Jump to content

User talk:Pseudomonas/Archives/2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


vandalism warning, but no revert

Just for curiosity, what happened here? I noticed a vandalism in the article December 16, then I reverted it[1], then I gave the IP a warning on the talkpage[2] – but then I noticed that PseudoBot already gave a warning on this IP's talk page before, although it didn't do anyting with the December 16. Was this an edit conflict or what was reason? --Cyfal (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

probably an edit conflict, as you say. Pseudomonas(talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot edits not flagged as bot

It looks like PseudoBot's edits are not being flagged as a bot. The ones that I noticed were recent reverts to January 12 like this one. --Autopilot (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is by design. AV bots run without the bot flag to prevent their edits going unnoticed. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Every time I try to apologiese, you take it off your talk page. How else can I apologise!?!

I just removed it because a) I'd read it and noted it and it didn't seem to require a reply, and b) it was at the top of my talk page rather than in a tidy section at the bottom. Pseudomonas(talk) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well I am not going to apologise for that too as it will grow tiresome all these apologies.

That's quite ok. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

What? I havn't vandalised anything... what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.43.90 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is PseudoBot?

The world wonders. Life sucks without PseudoBot. In its absence, we remember what it is like to maintain the date articles. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping an eye on the server that it runs on lately - I'll just restart the bot and see if that helps ;) Pseudomonas(talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and in future, feel free to prod me as soon as you notice the bot's down - thanks for the heads-up Pseudomonas(talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot edit in 1930

Could you please check this edit of your Bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1930&diff=next&oldid=266756823 I fixed the births-heading but your bot has undone it again. Could you fix that please? --88.73.7.50 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry about that, I'll look into it. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Y did Pseudobot delete me from my OWN birthday?

Hey! October 7 is my birthday! Therefore, I should exist on Wikipedia! Pseudobot, I'll never 4-give U 4 this!! U don't know what it's like 2 not exist on Wikipedia, do U? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.190.152 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did my my name got delete on my birth date on May 12.

You Know that My Name is George Paul Boisvert. But the link can lead to me the user. Known as User:George512 OK. —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

See WP:Notability, WP:Conflict of Interest. Read them. Twice. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK

Talk pages are not for general discussion, personal anecdotes, and drive-by claims of bias. It is acceptable, encouraged, to remove discussions that are not relevant to making improvements to articles. Miami33139 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This was a comment on the substance and tone of the article, which doesn;t seem to be interdicted on WP:TALK. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup

The second Cambridge meetup is confirmed for this Saturday, 3pm, at CB2 on Norfolk Street: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I never made any edits (other than this one)

Apparently some edits I made have been undone by a bot, but I never edited anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.160.175 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You probably share your IP address with someone who made the edits. Just ignore the notices. Pseudomonas(talk) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Same problem here, I don't see how IP addresses can be shared among computers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.67.1 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not assigned to computers - your ISP may well give you a new IP every time you log on. Creating an account will avoid this problem in future. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I too have had problems with getting messages about vandalism being created by my IP address. However, I do not use a shared computer and I always make edits while logged into this account. What, if anything can I do about this to stop this vandalism being allegedly caused by this IP address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Fondue (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia Article, but still notable

I had meant to add Paul Arel, the former head of the International Kokondo Association, and the highest ranking black belt in Jukido Jujitsu and Kokondo Karate in the world, to the list of people who had died on January 2nd, but the edit was deleted by the PseudoBot. I believe that this person was notable enough to be added to the list of deaths, even though he does not have his own page (he is, however, mentioned on other pages dealing with Kokondo and potentially modern jujitsu- and karate-related topics). Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to research as the only source I have is Shihan Arel's biography in his book, Sankosho, but I still believe that he is notable enough to be on the list of deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.53.79 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent bot!

