "history" [with ==] followed by the history sub-headins [===], without someone feeling they need to put text under the main heading.

Regards Bebington (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Having the sections the way you have just described above is exactly how it should be if you want the sub headings. But currently all of the sub headings only have the two equals signs '==' meaning then are all main headings. Head over to the article and add ==History== above the sections and then go through and add extra equals signs either side of the sub headings e.g. ===Formation===.
If your still having problems just ask and ill will find a page to link you to :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Writing the history is easier than mastering the layout.

Many thanks for the guidance

Bebington (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No Problem! Glad I could help. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass Rollback script

importScript('User:Splarka/ajaxmassrollback.js'); //[[User:Splarka/ajaxmassrollback.js]]

Enjoy. Legoktm (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks, I will be sure to make use of this soon! Its a shame that for some reason I can't copy from my irc app on tablet... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibrahima Iyane Thiam

Hi Addshore, you have only added pp-vandalism but not semi-protected the article. Hope you can do this as soon as possible. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for spotting my amazing fail :). I'm sure I would have noticed eventually when I made it back to WP:RFPP ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. Actually, I saw the bot's comment and yes, you could've spotted that yourself on there. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I always appreciate a poke in the right direction if I have missed something :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Going Back

Now that you did bring up that old BRFA, comparing to my attitude from then to now, it's amazing how much I've chanced over the year. Somehow I did end up running the tasks I initially wanted to run in that BRFA. I still have a ways to go, but I think I made great progress. Keep up the good work and have fun BAGing.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I as well have changed allot since my first BRFAs, a much greater knowledge of the bot policy. But naturally, we are only human, we will always get tripped up by the smallest and funniest of things. :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It eventually all worked out. The tasks I initially wanted to run I got in later BRFAs once I demonstrated that I was doing most of the updating for the user. Now I have intentions to write a script that handles requests at WP:AIV and other boards. I've already got User:Cyberbot III planned.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Good for you :) Surly WP:AIV doesn't need another bot? :P Some of the other boards could definatly do with soem more help! Dont do anything for WP:AFD, I want it ;p ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the three bots that are having their little fights, mine has a different job that surprisingly no one has yet to think of and mine will make sure that nothing has changed before submitting. See User:Cyberbot II.—cyberpower ChatOffline 01:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a great idea for AIV! Make sure I notice the BRFA when you post it! As for the first two I saw on that page see this. That template just had a BRFA passed for its automated update :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hence the label 'Development Discontinued User:VoxelBot does task.—cyberpower ChatOffline 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I can't read :) Or I should go to sleep! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yea. Me too. I just got back from college.—cyberpower ChatOffline 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't returned yet, but a few late nights at work mean my body clock is rather messed up, don't currently go to sleep until about 4am... And then try and wake up and have a normal day... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
With my current course load, I sometimes pull all nighters. It's a pain. I juggle college, work, personal life, and my dedication to helping Wikipedia as best as I can but it sometimes doesn't work out.—cyberpower ChatOffline 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree. Its always good to have a week or month off every now and again. And of course it is always great when you have a week when you have nothing on at all, no work, no wiki, no life, nothing :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
My hobby is Wikipedia. If I have nothing better to do, I do Wikipedia, no matter how much drama is here, I always want to help out. I think the best to help out is with bots, hopefully joining BAG, and doing administrative backstage work.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Got plans for an RFA? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps but it'll fail at the moment. I have editors wanting to nominate me though. —cyberpower ChatOnline 03:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I could give you contributions a look over if you want and ask you some questions e.t.c :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I'd love that.—cyberpower ChatOffline 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 Doing... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For now see the handy sub section. We could always move this to a sub page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Handy Sub Section

Round it up

Answers all seem good. You should look into Adopting a user or two, its great (I adopted a few once upon a time). Also you should look at some more article creation, no matter how small, maybe try and rescue a few AFDs from being deleted. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I'm going to do assuming Worm is going to finish my adoption course.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

About page Charlotte Hardman

Hi Addshore, thanks for dropping by my page. However, I want to know that why condition made you to delete the page and what else I have to provide so that it will be back again ? THanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishlohorung (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly please see this page where I have placed a copy of the article text as it stood before deletion in case you want to try and improve the article. The main things that could be improved upon are the references and the content. The content is not very substantial although that was now the A7 reason for deletion. The A7 was "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". The article is about Charlotte Hardman who as far as the article was concerned had written a single book. Third party sources are what you would need as well as some extra content. I think It would be best to work on the article in your user space before attempting to re add it to the article space. If you want any further help just ask! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Addbot

