text:
USS Bream

USS Bream (SS/SSK/AGSS-243), a Gato-class submarine, was the first ship of the United States Navy to be named for the bream. She served during World War II, and her war operations extended from 1 June 1944 to 15 June 1945. During this period she completed six war patrols operating in the Java Sea, Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea, South China Sea, and Gulf of Siam. She sank two Japanese merchant ships totaling 6,934 gross register tons. In addition, Bream shared with the submarines USS Ray (SS-271) and USS Guitarro (SS-363) the destruction of a 6,806-gross register ton passenger-cargo ship. On 23 October 1944, while patrolling off western Luzon, Bream made a daring surface attack on a Japanese naval force, damaging the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Aoba.

After World War II, Bream operated in the United States Pacific Fleet during the 1950s and 1960s and saw service in the Vietnam War.

Construction and commissioning
Bream was laid down on 5 February 1943 by the Electric Boat Co., Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 17 October 1943 (sponsored by Mrs. Wreford G. Chapple, wife of the prospective commanding officer), and commissioned on 24 January 1944, with Commander Wreford "Moon" Chapple in command.

January–May 1944
Following shakedown training in the New London, Connecticut, area, Bream set out for the Pacific Ocean on 10 March 1944 and reached the Panama Canal Zone on 20 March 1944. She completed another series of exercises before transiting the Panama Canal on 10 April 1944 and continuing on to Brisbane, Australia, where she arrived on 8 May 1944.

On 10 May 1944, Bream left Australia bound for New Guinea. During her voyage, an Allied Liberty ship mistook her for a Japanese submarine and opened gunfire on her at a range of 12,000 yd in the Coral Sea at -18.51667°N, 153.21667°W, firing five or six rounds. Bream suffered no damage or casualties.

Bream reached Milne Bay, New Guinea, on 14 May 1944 and underwent voyage repairs alongside the submarine tender USS Euryale (AS-22). Upon completion of that work, Bream proceeded to Seeadler Harbor on the Admiralty Islands. She reached Seeadler Harbor on 29 May 1944 and began preparations for her first war patrol.

First war patrol
On 1 June 1944, Bream got underway for her first war patrol, assigned a patrol area in the vicinity of Halmahera Island. She made several contacts with Japanese vessels in Morotai Strait, but conditions prevented her from taking any offensive action. Her luck changed on 8 June 1944, however, when she spotted a Japanese convoy, selected a transport as a target, and unleashed a six-torpedo spread. Members of Bream′s crew heard one loud explosion before she went deep. Several depth charges detonated nearby, but she survived unscathed. Postwar study of Japanese records failed to confirm a kill.

On 13 June 1944, while Bream tracked another Japanese convoy, a depth-charge barrage forced her to break off pursuit before she could maneuver into position for an attack. Her luck improved again on 16 June 1944 when she next encountered a Japanese convoy. She fired torpedoes at two transports, and breaking-up noises reverberated throughout the submarine shortly thereafter as the 5,704-gross register ton Japanese cargo ship Yuki Maru disintegrated and went to the bottom. Several days after that attack, damage to a hatch gasket in Bream′s conning tower while she was submerged allowed water to flood into her pump room and knock out all electrical power in the room. This forced Bream to head for Seeadler Harbor, where she arrived on 29 June 1944. Work to correct the damage began shortly thereafter.

Second war patrol
Following repairs, refitting, and training, Bream began her second war patrol on 21 July 1944, when she got underway for a patrol area in waters off the southern Philippine Islands. On 29 July 1944, she had almost reached the entrance to Davao Gulf when flames broke out in her maneuvering room. Centered over the port main motor, the fire ignited cork and auxiliary cable insulation in the overhead. Fifteen minutes after it broke out, the blaze was extinguished. The damage was not serious enough to force Bream to terminate her patrol, and she proceeded to the coast of Mindanao.

On 7 August 1944, Bream moved to an area off Davao Gulf in an attempt to intercept traffic coming from the Palau Islands. She encountered Japanese ships but expended no torpedoes. On the morning of 26 August 1944, as she retired toward Fremantle, Australia, Bream spotted a Japanese airplane. The plane dropped a bomb which exploded near her as she dived, raised her stern about 20 ft, and shook her severely. A second bomb also detonated nearby and inflicted considerable damage. Nevertheless, Bream put into Brisbane safely on 6 September 1944.

Third war patrol
Bream underwent a refit by Euryale before beginning her third war patrol, getting underway for Darwin, Australia, on 2 October 1944. She paused at Darwin on 9 October for minor repairs and refueling before continuing on to her patrol area off the Philippine Islands between the northern end of Palawan Passage and Manila. On 16 October 1944, she sighted a two-masted barge with an escort but decided to let them pass to avoid alerting more valuable targets of her presence.

On 23 October 1944, three large ships — two Imperial Japanese Navy light cruisers and one heavy cruiser — appeared on Bream’s radar scope. One of the Japanese warships approached to within 800 yd on Bream′s port quarter before Bream fired six torpedoes. Soon thereafter, Bream’s crew heard three loud explosions and believed that they had sunk a Japanese cruiser. A study of Japanese records after the war revealed that Bream had damaged the Japanese heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Aoba severely enough to keep her from participating in the Battle of Leyte Gulf of 23–26 October 1944. Bream endured intermittent depth charging over the next five hours, but suffered no damage.

On 24 October 1944, Bream picked up six survivors of a Japanese ship sunk several days before by the submarine USS Bluegill (SS-242). On 25 October, she moved into position for an attempt to intercept the Japanese fleet retiring from Philippine waters after Japan's defeat in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. On 30 October 1944, she spotted a Japanese convoy, fired a six-torpedo spread at a large transport, and went deep to avoid depth charges. Her torpedoes damaged the transport, but it was able to continue under its own power.

On 4 November 1944, Bream fired four torpedoes at another Japanese transport, but all missed. After weathering a total of eight depth charges, she eluded her pursuers and resumed her patrol. On 6 November, she came upon two Japanese cruisers and began closing for an attack on the leading ship. After careful maneuvering to avoid the cruiser’s escorts, she fired four torpedoes. Some Bream crewmen reported three explosions, but no damage to any Japanese ship seems to have resulted. Bream then shaped a course for Fremantle, where she arrived on 22 November 1944.

Fourth war patrol
Following refit and training, Bream commenced her fourth war patrol on 19 December 1944. She entered Exmouth Gulf on the coast of Western Australia on 22 December 1944 and refueled there that same day. She continued on through Lombok Strait northbound, entered the Java Sea, spotted a sailboat on 31 December, and decided to attack it with her 4 in gun. During the action, a Japanese plane approached, forcing Bream to cease fire and dive.

On 9 January 1945, Bream began patrolling the western approaches to Balabac Strait. After four uneventful days, she moved to the northern end of the strait but again made no contacts and so shifted to Miri on the coast of Borneo for reconnaissance work. She sighted a large Japanese vessel on 24 January, but the contact proved to be a hospital ship. Bream transited Lombok Strait southbound on 4 February 1945, paused at Onslow, Australia, for refueling on 6 February, and finally arrived at Fremantle on 10 February 1945.