It's already received several barnstars, so I feel as if any award I could offer would be superfluous. Nevertheless, let me join the appreciation--this was something I used to patrol manually, and I really appreciate Pseudobot's work.--Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pseudobot AWOL

You have said in the past to give you a poke if Pseudobot goes AWOL. It has been inactive for a couple of days. Just a poke. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the server got upgraded and rebooted so I had to tweak things and restart. Nice to have you keeping an eye out. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

James Conran

James Conran does not have a Wiki page and is being put on here as a former State of California offical. I believe pseudobot has it wrong.Ncmass (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think policy is that the person should have at least a stub article before inclusion on the date pages. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot not catching some edits

Is there any reason that PseudoBot didn't catch these edits? Graham87 01:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you were wrong. --Contributions/85.94.134.209 (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to know why my article was kicked off the list of Eagle scouts?

all my pictures are factual and copywriten and all the information was true and ref? Inteligencja (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about Eagle Scouts. On your article, please read WP:Notability Pseudomonas(talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

maximum number of reverts for PseudoBot?

Is there a maximum number of times that PseudoBot will revert a user? I've seen it revert someone up to nine times. I don't know if bots are exempt from the three-revert rule, but in my opinion, they should not revert a user more than three times. The three-revert rule does not to vandalism reversions, but incorrectly editing a date or disambiguation page usually isn't considered vandalism. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would consider repeatedly adding a non-notable person to a page to be vandalism, and the editor doing it could be warned for edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. Edison (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

October 26

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_26&diff=prev&oldid=302634549 what string was caught for you to revert here? no dates are linked? -- 203.171.195.173 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

nvm, I misread the diff. wouldn't it be better to attempt to link it rather than just revert it, though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.195.173 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
it's a simple bot. i link to a page explaining how to fix the problems. Pseudomonas(talk) 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)



Undo in compliance with a personal feeling does not do E

La Oreja De Van Ghgh Is the singer who is optional as of existence box oneself the reason which eliminates what?

Is the low of existence contents why repeatedly maliciously elimination about the person? You maybe is dirty Anglo-Saxon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.117.237.2 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something may have been lost in translation. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Practical Joke

I attempted to place a serious and studied account on this page on the main site but was deleated before I could finish it.

The title: Piltdown Man.

Is there any point in attempting to try again?

OIEnglish suggested I leave a comment here.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I'm not sure what my reasoning was there, but I think I slipped up. Do try again, certainly. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was directed by OIEnglish to put "Piltdown Man" in the "see also" section of the main page, article page, but even that was deleated!? Someone has'nt a sense of humour.

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll try again!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be because Piltdown Man is considered specifically a hoax rather than a practical joke and some people see that as a big difference I'm guessing. Although there are other hoaxes listed in the see also section so I'm not sure why the opposition to that. Oh well, You left a message on the talk page, that's the best you can do now in this situation. -- Ϫ 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back to me, OIEnglish.

However, what has come out only recently by the family of one of the professors at his death is that it was meant to be a practical joke that was taken as factual and hence went too far. This was part of the new facts that I thought would be of value to further study on "the missing link" and the signifance of Lucy discovered in Ethiopia. I'll take your advice. Thanks again. A practical joke is a situation used against another as a jokular or laughafully situation, a hoax is the same but aimed at no one in particular, I think!

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability template

Hi,

Some time ago you placed a notability template on Blue Monday (date). I think it should be removed, and will remove it if you have no objections.

Although the equation itself is Complete bollocks, it has received coverage by several major news outlets over several years. As far as I can tell, it meets each of the general notability guidelines. However, it doesn't have any more sources than when you placed the template. What are your thoughts? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

FYI, the fourth Cambridge meetup will occur on the afternoon of Saturday 1 August. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

David Lee (author)

Hi, I think it's you who's deleted "David Lee (author)" before i had a chance to develop it and put in the important factors, connections etc. If you could undelete it so i can develop it, or at least send the text and code to me to rebuild it that would be great.

For example, I've been asked to put info up about "David Lee (author)" as he's mentioned around wikipedia, with no further explanation. People are also quoting his books, but without any point of reference. For example, someone on wikipedia has been accused of writing about themselves, when in fact David Lee (author) wrote it. Confusing eh? But we need to square-the-circle.

Anyway, any help respectfully received. thanks Valedied (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it; looks like it was Fabrictramp. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

75.14.4.93 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Comedian/Actor Mario "Superstar" Salazar needs to have his own page. I was trying to add his Birth to Nov.6 but it got deleted for him not having his own page.He is the fastest rising comic in America.