AddBot started recreating long-deleted articles, with only an "uncat" tag as content, e.g. Costarrica's Next Top Model, Top Boy, Cycle 2. Seems like some minor bug, but considering that at least 9 opages were created already in a few minutes time, I considered it enough of an emergency to shut it down. Hope you don't mind, feel of course free to unblock when the bug is fixed (or to ask any me or any passing admin to unblock, no need to contact me first). Fram (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this! This seems to be a very odd bug, probably something to do with the code on toolserver that is used to generate the lists the bot works from. Thanks for blocking, saved cleaning up a bigger mess. I will look into what caused the bot error now. I have stopped the script from running and removed it from the schedule and have therefore unblocked the bot. Thanks for the speedy catch! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now added a single if to determine in the page has been deleted(checks to see if there is any content...) - (deleted pages never used to show up in the list that the bot uses but apparently something has changed with the list generation! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You could also pass the nocreate flag to the edit call (see mw:API:Edit). Amalthea 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a great flag Amalthea! Thanks! I have never had to look into it before as in theroy the bot should never be passed a page that doesn't exist but as the bot isn't ever meant to make a page this will be a nice flag to apply to all edits! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Another issue with Addbot

I noticed that Addbot removed all of List of Engineering Colleges in Madhya Pradesh's content despite only listing "removing orphan tag" as the edit summary. It may have been a temporary error because it seems the other recent edits have been fine. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks allot for this diff! I have no idea why the bot blanked the page although I will build in a check before the bot saves to make sure the page is not blank! Thanks again for the message! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what my bot has been doing to. Looks like page calls aren't working correctly lately.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, new classes I am building should deal with this nicely rather than just checking the page isn't too small before posting. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm writing something into my bot's framework to check if it's pulling pages correctly. Seems like an API failure. Fairly certain of it actually, but not sure anymore.—cyberpower ChatOffline 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Well, you've sure been busy. Good work! MJ94 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been wanting to give that category a clean out for a long while now! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

See [4] only has 2 inbound mainspace links. Legoktm (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That technically makes it no longer an orphan.—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the brfa it needs 3+ links before removal. WP:O#Criteria recommends 3 links before removal as well. Legoktm (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. OK. I didn't see that.—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Please also see it says "This may change over time". As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan#Step_4:_Remove_the_orphan_template which now reads "Once the article has one or more links that fit the criteria, remove the tag, if one is present" the criteria changed. There was also another discussion regarding how the bot untags somewhere but after a quick look I acnt currently find it. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Found them Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage/Archive_1#De-tagging_change and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage/Archive_1#Suggestion_-_no-link_orphans_tag ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought and that was what I was going off of.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Thank you very much. I promise I will not disappoint you E. Feld talk 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Relisting at AfD

Hi there. Please don't relist things a 4th time at AfD. See Wikipedia:RELIST#Relisting_discussions. Either make a call or leave it for someone who will. This is getting to be a chronic situation at AfD, not just you... Carrite (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Which AFD in particular are you talking about? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not a particle physicist but I believe it would bee this one. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Understandable you picking up on it, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere currently but I am confident 1 more week will hopefully show some consensus. I will try to avoid re-listing AFDs to that extent in the future :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Or in a few days it will just be a case of 'no consensus' ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, if you think that was shouting...

take a look at what the 'two' of them did to my IP talk page... Thanks for posting about it, though...I have no idea why 'they' are going after me, I'm not even the one who nomm'ed the AfD in the first place. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I spotted :) These things happen, they must really love that article! I did just notice I said you nommed the AFD in my comment but I realise now I was wrong. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD for Phase2 International