Fifth war patrol
Bream left Australia on 7 March 1945 for her fifth war patrol, made a refueling stop at Exmouth Gulf on 10 March, and proceeded through Lombok Strait northbound to the shipping lanes between Balikpapan on Borneo and-Surabaya on Java. On 13 March 1945, she intercepted two Japanese "sea trucks" — the U.S. term for small cargo ships — and sank them with her 4 in gun. On 14 March, she came across a Japanese convoy of three small cargo ships and an escort. She fired three bow tubes at the leading cargo ship, but all of them broached. She then got off one more torpedo, and it seemed to hit the ship, which blew up with a tremendous explosion. However, postwar accounting failed to confirm a kill.

On 15 March 1945, Bream sighted a Japanese escort destroyer and began preparing for an attack. However, the destroyer detected Bream and began depth-charging her. Several depth charges went off close aboard and drove Bream to the bottom in 100 ft of water. Bream remained on the ocean floor, mired in mud, for five hours and underwent repeated depth-charge barrages. During one attack, her conning tower hatch was lifted, forcing her crew to abandon the conning tower and secure it by closing the lower hatch. When the destroyer gave up the chase later that night, Bream surfaced and began evaluating the extent of her damage. The damage proved extensive, and she spent several days making temporary repairs.

Bream later detected two ships on radar that proved to be Japanese cargo ships. She fired four torpedoes from her bow tubes, but all four promptly sank. Apparently the tubes had been damaged in the encounter with the Japanese escort destroyer. Bream then set a course through Lombok Strait for Australia and reached Fremantle on 22 March 1945. she underwent a refit, during which both of her periscopes, her starboard propeller shaft, and both of her screws were replaced, and the damage to her torpedo tubes was corrected.

Sixth war patrol
On 20 April 1945, Bream commenced her sixth war patrol. She transited Lombok Strait northbound on 25 April 1945 and early on the morning of 26 April spotted what appeared to be an American submarine. The submarine quickly turned and headed toward Bream, which dived and manned her battle stations. Several depth charges dropped by a Japanese escort vessel shook Bream, but she managed to clear the area safely. A few hours later, she encountered two small Japanese patrol boats, but they were too small to merit a torpedo attack.

On 29 April 1945, while patrolling off southern Borneo, Bream picked up the trail of a Japanese oiler. After stalking the oiler for several hours, she fired four torpedoes at it. The first torpedo hit, and the oiler disintegrated in a mass of flames. Bream continued her patrol uneventfully until pulling into port at Subic Bay on Luzon in the Philippines on 14 May 1945 for voyage repairs and fuel. On 16 May, she put back out to sea and headed for lifeguard duty off the southern tip of Formosa. During her time on station, she rescued five downed American aviators. On 31 May 1945, she headed for Saipan in the Mariana Islands, where she arrived on 5 June 1945.

End of war
Bream departed Saipan on 6 June 1945 and, following a two-day stop at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, arrived at San Francisco, California, on 24 June 1945. Upon her arrival, she began an overhaul at the Bethlehem Steel Company shipyard in San Francisco. While the work was in progress, the war in the Pacific ended on 15 August 1945 (14 August on the other side of the International Date Line in San Francisco). Bream later transferred to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard at Vallejo, California. She was decommissioned there on 31 January 1946 and was laid up in the Pacific Reserve Fleet.

1950s
As a part of the Navy’s fleet expansion program in response to the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, Bream was recommissioned on 5 June 1951 and reported to Submarine Squadron 3, United States Pacific Fleet. From June 1951 to August 1952 she engaged in the training of submarine crews and services to the Fleet Sonar School at San Diego, California.

On 10 September 1952, Bream was decommissioned to undergo conversion to an antisubmarine "hunter-killer submarine" at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. The conversion included the installation of a snorkel — which enabled her to take in air and operate her diesel engines while submerged — streamlining of her conning tower, improving the habitability of the crew’s living spaces, and the installation of special sonar listening equipment. She was redesignated SSK-243 on 18 February 1953. She was recommissioned on 20 June 1953.

Bream resumed operations with the Fleet Sonar School at San Diego. She also took part in numerous Pacific Fleet operations and exercises and conducted submarine crew training. She commenced a cold-weather training cruise to Alaska in September 1954 and made a stop at Pearl Harbor before returning to San Diego on 15 November 1954. She continued local operations along the coast of California until May 1955, when she made another voyage to Pearl Harbor. During her stay in Hawaii from 7 to 24 May 1955, she participated in an extensive antisubmarine warfare operation. She returned to San Diego late in May 1955 and resumed normal operations until late September 1955. On 22 September 1955, she entered Hunters Poit Naval Shipyard for an overhaul.

In February 1956, Bream′s home port changed to Pearl Harbor and she was assigned to Submarine Squadron 7, Submarine Division 72. She left Pearl Harbor on 6 March 1956 for an extended cruise in the western Pacific. She reached Yokosuka, Japan, on 11 June 1956 and operated in that area during the next two months. In early August 1956, he made a short cruise to Chinhae, South Korea, and returned to Yokosuka via Yokohama, Japan. In early October 1956 he made a return visit to Chinhae and a call at Hong Kong for shore leave during the first week of November 1956. She began the voyage back to Hawaii on 2 December 1956 and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 9 December.

From January to May 1957, Bream carried out local operations in the Hawaiian Islands from her base at Pearl Harbor. She commenced a trip to San Francisco 4 June 1957, arriving there on 13 June. After a week’s visit, Bream returned to Hawaii and remained at Pearl Harbor until mid-July 1957, when she began a cruise to Alaska from which she did not return until early September 1957. She departed Pearl Harbor on 31 October 1957 bound for the Far East. Following port calls at Pago Pago in American Samoa and Auckland, New Zealand, she reached Yokohama on 25 December 1957 She departed Yokohama on 7 January 1958 bound for Subic Bay on Luzon in the Philippines. Among her later ports of call were Yokosuka, Japan, and Hong Kong. After three more months of providing services in support of United States Seventh Fleet ships, Bream returned to Pearl Harbor early in April 1958.

Shortly after her arrival, Bream began an overhaul at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Her overhaul was completed on 13 September 1958, and she resumed local operations in Hawaiian waters. She sailed for East Asia on 6 April 1959, reached Yokosuka on 18 April, and remained there until 28 April. She then proceeded to the Philippines for operations in Manila Bay, after which she visited Hong Kong and Buckner Bay on Okinawa. On 2 June 1959, she returned to Yokosuka, which became her base of operations for the remainder of June. In July 1959, she got underway for special operations. While carrying out that assignment, she reverted to the hull number SS-243 in August 1959. She stopped briefly at Yokosuka again before departing Japanese waters on 21 September 1959 on her way to Pearl Harbor. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 2 October 1959.

1960s
Bream carried out local operations in Hawaiian waters until 26 November 1960, when she again departed for Japan. After a stop at Chichi Jima in the Bonin Islands on 9 December 1960, she arrived at Yokosuka on the 11 December. Among her ports of call during this deployment were Atami, Japan; Buckner Bay; Hong Kong; Manila and Subic Bay, Philippines; and Guam in the Mariana Islands. The cruise ended on 24 May 1961 when Bream arrived at Pearl Harbor. She participated in local operations in HAwaii until 1 September 1961, when she entered the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard for an overhaul.

Bream left the shipyard on 28 January 1962 and got underway for San Francisco on 1 February. She arrived at San Francisco on 10 February 1962 and moved to Long Beach. California, a few days later. She left California on 19 February 1962 and returned to Pearl Harbor. During the next few months, she alternated between local training in Hawaiian waters and upkeep at Pearl Harbor. She began another cruise to the western Pacific on 8 August 1962 and visited Yokosuka, Japan, and Chinhae, South Korea, in the fall and early winter of 1962. She also provided services to Task Group 70.4, a Pacific Fleet anrisubmarine "hunter/killer" group. She also took part in Exercise Pilot Light before pulling into port at Yokosuka for the Christmas holidays in December 1962.

