Jump to content

User talk:R'n'B

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:RussBot)

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
    • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • If you are expressing a concern about edits made by RussBot, it is extremely helpful if you include a link to a specific page or, even better, a link to a diff showing the actual edit that the bot made. This makes it much easier to diagnose and correct problems.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

The da Vinci Barnstar

[edit]
The da Vinci Barnstar
For your recent exceptional work in kicking User:DPL bot in places which must have hurt. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for you hard work in maintaining Wikipedia. Txantimedia (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


A pie for you!

[edit]
For helping out fixing all those disambig links on all the new Hisatsu Orange Railway pages, much appreciated! :) RubenSchade (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Some baklava for you!

[edit]
G Hotors497F? (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Uepp Hotors497F? (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For running the disambiguation contest month after month, there are not enough barnstars in the world. BD2412 T 17:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Issue considering User:Dogcatmousebird on An-Najm

[edit]

Hello R'n'B. I've been in a dispute concerning the page An-Najm, where the user mentioned (new account, about 4 days old) seems to be stern on mentioning Satanic Verses in the page, despite having little to no relation to the chapter itself. I reverted the user the first time, to which he removed my revert with no explanation. Then I reverted him a second time, to which he decided to add an entire section about it, justifying the addition as "a key factual and historical narrative directly tied to the revelation and interpretation of Surah An-Najm", which is simply untrue. Muslims who have memorized and recited this chapter have no idea concerning this incident since this has nothing to do with the chapter, and is a separate incident that does not need to be mentioned on the page due to its irrelevancy.

I'm leaving it to your judgement since you're an administrator here, since I disagree with the addition and it even seems to be POV pushing, considering the lack of defense of such an addition, blatant false statements, and the 'summary' appearing to be a blatant copy paste from the main article. Thank you. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter or the relevant sources to form a meaningful opinion on the issue. I would suggest you approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam to find other editors who do have the relevant expertise to weigh in on the dispute. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add two things:
The first time I reverted your change without an explanation was an accident, I'm new
Second thing is I want to clarify the use of the term "factual". In my edit message, I mean everything I added to the post is factual. The account and dispute exists.
Any non-biased observer, informed on the subject, can see the obvious relevance this topic has to the Surah, and the obvious bias in attempting to suppress it. 2600:100F:B1B5:DB0B:C45E:D322:468F:33F (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RussBot: Should Category:Delete be a special case?

[edit]

This edit, while an entirely correct implementation of the relevant bot task, led to a situation where the page was in CAT:CSD without any CSD template, which is confusing for admins patrolling the category. Again, the bot did nothing wrong here, but would it maybe make sense to special-case this such that the bot simply removes Category:Delete with an edit summary pointing the user to WP:Deletion process? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - seems like a reasonable suggestion. However, I'm more likely to ignore the category entirely than to edit it with a special message. I'll try to get around to it sometime soon. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-48

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expiatory chapels

[edit]

Hello
I came across this term on a number of pages recently and added some links (viz. this, on 27 Oct); you subsequently changed them to something else. As the link I added went to the Votive Church page, which explains the term, and your link (which uses more text) goes to a page that doesn’t, how exactly was that an improvement? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too hasty. Votive church is a disambiguation page, and if that's the only Wikipedia page that explains what an "expiatory chapel" is, that's a problem. In this case, I think the problem is that Votive church is a broad-concept article that's been incorrectly marked as a disambiguation page. In other words, there are churches that have "Votive" in the name that need to be disambiguated, but we also need an article (not a disambiguation page) that explains the overall concept of what a votive church is. The current page could probably be improved to serve that function with a few references to reliable sources. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, again (and my apologies for the delay in replying!) I did think, on looking back over this, that it was something to do with the dab page tag, and I agree, it does seem to be misplaced. So I have raised the issue there, if you wish to chip in. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, and for your comments: Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-49

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Don't delete Margaret D. Nadauld article

[edit]

Could I please get your help? Someone has nominated the article Margaret D. Nadauld for deletion, claiming that Nadauld is not notable. It was the same person who did it 6 years ago. I'd appreciate if you could support keeping it. See the talk page on that article for my arguments why she's notable, or peruse the article's 25 references yourself. Personally, I believe the person who proposed deletion deserves a trout for claiming that she's not notable, given the contents of those sources. If you please, just follow the deletion discussion link, edit, and add a line at the bottom similar to the following:

Tech News: 2024-50

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-51

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]