Hi. Can you explain your reasoning for closing the AfD of Phase2 International as "Keep"? There were 3 !votes on each side of the issue, and two were single purpose IP accounts (one with 1 edit, one with 4 edits). I did not see their arguments as strong, especially considering the detail that those arguing for deletion brought out. Thanks and regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading all of the comments on the AFD having a look at the article and sources myself I closed it as keep. Although the majority of the sources are from the article subjects own website (these could probably be cleaned up to avoid WP:PROMO) the ones the remain are okay meeting the notability requirement. As WP:AFD says "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one". ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I know that it isn't a voting process, which is why I addressed the strength of the arguments. GregJackP Boomer! 06:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
And remember the article can always be re nominated for AFD in the future! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree with your reasoning for closing as keep. Would you consider reopening and relisting the AfD on the article? I base this on the arguments made. For example, WP:ORGSIG states: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This company has done nothing but exist. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any reason I cannot therefore I have re-listed (relisted, afd template returned to page and keep decision removed). I will also take no further part in this AFD if the balance of arguments (in my opinion) stays as it is. If There is extremely clear consensus in a particular direction I may close. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It is really nice to talk to an admin that open to discussing the issue, instead of just defending his position. My compliments to you, and I'm glad to have met you. GregJackP Boomer! 20:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Any time! I love talking :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

List of songs about cities

I wish to ask a couple a couple of questions in respect of your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about cities.
1. You have closed this with the comment, "Cleanup to include only songs which have been specifically written to talk about the city," As far as I am aware there are no songs in the list "about a city" but if there are how do we distinquish them? If there are none then shouldn't this be a delete anyway?
2. Eventually 5 of the keeps came from the Rescue Squadron who have not declared an interest, who have not (and probably won't) try to actually rescue the article. Isn't this !votestacking (and disruptive?) and shouldn't you calculate and note this in your close?
FWIW, I have no intention of asking for deletion review, but I am curious about your thinking on the matter as an impartial observer. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading the comments of the AFD users seemed to want to clean-up the article, therefore I have tog have then that chance. Distinguishing between subjects of the songs in that list will indeed be hard but that would be left down to those attempting a clean-up (if this happens). If the list were to end up with no songs in it (CSD) or if the list were not to get cleaned up then (back to AFD). I did not notice that 5 of the keeps came from members of the 'Rescue Squadron' although I do not feel that fact should weigh in much upon the overall decision, they are still regular editors like you and me as well as member of the rescue squadron at the end of the day. It could possibly be considered disruptive, more so if nothing now happens to the article but this would be a victimless 'crime'. I hope I have answered all of your questions! If you have any more please feel free to thrown them my way! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair answer and nothing I can complain about. I do feel aggrieved that the Rescue Squadron get a notification that there is an AfD, pile in and vote and that's it. This is something they seem to do quite regularly. If I hadn't seen the same behaviour before from them I might have missed it altogether. There are good guys at the Rescue Squadron who warn the where they have come from and do actually try and improve the article, so please don't think I am against the RS - only when it is misused and creates a false impression. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I might have a go at looking back at some of the past AFDs that they seem to have 'piled in on' and potentially then done nothing about. Do you have any links you could provide me with where you have seen this before? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I will look and email details. Might take a day or two so I can consider each individually. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't feel you have to look too hard, a list of AFDs would do or a list of Users. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for granting my request for reviewer and rollback rights. Pratyya (Hello!) 05:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No Problem! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Josh Wood AFD

Howdy! Thanks for closing the Josh Wood AFD. Thought you should be aware that I almost immediately replaced the deleted article with a new one about a different (actually notable) person by the same name. The full discussion is at the AFD and at User talk:Lukeno94. Figure you expected as much having read the AFD, but thought I should let you know as a courtesy anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem! and good luck with your new article! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Stalwart111 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textil Group

Question for you. This AFD was a multiple nomination of Textil Group and the related Autonet Group. You closed it as Delete, without further comment, and deleted Textil Group. I saw that Autonet Group had not been deleted, checked that the close was indeed Delete, and deleted it. Now I have an editor claiming that the consensus to delete did not apply to Autonet - just to Textil. Your close did not parse it that finely. I've offered to undelete if you think I overstepped - noting that you specifically did not delete the article on the first go around - but I don't want to do anything without checking first. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that my comment did not get added to the AFD close by the script. My close was intended only to close Textil Group as delete and allow Autonet Group to remain. I will undelete and fix my comment on the AFD e.t.c. Thanks for spotting this! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem - thanks for the quick response. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

James Campbell Noble

Sorry Addbot but I do not know how to add categories to the pages of the Scottish painters James Campbell Noble, John Henderson, Joseph Morris Henderson and Joseph Henderson artist. A wee computer illiterate I am afraid ! Glemmens1940 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Simply add the text [[Category:Scottish painters]] to the bottom of the page! If you give it a shot and come back here and drop me a message then I will make sure you have added it correctly :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Addshore, I have copied it from another page - to see how it is done and manged to add categories which I now have done to the pages I have out on about these Scottish painters. So thank, 09:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glemmens1940 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about cities