Bream departed Yokosuka on 1 January 1963 en route to Okinawa. After briefly pausing there, she moved on to Hong Kong. She also visited Guam before arriving at Pearl Harbor on 2 February 1963. She then participated in local operations until 27 August 1963, when she began a special operation. That mission terminated at Adak in the Aleutian Islands on 18 October 1963. She departed Alaskan waters on 20 October and visited Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, before calling at Seattle, Washington. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on 13 November 1963 and spent the rest of 1963 in local operations.

On 1 February 1964, Bream was reclassified as an auxiliary submarine and redesignated AGSS-243. She continued to operate from Pearl Harbor through May 1964. On 1 June 1964, she got underway for her new home port, San Diego, and arrived there on the 11 June 1964. She was assigned to Submarine Squadron 3 and operated in the San Diego area for approximately two months. On 31 August 1964 she entered the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for an overhaul which was completed on 26 January 1965.

After her overhaul, Bream began a training cruise which included stops at Port Angeles, Bangor, and Bremerton, Washington. She returned to Mare Island Naval Shipyard on 27 February 1965 for the installation of a new battery and a diesel engine overhaul before finally returning to San Diego on 11 July 1965 and resuming local operations.

Bream departed California on 12 November 1965 for Vietnam War operations in the western Pacific with the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Upon her arrival in waters off Vietnam, she assumed duty on Yankee Station. She was relieved on 6 January 1966 and headed for Thailand. She visited Sattahip and Bangkok and held joint operations with the Royal Thai Navy. On 20 January 1966, she headed for Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and arrived there pn 26 January. She operated from Kaohsiung until 16 February 1966, when she sailed for Yokosuka, where she conducted local operations until 15 March 1966. She then departed Japan for the Philippines. After a voyage during which she provided services to aircraft, she finally reached Naval Station Sangley Point in the Philippines on 29 March 1966. She later made a brief call at Hong Kong for shore leave before returning to Yokosuka on 16 April 1966.

Bream left Japan on 24 April 1966 and headed back to the United States. After a short stop at Pearl Harbor in early May 1966, she arrived in San Diego on the 15 May. Following a leave and upkeep period, shcarried out local operations from San Diego until midsummer 1966, when she made a brief visit to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco for installation of communications equipment. She returned to San Diego on 6 August 1966 to resume local operations, which continued until the Christmas holidays in December 1966.

During January and February 1967, Bream participated in operations along the coast of Southern California. On 3 March 1967, she embarked on an extended training cruise which included a port visit at Acapulco, Mexico. She returned to San Diego on 25 March 1967 and commenced preparations to deploy to the western Pacific. In April 1967, she entered the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard for drydocking and repairs. She then returned to San Diego to complete her preparations. On 9 June 1967, she got underway for the Far East. During this cruise, she visited Hong Kong; Songkhla and Bangkok, Thailand; Subic Bay and Cebu City in the Philippines; Keelung and Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Chinhae, South Korea; and Sasebo and Yokosuka, Japan. She provided services to the Republic of Korea Navy and the Republic of China Navy and carrying out assigned duties with the U.S. Seventh Fleet.

Bream departed Yokosuka on 3 December 1967 and proceeded directly to San Diego. She arrived there on 19 December 1967 and began a Christmas holiday leave and upkeep period. During January 1968, she operated off the coast of Southern California. On 6 February 1968, she proceedeed to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard to be drydocked for repairs. She returned to service on 21 March 1968 and once again operated along the coast of Southern California. She departed San Diego on 16 October 1968 to carry out another tour of duty in the Far East.

In addition to her duties with the U.S. Seventh Fleet, Bream provided services to the Philippine Navy and the Republic of China Navy. During her deployment, she visited Hong Kong; Subic Bay and Manila in the Philippines; Kaohsiung, Taiwan; and Yokosuka, Japan. She left Yokosuka on 21 February 1969 and proceeded to San Diego, where she arrived on 12 March 1969 After leave and upkeep, she took up local operations once more along the coast of Southern California.

Decommissioning and disposal
Preparations to deactivate Bream began in mid-1969. On 28 June 1969, Bream was decommissioned at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and her name was struck from the Navy list the same day. She was sunk as a target by the submarine USS Sculpin (SSN-590) on 7 November 1969.

Honors and awards

 * Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with four battle stars for World War II service.
 * Vietnam Service Medal with three battle stars for Vietnam War service

title: USS Bream


text:
User:Nickj/Link Suggester

Note: LinkBot has been superseded by the Can We Link It link suggesting web tool.

"Can We Link It" has the following benefits above LinkBot, or feature parity with it:
 * Uses almost identical internal logic as LinkBot.
 * It also syntax checks articles.
 * It works on the live version of articles (i.e. you can add a paragraph, and then see suggestions for the article including what you just added, whereas with LinkBot you might have had to wait months, because LinkBot used database dumps).
 * It doesn't pollute talk pages with lists of suggestions.
 * To some degree it learns from its mistakes.
 * Suggestions are only supplied on-demand.
 * It will make the links for you (you just say "yes" to a suggestion), whereas with LinkBot you had to manually make the links.
 * If you reject a suggestion, it won't make that suggestion again for that article, whereas LinkBot would (because it had no way of definitively knowing that a suggestion had been rejected).
 * As with LinkBot, the decision to make or not make a link is made by humans. The software only makes suggestions, and you decide whether you like the suggestions.

However there are some downsides as compared to LinkBot:
 * People mightn't know there are suggestions for an article unless they go looking for them, whereas with LinkBot the suggestions "came to you" to some extent. Also as part of this, "Can We Link It" is hosted on an external site (it's an external tool, not integrated into the Wikipedia).
 * It doesn't suggest reverse links (to deorphan an article) - i.e. LinkBot would suggest links to an article plus links from that article, whereas Can We Link It only suggests links from an article. In other words, LinkBot would actually suggest every link twice (once in the source article, once in the destination article). However, every link is also a reverse link - so if all the suggestions are processed, it'll have the same effect.
 * Doesn't know about disambiguation pages. LinkBot would not suggest links to disambiguation pages, whereas Can We Link It will. This is to a very small extent mitigated by the fact that Can We Link It learns from its mistakes, so saying "no" to disambiguation link suggestion will stop that link from being suggested in future (but not suggesting the link in the first place would be better).

What is the Link Suggester, and what is LinkBot?
The Link Suggester is a bit of software that takes the article text of a Wikipedia article, and looks for links that could be made to other articles, and that have not been made yet. LinkBot is the bit of software that takes these suggestions and presents them in way that people can easily read them on the Wikipedia. Both bits of software are written and operated by Nickj.

Can you give an example?
Yes, using a real-world example. Consider the following snippet (wiki codes are shown):

Newtown lies partly in the electorate of Grayndler, currently represented by Anthony Albanese of the ALP.

The output of the link suggester might look like this:
 * Can link electorate: Newtown lies partly in the electorate of Grayndler, currently represented by Anthony Albanese of the ALP.
 * Can link Anthony Albanese: Newtown lies partly in the electorate of Grayndler, currently represented by Anthony Albanese of the ALP.

What happens with this suggested link information?
The plan is for it to be added to the article's talk page.