If there's a reliable source cited on the page for this person demonstrating that he is the "fastest rising comic in America", it will be entirely proper to add his birth to the page. Otherwise, please see WP:N. Pseudomonas(talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Eye color

My mistake; thank you for correcting my edit. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, now I see--we corrected it simultaneously, but your correction took. Never mind [3]. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jake Hillard

Amazing soccer player. Goes by the name of Jake. Like tomatoes and oranges. And he also loves to play soccer. Jake is very important and is a new hit in the Premier League. Jake is also super cool and created this page at his daddys! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.15.52 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot

I added the following text to the 1947 page:

And it kept getting removed.

Why is this?75.142.54.211 (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll look into it. I'm very sorry you've been messed about like this, and I've restored your edits. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you templated Lapinskicho (talk · contribs) with {{Uw-spam1}}, which says a link does "not comply with our guidelines for external links", but it's not clear what guideline the link violates. As the name implies, the template was intended for spam, or more concretely, link spam, which is defined as follows: "... links between pages that are present for reasons other than merit." The link is pertinent to the topic of the article and (at least in the eye of its creator) helpful. That said, it also rubs me the wrong way when someone introduces the link to their page on the top of all other links, but I think this merits a better message. What do you think? — Sebastian 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User names

Is it OK for non-bot users to have -BOT usernames? No, per WP:USERNAME. Thanks for reporting it. --Stephen 11:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User warnings/notices

Hi. This isn't anything to do with you specifically, you just happen to be the most recent person I've seen who's done this: I notice in the user notices you post (such as this one you include the words "this edit" which link directly to the diff in question. I was just wondering what plugin or gadget you use to generate these? I use Twinkle but the warnings generated don't include the diff link. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I use Huggle, a recent-changes watcher. It's unfortunately Windows-only at the moment. Pretty good for rapid patrolling. I use Twinkle as well. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

albinobeach band page up for deletion?

i have seen that your bot has detected a page up for deletion for the band albinobeach. please revert its decision as i feel that it is unwarranted.You will see that the band is quite relevant, even though underground, and def has its worldwide following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albinobeach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhainca (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my bot; it was a personal judgement. The page doesn't indicate in which ways the band is notable enough for inclusion. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for vandalising

I won't do it again.

Have a nice Thursday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.178.56 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New barnstar!

Here you go:

The Userpage Shield
Awarded for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Thanks for doing this. ConCompS (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

invole the house on DI

all info that was stated is true if you dont belive me come over illl show you

In that case, just add a proper reference from a reliable source. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting on User talk:Nberardi

Just letting you know, it's probably not a good idea to revert someone's talk page if they remove what you've posted. If an editor wants to blank his page that's acceptable (although I personally don't care for it). Any warnings of course are preserved in the edit history of the page. I think the only exception is that if a block notice is placed on a person's talk page it can't be removed while the block is in place. The reason why I bring this up is because I notice that Nberardi has been a somewhat problematic user and their conduct may bring them negative attention, and I'd hate for that attention to fall on you also. I don't know if WP:3RR applies to user talk pages but I'd hate for you to find out the hard way! Thanks, and I'll also be another pair of eyes on this whole COI mess. -- Atamachat 18:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

hypoglycemia

Did it not strike you that suggesting deletion of a new article that has an explanation of the need for it and extensive discussion history between at least 3 experienced editors agreeing on the need for the article without even addressing the discussion might be construed as arrogant ignorance? I was not expecting to discover the user page of an apparently responsible and constructive editor. What were you thinking? alteripse (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I now see the need for the page, (though possibly under a different title); I've said so on the discussion page. Pseudomonas(talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Parker

That last change you reverted on Charlie Parker's page seemed alright. I'm curious what your problem with it was.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, pretty much. Though I think that on that basis I should have removed the whole paragraph. Pseudomonas(talk) 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Though I think your changes were the right amount.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Elliot Rebolledo

Elliot Rebolledo does not have a page on here hes a American Musician —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.248.152 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

De-pantsing

The article is not suitable for speedy deletion as a hoax. I have cleaned it up and added a number of references. Edison (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology for You

I have no idea who you are, and what you do for a living. And that doesn't matter to me either, so I don't give a crap. But please accept my apology. I am very new to Wikipedia. I didn't know Wikipedia has a strict policy aganst personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himboy484wikidude (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan Green (broadcaster)

Although on my last attempt to correct the entry for Alan Green has been considered to be not-neutral, I still feel it is pertinent to the subject. I had linked to the top Manchester United fans website to let the fans themselves say when and why they object to his unceasing attacks. This was to correct the notion that his claim that it dated back to a time when he criticised Sir Alex Ferguson for not supplying a team selection prior to a game, which still is shown on his page, is valid.