In regard to this AfD, I don't object to the closure as keep or the involvement of the Article Rescue Squadron. However, I wonder if you should tag the article to indicate that it needs "cleanup to include only songs which have been specifically written to talk about the city". Right now, there's nothing on the article or its talk page that indicates that this is an issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My plan initially was to leave the article for a week to see if any of the parties that participated in the AFD were going to work on the article (which doesn't seem to have happened yet, only songs have been added, In a section above you can see I was hoping but not expecting those involved to tidy up the article, and after a few days or a week if nothing had happened to chase up any cleanup (probably tagging and mentioning on the talk page), maybe even to the individual users.
Do you think I should skip the wait and go straight for the tag and comment now? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Waiting will do no harm, the longer the rope... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend tagging the article now. The article is unlikely to be improved if nobody specifically asks on the article itself for the improvement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are replies at...

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Add The Signpost to the main menu

The Transhumanist 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My rollback application.

Could you check out my rollback rights request please? Much appreciated! ʎnƃןooɔssoᴚ [Rotation needed] 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #42

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Updated demo system
    • Improved design of sites code in core
    • Fixed SQLite compatibility
    • Worked on implementing references handling in statements user interface
    • Useful error messages will be shown in statements user interface in case of data value mismatches
    • Switched the demo system to Labs’ puppet
    • Selenium tests for length constraint, claim edit-conflicts
    • Setting up dispatcher script on internal test machine
    • More work on wikibase.getEntities() function for Scribunto/Lua-Templates
    • AbuseFilter is now working with Wikibase
    • The change dispatcher script is now ready for use on the WMF cluster
    • Initial implementation of {{#property}} parser function for the client
    • Created a widget for the client to connect a page to a Wikidata item and add interwiki language links to a page
    • Preparing a page to list unconnected pages on the clients
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #43

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment on the Hebrew and Italian Wikipedia ([5] [6] [7])
    • Switched the Wikipedias over to a new, more scalable dispatching changes script for propagating changes from the repository to the clients
    • Fixing various deeply buried bugs and a few minor bugs reported after deployment
    • Preparations for next deployment on wikidata.org
    • Working on property parser function for the client
    • Implemented robust serialization of changes for dispatching
    • Resumed work on linked data interface
    • References can now be created, edited and removed on existing statements
    • Several minor user interface fixes
    • Styling of the user interface for statements
    • Selenium tests for references
    • Selenium tests for non-JS SpecialPages
    • Worked on puppet
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
    • Test statements on the [demo system before the roll-out to wikidata.org on February 4
    • Hack on one of these
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Template talk:Talkback.
You can remove this notice at any time.

--Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG

Congrats on your candidacy.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

👍 Like MBisanz talk 17:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress on WP:Snuggle and work log

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail(talk • work) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

You just recently gave 'reviewer' to GoShow (talk · contribs); however, I revoked it due to his use of a very large number of sockpuppet accounts, as shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoShow. Just an FYI. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Kent (author) article deletion 18. 1. 2013

Hello Addshore Was the reason for the deletion of the above article its lack of independent citations? If so, I'm in a position to add citations with a view to resubmitting the article in the future. In which case, could you transfer the deleted article to my user space, for me to work on, please? Thanks (Snoobysoo (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi there. The consensus was to delete due to notability per this. I have put a copy of the latest version of the article here. You will have to address all of the issues brought up in the AFD before the article can return, notability can be hard to fix (especially if the subject actually isn't notable), but if there is a reference or something those commenting in the AFD missed to add this would probably get you on your way. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. How exactly do I proceed? Solely by adding references/citations to the deleted article via the link you gave me? Or do I need to explain them as well and/or indicate what I've done where? Do I need to be in touch with you along the way or do I just resubmit the article when I've done what I can, if I think it's solved the issues? And how do I resubmit it? (No doubt all these questions are answered somewhere on the website, but I find there are myriad complex pieces of text to plough through to try to understand what to do in unknown situations.)Snoobysoo(Snoobysoo (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC))
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability. Basically you need to find 'significant coverage' from 'reliable sources' (primarily 'independent' or 'third party' sources) See Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.(Snoobysoo (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Addshore/Archive_12&oldid=1233904411"