So the article itself would not be modified?
No. The best judges of what are good links are humans, not software. Software does not understand context or meaning, whereas a human does. Therefore, the link suggestions would be added to the article's talk page, and then a human editor can add the links to the article, or disregard or delete them if they are not appropriate.

So if humans are better at determining appropriate links, why suggest links?
4 reasons: The best approach is likely to be a fusion that combines the strengths of humans, and the strengths of software; A bit of software can perform the tedious and repetitive process of finding missing links; and a human is best able to take that information and apply it appropriately to the article.
 * 1) Humans miss things. In the previous example, "Anthony Albanese" was a good link, but it was simply missed.
 * 2) Checking for links is tedious. The only way to know if the Wikipedia contains articles that are relevant is to search for them. Most people don't bother other than for a subset of the possible links.
 * 3) Links are content.
 * 4) The Wikipedia is expanding, and while there mightn't have been an appropriate link when the article was written, there may be one now.

Has anyone discussed this idea before?
Yes - look here for a discussion of auto-linking.

Note that most of the arguments against assumed that:
 * The changes would be automatically applied to the article, not to the talk page.
 * That the links would be on almost everything, and thus be really annoying. For example, the following assumptions were typically made:
 * Would have a preference for a short links, not long links.
 * Would link on common single words.
 * No differentiation of proper nouns from other text.

An approach is being used that specifically tries to address these problems - please see below for more information on good links versus bad links.

Surely we don't want every possible link? That would be lots of links!
Exactly, and this is where it gets interesting. Making every single possible link is simply not conducive to the flow of an article. For example, consider the following real-world example wiki sentence:

A reorganisation of local government boundaries in 1968 saw part of Newtown placed under Marrickville council.

The link suggester, when showing every possible link would show the following for this sentence:
 * 1) Can link local: A reorganisation of local government boundaries in 1968 saw p...
 * 2) Can link government: A reorganisation of local government boundaries in 1968 saw part of Newt...
 * 3) Can link boundaries: A reorganisation of local government boundaries in 1968 saw part of Newtown placed

This is a pretty exhaustive list, but these are probably bad things to link on. To avoid this, the Link Suggester applies some simple rules-of-thumb to try and improve the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e. keep the 'good links' and eliminate the 'bad links').

So what makes a good link, and what makes a bad link?
A good link is usually either :
 * A complex phrase - e.g. There is no such thing as a free lunch. These are easy to recognise, because they are long (typically 3 or more words).
 * A proper noun - e.g. North Sydney, Anthony Albanese. These are easy to recognise, because they are capitalized, whilst not being at the start of a sentence.
 * An acronym - e.g. NAFTA is a free trade agreement. These are easy to recognise, because they are capitalized in multiple letters.

Then there are things that are sometimes worthwhile linking on:
 * Abstract nouns - refers to ideas or concepts - e.g. fraud can be a good link, whereas government is probably a bad link. Determining which abstract nouns make good links is hard, although we can make some broad generalizations (e.g. abstract noun words that end in "-ism" tend to be good links, such as fascism).
 * Adjectives - e.g. blue-collar is a good link, where as the blue in the phrase "the sky is blue" would usually be a bad link. Determining which adjectives make good links is hard, as the best links are to infrequently used adjectives (some of which are on this list).

Things that are usually bad links:
 * Common nouns - e.g. restaurant, chair, bed.
 * Verbs - e.g. to be, suggesting.
 * As a rough rule, very short links tend to be bad. These are easy to recognise, by rejecting any links less than say 4 or less characters long.

Additionally, a link should only be suggested once per article, as per the Wikipedia style.

Also, an article shouldn't link to itself (even by linking to a page that redirects to the original article).

So what exactly will it link on?
The link suggester will suggest links that meet these criteria: What remains are generally quite safe links to suggest, with a good signal-to-noise ratio.
 * "good links" (as defined above)
 * Plus "-ism" abstract nouns, minus the few really common ones (like criticism).
 * Plus 2 word links, unless these links start with the word "the" (in which case they need to be 3 words or more, or have 2 or more capital letters).
 * Most dates are removed (e.g. "1 March", "13th January", "April 2003", "May 21st", "December 25").
 * Finally any links that I have manually marked as bad to link to are removed. Around 500 links are currently manually marked as bad, but if you find something that has been missed (and there are sure to be things) then please let me know.

What is the current project status?

 * Phase 1 (Complete): Over the course of last week (18th October to 25th October), I manually cut and pasted the output of this script on to the talk pages of around 40 pages. This was a manual process, which allowed me to see what it does well and what it does wrong, and to gather feedback (good and bad) from page authors. This step was very useful.
 * Phase 2 (Complete): Currently running the script on a local copy of the wiki database, and fine-tuning the manual list of bad links; Fine-tuning the algorithm to reduce false-positives, cover corner cases, and increase speed of detection. Also waiting for the Wiki Syntax project to complete its first run, since the two projects are related.
 * Phase 3 (Complete): Run it on a small number pages, as a supervised bot (probably do around 100 on the first night, and then if things go well gradually increase the size of each run). This would consist of the LinkBot running slowly (with somewhere between 10 and 30 seconds between saves), whilst I check that the suggestions added to the talk pages looks reasonable. This first trial run is the step that I previously sought approval for, and which should commence soon (waiting on the next database dump).
 * Phase 4 (Complete): Run a larger trial, which incorporates the feedback from Phase 3 (such as not suggesting links to disambiguation pages, excluding more "bad" pages, and putting the suggestions on a subpage rather than filling up the talk page).
 * Phase 5 (pending): The main problem now is scalability: how to get all the suggestions out to people (there are roughly 1.4 million suggestions all up). Adding these as separate pages would add a huge number of pages to the Wikipedia: would the Wikipedia scale okay? What happens when these pages need to be deleted: isn't that going to take an administator a long time? Uploading these suggestions using a bot will take over a month: is that too long? Also people want a way to mark which suggestions to implement, and which to not: doing this using a bot that reads a human-edited list is very messy and seems awkward - wouldn't it be better to have some kind of web-based form for this? I have a big list of suggested links for the entire English Wikipedia - the problem is getting it out there. I'm wondering whether it really needs a web server with a several gig of disk space, and a decent amount of bandwidth. (Dbroadwell had some ideas along these lines).

Would you like it to be run on the whole wiki in the future?
The Link Suggester has been run on a local copy of the whole English Wikipedia already for testing purposes, but thus far these results have not been uploaded to the Wikipedia. The aim (if the feedback is suitably positive) is eventually for the LinkBot to upload the suggestions for every article in the English Wikipedia.

Are there any spin-off projects that flow out of this?
Yes, there are two:
 * 1) When processing the page, the link suggester needs to look at the page's wikicode (so that it doesn't suggest a link something that is already a link, for example). When doing this it is easy to detect pages with broken wikicode (e.g. unclosed wiki-links, unopened wiki-links, malformed section headers, and so forth). This spin-off project evolved to become the Wiki Syntax Project.
 * 2) The Missing Redirects Project, which suggests new useful redirects and disambiguation pages, from the data that we already have in the Wikipedia.

Will it suggest links multiple times? e.g. Will it try to link the same proper noun two or more times?
No.

Will it suggest links to articles with titles similar to, but not identical to, the text in my article?
No (apart from capitalization differences).

Why did you make this?
I kept finding that there were articles that I hadn't linked to yet, simply because I didn't know that they existed. I decided that there should be an automated way of suggesting links, based on the text of the article.