Although he no doubt said that, it doesn't make it true.

However, it's you guys in charge of Wikipedia and if you wish it to remain innacurate then I can and will do no more on that page to help. However, what I tried caused something to be removed which was far more speculative than anything I added so the page has improved a little.

I understand that you guys have decisions to make so I don't blame you for taking the line you have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green demon1001 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

David Sheldrick

Thanks for your help fixing the references at the David Sheldrick page I created. I am really bad at that sort of reference linking. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to PseudoBot?

According to the bot's contribution list it went on strike around 12:36, September 11, 2009 (UTC). I sure hope it didn't feel underappreciated, cause I really miss it now that I have to shovel all those red links myself. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod - restarted it. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure, in fact to such an extent that I do it again :-( The bot stopped some time shortly after 22:52, September 16, 2009 (UTC). Probably overworked by all that semi-vandalism. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It's got some kind of problems. I'll try and fix that. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems it was a change in the MediaWiki software that was making slight changes in the page boilerplate that was just enough to confuse the bot (optional spaces disappearing). I think I've fixed it, though I'm not going to swear there's not any number of other bugs I've missed. At least the failure mode of the bot is usually just to stop working rather than go berserk :) Pseudomonas(talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You fixed it? Aww... I racked up so many edits reverting the wedding and I-was-born notices on year and day pages before your brilliant idea. When the bot went down I had another glimmer of hope. But now I have to go back to actually editing articles to add information? Doesn't seem fair somehow! Regards, and cheers to your very excellent bot! Franamax (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately there is plenty of vandalism around to secure our steady advancement through the editorial ranks—at least with respect to edit counts. My respects to the bot and its author! Favonian (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You can keep up with the weddings-reversion and stuff - PseudoBot only does the births and deaths. Pseudomonas(talk) 10:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It can't somehow also cover name/surname disambig pages that have red links as well, can it? What restricts it to dates? -- Mentifisto 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I put in a request to extend it to other disambig pages; the request was denied on the basis that a)there were too many exceptions, b) it'd be too hard to define the remit of the bot, and c)dab pages in general don't have such a simple and strict policy. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I guess that's sound logic. Thanks for the response. -- Mentifisto 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't fault the arguments really, no; but if you ever happen to get community consensus for such a bot, hit me up to build it. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Islam Day (Hawaii)

Thank you for helping with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Småländskt vattenfall

Hi Pseudomonas%2FArchives%2F2009, this is just to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from the article and made it into a proper stub. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - that's definitely better existing than not. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I should probably add that I do not blame you for placing the tag, in case that wasn't clear. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I took that as read ;) Pseudomonas(talk) 12:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot reversions

can you leave me alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.173.132 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Where it says Do not add [...] people without Wikipedia articles to this list on the date pages it means it. You'll need to create an article about whoever before adding their dates of birth or death. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Michael Jackson's religion

The article doesn't speculate. For example, it says that while he demonstrated "interest in different faiths and beliefs (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Kabbalah and the teachings of Deepak Chopra). There is no evidence that he adopted the one particular belief system, or joined a particular religious denomination."

Mention was made of his former faith as a Jehovah's Witness simply because this article deals with his religious beliefs and isn't a part of the main Michael Jackson article.