Can I get the source code?
Source code for LinkBot is now available. It's a bit of a mess, sorry!

Does it ever make bad suggestions?
Yes. Please take all the suggestions with a grain of salt. Bad suggestions are almost always because the same combination of words are used to mean different things to different people. I have endeavoured to eliminate bad suggestions, whilst keeping good suggestions, but getting a perfect automated link suggester is probably impossible without genuine Artifical Intelligence.

Also some suggestions can be tangential - that is they're not inherently wrong suggestions, they're just not appropriate to link to in the context that they're suggested. For this reason the suggestions are provided for your review, so that people can make the links they like and disregard the rest.

Will it ever modify the original article?
No, never. If the original article ever gets modified by the software, then that's a bug.

Is this an official Wikipedia project?
No - at the moment this is a personal project.

How does it work?

 * 1) The most recent available copy of the enwiki database is downloaded and stored.
 * 2) A large index of the names of every article, and the target (if it's a redirect) is built in memory (for speed).
 * 3) The text of every article is retrieved from the local database, and then processed to look for unlinked text that matches the title of an existing article. Those results are then filtered based on the rules of what makes a good or bad link, and the wiki syntax of the article is checked.
 * 4) The results are then saved to the local database.
 * 5) Once the above has finished, the saved suggestions can then be uploaded to the Wikipedia by the LinkBot.

How long does it take to suggest links for the whole of the English Wikipedia?
On the old Pentium-3 800 MHz which I am using for this:
 * Downloading, uncompressing, and storing the latest enwiki database dump takes 7 hours. (This step is I/O limited - the hard disk light never goes off).
 * Building an index of articles in memory takes several minutes. Building a really complete and useful index in memory that knows the target of every redirect takes five minutes and consumes around 200 Mb of RAM. (This step is I/O limited - the hard disk light never goes off).
 * Then to check the syntax of and suggest links for every article in the wikipedia, and save the results, takes 51 hours. (This step looks I/O limited for short articles, and either CPU or memory-bandwidth or algorithm limited for medium to long articles - the hard disk light only goes off briefly when processing medium or long articles).

So total time taken = 7 + 0 (rounding down) + 51 = 58 hours.

Note: These times do not include any uploading of suggestions to the Wikipedia by the LinkBot. This is purely the time taken to generate the suggestions, which the LinkBot can then upload.

Note: These times are proportional to the number of articles in the Wikipedia (and were accurate as of 13-Dec-2004) - so as the Wikipedia continues to grow, the times taken to process the data will increase too.

What programming language is it written in?
In PHP, running on Debian Linux 3.0.

How long roughly might it take to upload the data to the Wikipedia?
Currently the main speed-limiting factor is political, and not technical. This is because there is maximum allowed limit of 6 transactions per minute for bots (although there is some discussion on allowing exceptions to this rule where there is consensus on it).

At the 6 transactions per minute rate, uploading all the suggestions to the Wikipedia would take 24 days, which is a very long time (and runs the high risk of the suggestions becoming out of touch with the article if it has been edited in the intervening period).

The fastest the LinkBot could probably go is around 30 or 40 transactions per minute, at which rate uploading suggestions would take around 5 days (which is far more realistic). So, if after the trial phase goes well, and if it still seems a good idea to run it on the whole Wikipedia, then I will see if there is consensus on raising the transactions per minute limit on the LinkBot.

Are there any examples I can see?
Yes - for current examples here is the edit log for LinkBot.

There are also some much older examples (these are from Phase 1, done with manual cutting and pasting, around late October 2004):
 * Talk:Snowy Mountains Scheme.
 * Talk:William Charles Wentworth.
 * Talk:Peter Reith.
 * Talk:Miss Australia.
 * Talk:Federal Court of Australia.
 * Talk:Ash Wednesday fires.
 * Talk:Agriculture in Australia.

Can I leave feedback, and if so where?
Absolutely - you can leave both positive feedback and negative feedback (if you're not sure which, pick whichever you think is most appropriate). You can also let me know about suggested links that probably should never be suggested.

Why were no links suggested pointing to my article?
If no links were suggested, then the reason was one of the following:
 * The article's title does not fulfil the criteria of a 'good link', as defined previously. These criteria were a 'best guess' at what qualify as good links.
 * The article's title does not occur in the text of any articles. The text must occur verbatim (excluding capitalisation) in order for it to be suggested.
 * The article was manually excluded by me (and as such, this reflects my personal biases, opinions and preferences). There are only a quite small number of manual exclusions (around 500, out of around 600000 articles/redirects, or 0.08%).

What are some of the reasons for manual exclusions?
Manual exclusions (never suggesting a link to a page, even though it qualifies as a "good link") are added because of one or more of the following reasons:
 * The article was a stub or too short to link to. Examples: Private sector, Far East, Spoken language, State-of-the-art.
 * The article was largely a disambiguation page - example: North Shore.
 * The article was about something other than the way those words are used in everyday English (this happened mostly for articles about books, albums, magazines, bands, songs, and movies) - an example was the movie "They Live", or the movie "In and Out", or the book My Life. Another example is Code for, which is about genetics, but the way this phrase is used in articles does not correspond with this. Another is Shift in, which is computer-specific, which not how it is used in everyday English (e.g. "This shift in public perception ..."). Another is 15 minutes, and another is Ten Years Later.
 * The article may have been related to the topic, but not spot-on - an example is Baseball player - this redirects to list of baseball players, but it doesn't define or explain what a baseball player is. Another was State capital. Another was TV shows. Another was Jazz musician. Another was Court case. This mostly seemed to happen with pages that were redirects to lists of things.
 * There were simply too many links suggested to the article (examples: New York, St. Louis, Los Angeles). Living together, poverty line and per capita income were at the top of this category though, because those phrases are used in the RamBot articles (so the suggestions were found many times). Overall though, very few articles were in this category (maybe around 10 all up).
 * Too culturally biased. Example: State legislature - many places in the world have a State legislature, not just the US; example: Task force - phrase has entered common English-speaking lexicon, but article is quite US-military-specific; example: Minister of Education - many places in the world have a Minister of Education, not just the United Kingdom; example: Meteorological Office - many places in the world have a Meteorological Office, not just the UK.
 * Some links I though were just plain silly - example: Some More.
 * I didn't think it was worth linking to in the majority of situations in which it was used - example: twenty-five.
 * Someone else requested it not be linked to on this page.

Why add the suggestions to a talk page, and not as some kind of big list?
The idea of adding suggestions to the talk pages is that: The problems with listing them separately as a big series of list pages are that:
 * 1) They're suggestions - a user may not like some of them - and so the actual article should never be automatically modified. People feel strongly about this, and I agree with them.
 * 2) By adding suggestions to the talk page, those suggestions are automatically associated with the page, and visible to anyone watching the page, all without the problems inherent in modifying the page.
 * 3) The link suggester shows suggested links from a page, but it will also show suggested links to a page (but only if there are outgoing links as well).
 * 1) Point 2 above is lost.
 * 2) It would be a huge number of pages, much more than 100 or 200. With 210931 pages with suggestions, at around 3.8 suggestions on average per page, that's over 800,000 suggestions in total. Experience with this kind of process of making lists of changes (with creating the data for the Wiki Syntax Project) has shown that 140 suggestions per page (includes link to page, word that can be linked, and context of the change) is the perfect size to get the page size just under the 32K suggested maximum page size. 800000 / 140 means there would be 5715 pages.
 * 3) Then people have to process those 5715 pages. Experience with asking people for their help in processing changes listed on pages (as part of the Wiki Syntax Project), with a lot of effort by a lot of people, has shown that the processing rate is around 35 such pages per week. At that rate of progress, with the same consistent and concerted effort (which would probably be very hard to do over such a long-haul project), it would take around 165 weeks to process all of the suggestions, which equals 3.2 years.
 * 4) Point 3 above is lost unless you have twice as many pages (a list to, and a list from), which would be 11430 pages.
 * 5) Over such a long period of time, with the rapid pace of change in the Wikipedia, the data would age very rapidly, and quickly become irrelevant to the content that was actually on the pages at the time a human got around to looking at the suggestion.
 * 6) In other words, the most viable approach appears to be to distribute the problem of processing the links out to the page authors / maintainers by putting those suggestions on the talk pages (and this act of distributing the problem is one of the most fundamental reasons why the Wikipedia is so successful). Of course, page authors can ignore the suggestions (personally, I wouldn't, if I thought that they were good suggestions, and if I cared about the page) - and with the tests, sometimes people ignore the suggestions, and sometimes they use them. Of course if you ignore the suggestions, then you're no worse off than you were before.

Can I submit some text to look for linkify-ing?
I am looking for pages to contribute to. A friend suggested writing my own personal bio, then submitting it to this linkify bot as a way to find pages I might be interested in editing. dfrankow 17:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the best way to annotate the suggestions?
If I create some of the links as suggested by the link bot, it is acceptable to delete that part of the link bot text on the talk page, or is that considered as bad as deleting the comments of a real person? I'd rather not have to put a comment after every suggestion saying that it is now taken care of, but if the text just stays, other people will waste time investigating every suggestion again.--ragesoss 15:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem to delete them, and no offense whatsoever will be taken by deleting them. Alternatively, you can always strike the suggestions out to indicate that they have been done. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Nickj/Link Suggester


text:
User talk:Nanomu

Welcome
Hello,, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~ . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! —Plato

title: User talk:Nanomu


text:
User talk:Slightlyslack

Image Tagging Image:Lapd pacific division.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lapd pacific division.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 12:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Slightlyslack,

I just wanted to say thanks for Heavy-Chemical Industry Drive, which I just noticed. Definitely helps to fill some gaps in our coverage of South Korean economic history!

Cheers, -- Visviva 06:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mid-City Los Angeles
Well, just to warn you, the terminology mid-city los angeles doesn't exist. I tried to make a page on the region by making a Central Los Angeles region entry, (that term doesn't exist either), and a wikipedia member with editing rights deleted my page because the terminology didn't exist. So she may delete yours too, so I don't think it's worth it to make an articles that aren't strictly backed by the LA almanac or popular opinion in Los Angeles, because otherwise, you're bound to have someone like her go ahead and delete, redirect or otherwise disfigure your contributions.

Copyright problems with Pueblo del Sol, Los Angeles, California
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Pueblo del Sol, Los Angeles, California, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Pueblo del Sol, Los Angeles, California appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Pueblo del Sol, Los Angeles, California has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Abductive (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Milorganite for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Milorganite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Milorganite until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Milorganite has been substantially reworked since you created it, and as Velella was kind enough to inform you, it is being considered for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slightlyslack


text:
User:Nickj/Link Suggester/Positive Feedback

Please leave any positive feedback for the Link Suggester on this page. Conversely, if you have negative feedback, please leave it here. Also if there are things that should never be linked to, please let me know about them here.