It is separate from the main article only because this "issue" of his beliefs has become a significant and topical source of discussion online. Putting it in the main Michael Jackson article may detract from the important things already in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnow (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Grotty Knackers CSD

Hi. I removed your CSD tag from The Grotty Knackers since the article doesn't seem to be vandalism: that requires a deliberate intention to harm the encyclopaedia, which I don't see here. The article's obviously a misplaced addition, but I think it's important not to use the word 'vandal' loosely. I replaced the tag with a PROD, and then belatedly realised that A7 applies so added that instead. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the last line as it then was that made me think it was being deliberately ridiculous, but I agree, it probably should have been a different criterion. Pseudomonas(talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, on a second viewing I agree the version you tagged looks much more dubious than the page did when I found it. I doubt it will survive long in any case. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1938

I added a slew of names to the 1938 death list, including Thomas Wolfe, Ernst von Rath, Pearl White, Warner Oland, Robert Wiene, Bela Kun, Gillis Grafstrom, Suzanne Lenglen, Lyda Roberti and a couple of others -- I've added them several times and they keep getting deleted, telling me that I have not linked to a page. I checked each link, and each one worked, so I don't know why it keeps getting deleted. I've added a lot of names to 1920-1939, and for some reason, this one page keeps being a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.187.141 (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. This seems to have been caused by the bot identifying bits such as
as being a date with no link - of course the links are on the lines below. I think I've fixed this bug, but will try and keep a close eye on it. Pseudomonas(talk) 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1985 - Jason Akstins

Why can't I add Jason Akstins to the births of 1985? I understand that there is no page for him but I'm trying to get his name out there because he is trying to make a difference in the world of global warming by talking to people around the U.S. about the latest in green energy and getting them to use this technology to help with this dilemma.

Why not create a page (assuming you're not personally connected with him and he meets notability guidelines)? Adding a birthday to the list isn't going to "get his name out there" very much. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaka Paul

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but I would like to join the discussion about the entry about the supposed city of Chako Paul in Sweden. The reporting of millions of Chines men flooding Swedish tourist companies (reported in the Daily Telegraph in Australia) is most likely also a complete falsity. How do I "join" the discussion if I'm allowed to? Fondacey (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a free-for-all - edit the talk page to add your comments. Pseudomonas(talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge November meetup

Set for Saturday 14 November, 3 pm, CB2 cybercafé on Norfolk Street. Please come along if you can: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 5. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot deletes redlinks?

Hi, I see that PseudoBot apparently deleted a redlink. I posted a question about this to Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#PseudoBot_deletes_redlinks.3F, as IMHO it is a question of general bot policy and operation, rather than specific to PseudoBot.
Would appreciate any response that you care to make there. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your response at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#PseudoBot_deletes_redlinks.3F. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for keeping an eye on the bot :) Pseudomonas(talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just the sort of thing we are looking at at the moment could form the basis of Wikipedia_talk:Help_Project/Overview#Simplified_ruleset_refactoring for example, JoeSmack has created a simple navbox - which is looking more useful as it develops ( we are currently working on a nice simple intro to talk pages for it). Please do come check by... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You left me some questions] about WP:WebCite, and I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Using WebCite. I hope I was able to give you some useful info. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rent a car syria

Sorry, I didn't mean to nom over your nom (nom nom if you will), my connections just real slow this morning Cathardic (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it as you seconding my opinion :) Nom Nom Nom. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which vs that

While Fowler called attention to the which/that issue, he didn't invent the difference between the two, but reported it along with all the other grammatical elements he collected and documented. He did mention that some good writers of his time (the 1920's) ignored the distinction. Judging by what I've read by learned people of that era and earlier, the rule wasn't followed as much as it is in modern writing.

The Chicago Manual of Style (the Bible for most non-journalistic writers in the U.S.)—and all other guides I know of that discuss the issue—recommend using which/that for non-restrictive/restrictive. Unlike some truly red-herring rules (like 'don't end a sentenced with a preposition') the distinction between which and that serves a purpose in that it helps avoid ambiguous constructs, especially by writers who forget commas. Consider:

  • "The hat which Sue bought in town was red."

Is the writer trying to say:

  • "The hat, which Sue bought in town, was red." (non-restrictive)

or

  • "The hat that Sue bought in town was red." (restrictive)