 * 1) Can add entries here. -- Nickj 07:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Great idea and implemented well! -- Aaron Hill 11:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gave useful suggestions on the Bert Newton page. --Robert Merkel 14:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) This is the coolest thing ever. :) --Golbez 17:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Pretty impressive, as long as it never edits a page.  The two suggestions at Talk:Amanda Vanstone are "correct" but neither do we want to wikify everything in sight, nor are the suggestions the most pertinent targets if we were to wikify those phrases.  ((Why does service delivery service Delivery have a wikipedia article anyway?)
 * 6) I like all the wikilinks for the Agriculture in Australia, except the argiculture policy one- since that article only discusses subsidies (:/, mabye I'll have a go at it after the thesis) :) --nixie 09:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) The Ash Wednesday fires suggestions are all good, and highlighted some back-wikilink possibilities too. -- Mark Hurd 14:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Nick this seems to be a very cool idea, I have a couple of suggestions that may help. 1. Add the section the text appears on the talk page as it may help find to text your suggesting on a long page. 2. Have a page where editors can add links that probably never should be suggested and have this page autimatically (semi) added to your list of exclusions. This will help if it is ever run wholesale against the whole db as I'm sure you aren't totally complete in your exclusion list and other editors may as well help add to the list.Steven jones 07:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Like this a lot. Can be especially useful for wikifying articles in need of cleanup—it'd be great if the script could be run on articles listed on Cleanup at least daily.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:45, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) I could this as being very useful, especially for new articles. A fair number of suggestions made with the first test seem worthwhile. It will be intersting to see how well it works on the run of 100. Greba 22:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Saw the links generated for Triple J... very nice. I think I'll put them all in, except for the Double J redirect. Oh, someone already did them all except the one (Tim Ross) which I checked. Oops ;) Also, The Establishment was an incorrect link. Psychobabble 21:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) I found this really useful for the archaeology page - thanks! (There were a few incorrect suggestions, but that's hardly surprising - and they were more than made up for by the useful suggestions). --G Rutter 12:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Two out of four suggestions on the Alga page were appropriate.  To me this is a good ratio for an automated tool. Edwinstearns 15:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Good job.--Jirate 17:10, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
 * 15) Hey, this is really cool. :) The signal-to-noise -ratio with the links, as you call it, appears to be great for a bot! --ZeroOne 18:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Kudos on the new backlinks section! I was a bit ambivalent about the usefulness of the regular wiki links, but this is really handy for deorphaning articles in a way you might otherwise miss. Ambi 09:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Good job. But don't suggest links to measurements. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Linkbots selections for Agriculture are all ok, except food crop and stock farming which redirect back to agriculture --nixie 02:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Many good suggestions for Algorithm. Still wondering how 'intelligent' the robot was in choosing the following suggestion.  right-hand side of the expression is assigned to the container (or variable...  (link to section)
 * 20) Well done, I was going to do this, but didn't get round to it. I'd encourage you to release the source. Edward
 * 21) Suggestions on Attila the Hun were (mostly) spot-on. This is a great idea. —No-One Jones 12:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Great suggestions (for the most part) for Audi. Good idea! --SFoskett 15:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Cool stuff, and it comes up with surprisingly good suggestions. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)    19:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Cool!  Even better would be an Approve this suggestion check box and a Do Approved Changes Link or Button.
 * 25) Agree with previous post.  A better interface would present the list of suggestions with checkboxes next to each.  An editor could check the valid/helpful suggestions, then click "apply" at the bottom of the list. Davejenk1ns 02:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Great. Only added 2 out of 4 suggestions, but all could have been added without major errors. zoney ♣ talk 03:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) I like it. It did a good job on An American in Paris, two suggestions I wikified and the third another user removed as it probably never should have been on the page in the first place.--Sketchee 06:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Very interesting. Looks great. PunkPod 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) Well, I like it.  But, can you make it pick up redirects?  I linked Platonism on Aristotle only to notice a second later that Platonists was already linked (which is a redir to Platonism). Michael Ward 01:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) * It's a bug (making suggestions which duplicate existing redirect links in the article), which happened in the early link suggestions. It was fixed on the 9th December 2004, so it now no longer does this. Unfortunately Aristotle was one of the exactly 100 articles done before this date - Sorry :-(. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) Excellent idea, seems very effective. Good luck with your work. Dan100 23:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) Cool concept.  Suggestion:  Markup is your friend...  Have a place in the suggestions that are autoadded to the discussion for people to put a "Y" or "N" flag.  Link Suggester should come back every few weeks, check out the flags, and then modify the article to match the settings in the discussion.  Link Suggester should mark the links it adds so it never deletes a manually added link even if it previously had suggested the link. Mike Friedman 04:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Good idea, but it's too stupid to suggest "to send four hundred thousand Hungarians to" ... -- Toytoy 14:58, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Good idea, I added links to Apollo 11. -- Curps 08:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) I liked it. All links suggested for Atlas Shrugged made some sense, I implemented most of them. - Marcika 19:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Loved it! Implemented both suggestions for the Alexis Carrel article. Auric The Rad 04:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Four out of five suggestions for arsenic were good. Although it could be a little clearer when the suggested link is not the literal text, but the text notation. Securiger 14:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Most suggestions are very good. There are a few really wacky ones, but all in all, I give this bot a passing grade. Denni ☯ 03:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
 * 39) Good, very good, ...as long as a thinking mind judge. :-) Johan Magnus 00:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) I like it very much. Suggested useful links for ataxia. --Eleassar777 15:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) I like this idea a lot. Perhaps a bot to help automate the creation of footnotes/endnotes together with the Fact and Reference Check Project.  The problem with FARC is that the article needs to be formatted with a foot/endnote at the end of each fact, then the facts have to be referenced.  A bot would be excellent in creating footnotes. --ShaunMacPherson 11:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Congratulations on making such a useful program. I found the links suggested for the article on Peter Reith to be quite appropriate. -- Adaj 2 Aug 2005
 * 43) Very useful! Thanks! Mstroeck 09:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) I used it on abbot, though I didn't see it until after I was already linking it without it. I added 45 links I thought were appropriate. The bot suggested 24. Of those, I had already chosen to add 5 of them. I then added 4 more of the remaining 19 - the only ones I would have added before if I had noticed them. So that makes you 9 out of 24. One of the rejected links was pretty funny, but I understand the difference between current technology and Star Trek's "Data".Art LaPella 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Great work. We have also been working on a similar (almost the same) problem. We are interested to know if you have done evaluation of your system. We would also be happy to get your comment on our paper  Discovering Missing Link in Wikipedia
 * 46) What a great idea! Tell me if I can donate some CPU power. --Stereo 06:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) The links at Talk: Albedo were about mostly good, including many I never spotted before. The ones I liked were electromagnetic radiation, angle of incidence, solar radiation, carbon sequestration, climate model, and greenhouse effect, which are all excellent background links. The ones I didn't like were weather station, natural environment, and indirect effect, which were all being used in a generic or literal sense (...the different natural environment of cities...) Deco 09:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Looked over Albert Schweizer 3 good links had been done already, one cross link no longer in other article, only one completely bogus: love life where the two words just happened to be next to each other. Justinc 13:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Awesome idea, and I can only see it getting better as people contribute "bad" words for it to avoid. Kudos! 141.117.176.27 14:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) An excellent idea. Good work.--Meno25 06:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Just came across this excellent tool. Suggester is the perfect name, don't think we'd ever want a link imposer. Minoir quibble, it suggested a link to Two-stroke cycle when there was already a link to Two-stroke engine in the text but otherwise they were all useful suggestions. Many thanks Mighty Antar (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 52) The suggestions at Politics of Angola were useful. Many but not all were applicable. Great starting point. Ouanor (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Eto~enwiki

Welcome
Hello,, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~ . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! —Plato

VFD vote
Hello, I seen your vote on the rad man vfd page. It could be viewed by some users here as a sockpuppet vote, I personally don't think your a sockpuppet but I'm just warning you ahead of time.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 07:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.. I'm fairly new to wikipedia so I havn't made many contributions, so I can see how you (and others) may see it like that. I'm the author of PabloDraw, which is in relation to the 'ansi/ascii art scene' that Radman is also part of (along with thousands and thousands of others since the late 80's till now), so I have vested interest in seeing this information stay, as it is very historical and it would be a shame for it to be lost. --Eto 00:19, 18 Oct 2004 (PST)
 * Sorry if I caused you any problems I've been told that you've been editing here a month.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 10:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suspicion of Puppetry
Hi Eto. It appears that Plato/Comrade Nick has already covered this, but I'm just going through in serial to notify everyone who has been accused as being one of my "sock puppets" for happening to disagree with RickK! (Can you imagine that?) Oddly enough, every page I hit there seems to be some controversey which surrounds him, I'll keep my comments to myself on why that is.

Anyhow, I just wanted you to know that you're on a list of names here:

User_talk:Sjc

Just an FYI. Take care. Radman1 04:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Eto. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Eto~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eto~enwiki


text:
User:Nickj/Link Suggester/Negative Feedback

Please leave any negative feedback for the Link Suggester on this page. Conversely, if you have positive feedback, please leave it here.

Also if you are unhappy with the LinkBot over suggestions that you thought weren't useful (and that wouldn't be useful to anyone else either) then please let me know here which suggestions weren't useful, and I'll ensure that they aren't suggested in the future.