Consider also, that even if the which/that rule is not as valid as some other English grammar rules, I'm not making a sentence worse by appropriately changing 'which' to 'that.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.181.93 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's harmless - and I'm delighted for you to go around making text read more smoothly in general - something that Wikipedia sorely needs - but please don't go shoving [sic] into quotes and please don't go implying that editors ignoring this "rule" are somehow wrong. I'm well aware that Fowler & al. thought it'd be a useful way of disambiguating (although making sure that the commas are there as necessary would really be a much better way of going about it; the text is only ambiguous if you assume that the author can't handle a comma), but really it never caught on apart from with the sort of authorities that think that splitting infinitives is a terrible solecism (though I guess that one is dying out, and thank goodness - we don't need any more acts of random prescriptivism). Pseudomonas(talk) 11:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
See also: [4] Pseudomonas(talk) 11:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I only disagree with the "...never caught on.." statement. If you conducted a pole of professional writers—journalists, technical writers (my day job), and other serious writers—I feel confident the vast majority would respect the which/that difference. I'm less confident this would be true among academics who write as an adjunct to their profession. I've noticed that many Wikipedia articles on technical subjects by obviously smart and learned people are constructed of verbose, convoluted prose, with a surprising number of punctuation and grammar errors. On reflection, however, I do agree that inserting "[sic]" in quotations is overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.190.101 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation symbols for Latin names

Not sure if I'm doing this right; I'm pretty new to editing and talk pages are pretty confusing to me. I'm in the U.S., as it happens. But based on my understanding of the IPA conventions, /ʌ/ seems to be the sound of the letter "u" in the nominative ending "-us". It should sound like the "u" in "bus", not like "oo" in "book", which is what /ʊ/ seems to be for. The praenomen Publius, by contrast, should have both sounds, /ʊ/ for the first "u" and /ʌ/ for the second. I'm sure you could pronounce Latin words with the ending /ʊs/, but that would sound like a strange accent to me. Perhaps it's a variation in how Latin is taught. Or it could simply be a very indistinct sound. In any case, I'm sure that /ʊ/ (with a strikethrough) must be the wrong symbol, since that seems to be a sound midway between /ʊ/ and /juː/. I would prefer to revert to /ʌs/, but I'll wait until I hear back from you first. Thanks for your interest in my work—I've been wanting to do this for years! P Aculeius (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After further consideration, I note that the range of sounds represented by /ʌ/ in Received Pronunciation has become much more restricted over the last half-century, and because this is the accent with which you identified, I believe that this may contribute to your preference for /ʊ/ and /ʊ/. In my opinion, /ʊ/ as described in the table of IPA symbols for English is an acceptable alternative for pronouncing Latin words, and in particular, certain praenomina, such as Aulus, in which the sound of the second vowel is affected by the preceding letters. However, I do not feel that it should be the preferred pronunciation, at least for those whose first language is English. For the sake of both simplicity and consistency, I would like to use /ʌ/ for these entries, bearing in mind that pronunciation guides (for those words that require them) are really only a suggestion in the first place. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I think probably the version that would have least controversy is /ə/. Pseudomonas(talk) 13:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot not bot

Are you (as User:Pseudobot) a bot or not? I ask because your edits show up on my watchlist even when I selected "hide bot edits". Abductive (reasoning) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PseudoBot is a bot, but runs without the bot flag; this is standard for "anti-vandalism" bots. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I was caught out by it - when the bot got started it had a bot flag by mistake, which then got removed when someone who knew the system noticed. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Hey dude, don't bite the newbies! ;) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was Edward Cullen deleted from the births of June 20?

This is something common that most people might look at since Twilight is huge right now, and I linked the name to the page and did everything the correct way. Please help-. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.122.182 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

a) When the bot reverted you there was no link to any page. The second time it was another user that removed it.
b) The practice is only to put real people with Wikipedia articles on the births and deaths. Fictional characters don't go on there; you are not to blame for not knowing this in advance. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why R Deleting Everything On Birthdays And Things Just Because U Don't Know Who They R???

Dear Weird Robot, I think u should stop deleting things on pages and live with them as every other 7 billion humans know who they r. Infact, U R very rude, looking at your discussion page. On most of ur complaints u either don't even read them or ignore them like they rn't even there. I'd like u to stop deleting things that us humans like and treat Wikipedia the way it should be treated, with respect of everyone using it. From a person u should not know as u r a weird and terrible robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.70.217 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The person that these 7 billion people know being a nine-year-old who wants to be a footballer, right? See the bit where it says Please do not add yourself, non-notable people, fictional characters, or people without Wikipedia articles to this list? Pseudomonas(talk) 12:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudomonas/Archives/2009&oldid=1088193690"