Please add entries to the end of this list. -- Nickj 07:01, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Won't replace the real thing. I've had a look at some of the suggestion it has made for Australian articles, and it seems to come up with silly/innapropriate ones just as often (if not more) than it comes up with useful ones. An automated program simply won't replace humans looking at it and thinking "thats a good wikilink".--ZayZayEM 09:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Never replace, but it is certainly a good supplement. Neither Cyclone Tracy nor Australian Greens pages had inaccurate suggestions. - Aaron Hill 11:52, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **I'm being turned. Some good suggestions at Triple J, however it did suggest Double J which in turn redirects back to the main article. Is there a way it could avoid self redirects. --ZayZayEM 05:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *** At the time those suggestions were made (late October), it knew nothing about redirects (to self or to other pages). This has since been added though, so (I think) there now shouldn't be any self-redirects suggested. All the best, -- Nickj 07:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Online banking suggestions were OK, but highlighted that a better vesion would automatically adjust for redirects. The Internet redirects to internet, so the the needn't be in the wikilink, but internet browser redirects to web browser, so it should suggest the wikilink of internet browser . Obviously this would be more readily implemented when the tool is integrated with the MediaWiki software (which should also handle multiple identical wikilinks in an article automatically). -- Mark Hurd 15:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) * Just removing the final link to "internet browser". AlistairMcMillan 04:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) * Personally I prefer longer links, but I agree that it should automatically try to adjust for redirects (this also avoids the problem of suggesting a number of different wikilinks for the same article, which all redirect to the same page; And it should also prevent suggesting self-redirects which point back to the original article). So using the above example, I think it should ideally do The Internet and internet browser, and I'm aiming for something that does this. - Nickj 22:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Re your suggestions at Alphabet:
 * 9) *Redirects aren't filtered out (the other way around): It suggests Roman alphabet, but the article already links to Latin alphabet.
 * 10) *Disambigs aren't filtered out: It suggests Phonetic alphabet, which is a dab and the article already contains links to pages linked in the dab, like International phonetic alphabet.
 * Pjacobi 11:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've removed disambiguation pages from the suggested links (there 44839 suggested links to disambiguation pages, around 6% of the total). Also redirects in the article will now be converted to their target location, which should prevent suggesting links where there's already a redirect in the article that goes to the same place (not doing this in the first place was a silly oversight on my behalf). I've checked what the revised suggestions for this page would be, and they would be the same minus Latin alphabet, phonetic alphabet and also middle Persian (since the Pahlavi alphabet link you already have redirects to the same location). I'll also get for languages added to the list of links to manually exclude. All the best, -- Nickj 01:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) This is going to fill up talk pages with lots of bogus links - it should leave the suggestions up for a month, then clear them out. It's not doing too well with plant links - St. Croix Agave gets a suggestion for St. Croix, but you never want to link part of a species name. Stan 16:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I find this more annoying than useful. It seems to suggest mostly inappropriate links, and at best it suggests some obscure links that are at the margins of whether they should be included. Someone else is left to sort through them, and if that someone is an inexperienced editor, they add a bunch of dubious links to the article. I think it would be appropriate for you to make this available as a tool -- as in someone working on an article could request such a list and then follow through -- but dumping it into the talk page is almost functionally equivalent to trolling, though doubtless with better intentions. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) The links suggested for anarchism...some were okay and relevant but a great deal were bad suggestions. --Fatal 21:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *Can you please be specific about the least useful links? Looking at the suggestions for Anarchism, I'd say use of force, Criminal Justice Act, Call for help, Consenting Adults, Species Traitor, Profane Existence, and Alternative Press weren't useful (and probably wouldn't be useful suggestions in most situations) - so I've added these to the list of things not to link to, but if there are others that fall into this category (not useful + probably never will be) then please let me know by adding them to this list. All the best, -- Nickj 22:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC).
 * 5) I certainly don't like the way they're dumped inline on the talk page. It would be less obtrusive if your bot created a subpage of the talk page and only left a link to that on the talk page. Shane King 00:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) * That could definitely work. I've actually been quite surprised that some people were annoyed about suggestions on the talk page (it's almost like there's a suspicion the whole aim was to annoy them, rather than try and help them!) - but there have been enough responses like this to make me think that some change in approach would be a good idea. Your subpage idea is the first constructive criticism that I've received that addresses this concern, whilst still being feasible, and having the benefits of using the talk page (and the whole purpose of the talk page is to discuss and suggest improvements to the article). I'll work on something like this - for the talk page, I'm thinking something like the current section header ("Suggest 36 possible wiki links and 21 possible backlinks for XYZ") + a bit of text that says "An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the XYZ article, and they have been placed on this subpage", and link on 'this subpage' (so you'd get just 2 lines of text added to the talk page). Then the actual subpage would be just like what was previously being added to the talk page. Does that sound more reasonable? All the best, -- Nickj 05:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) **That sounds good to me. If there was only a small number of links, posting inline would probably be OK. I think what most people are objecting to is the large amount of text being placed on the talk page. I've got no problem with the link bot making suggestions (of course they're not always going to be good, that's why people make links and not the wikipedia software), I just think it would be tidier if it didn't take up so much space. Hopefully it will cause other people to not complain so much too. :) Shane King 06:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Did not like the ones suggested for Apartheid some of which were general South Africa and others not even that.--Audiovideo 14:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) *Thank you for the feedback. There were definitely some incorrect or over-general links suggested for this article - the worst ones I think were: election of 1948, National government, Black man, eighty-seven, modern weapons, Deputy Minister, The Truth, and Member States. I'll get these added to the list of links not to suggest in future. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 22:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) **Going to have to disagree. The election of 1948 was a turning point of Aparthied. Burgundavia 11:00, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) ***Unfortunately the election of 1948 it suggested is about a US election, not a South African one, hence the bad link :-(  -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) *What about allowing the "bad list" to be ignored if the article on the list has a back-link to the article being parsed? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) **That's a good idea, but it would make it a lot slower, and it's already getting dog slow, so I'm going to have to say 'no', not because I disagree with the idea (I don't), but because I think it will make it too slow. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) **The Truth is a dab page. There's nothing wrong with linking to it, but a better hit would have been Truth and Reconcilliation Commission. Josh Parris ✉ 04:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) ***It would pick The Truth up as a disambig page now, and therefore not link to it (won't suggest links to dab pages); Note that the disambig was added to article on "The Truth" on the 9th March 2005 (after these suggestions were made on 18 Dec 2004). So, if was running on this article now, it would instead suggest linking the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. All the best, Nickj (t) 04:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) arable land suggestions are totally tangential, don't help the article at all (except in so far as the article needs serious work) -- Danny Yee 11:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) *It won't suggest the link to wild animals any more, as that is now a disambig page (doesn't suggest links to disambig pages). That leaves fresh water, and the 182 backlinks to arable land; Should I get these 2 added to the list of links to not suggest? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) The suggested links for Abner Doubleday cite text that is not in the (current?) article. Hal Jespersen 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) * Yes, but those suggestions were made in excess of 14 months ago. The software can't be expected to suggest links for text that hasn't even been written at the time it runs! :-) A revised approach is being considered now, whereby rather than listing suggestions on the talk page or other wiki pages (where they will become less relevant with time as the article changes, such as in this case), they will processed by a people in batches, clicking "Yes" or "No" to each suggestion. This should sharply reduce the delay between suggestion, and a human making a decision about that suggestion. It should also automate acting upon that an accepted suggestion, making the whole thing easier. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) I also think this would be better as a tool... someone is going to have to look at every link anyway, and if we could automate the process of actually replacing the text with the link, that would be cool. moink 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) In Algae article, partial differentiation is not math but completely different thing. Saimhe 18:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter

So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter is the second live album by singer-songwriter Ani DiFranco, released in 2002 (see 2002 in music).

The opening track of the second disc, "Comes a Time", is an excerpt from the famous speech by Mario Savio, given before Free Speech Movement demonstrators entered Sproul Hall to begin their sit-in on December 3, 1964. His climactic words about "the operation of the machine" have been quoted widely ever since, out of context, as the existential emblem of the FSM.

Personnel

 * Ani DiFranco – guitar, vocals
 * Ravi Best – trumpet
 * Shane Endsley – trumpet
 * Daren Hahn – drums
 * Todd Horton – trumpet
 * Jason Mercer – bass
 * Hans Teuber – clarinet, flute, saxophone, vocals, background vocals
 * Julie Wolf – keyboards, vocals

Production

 * Ani DiFranco – record producer, mixing, art direction, design, illustrations
 * Larry Berger – engineer supervisor, recording supervisor, photography
 * Andrew Gilchrist – engineer supervisor, engineer, assistant engineer
 * Greg Calbi – engineer supervisor, mastering
 * Susan Alzner – photography
 * Larry Berger – photography
 * Scott Fisher – photography
 * Eric Frick – photography
 * Heidi Kunkel – photography
 * Jason Mercer – photography
 * Julie Wolf – photography

Charts
Album

title: So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter


text:
File:Ani DiFranco - Evolve.jpg

Cover for the album Evolve by Ani DiFranco

title: File:Ani DiFranco - Evolve.jpg


text:
Talk:So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter

Locations
The songs on this double-disc album are all from tours between 2000-2002. It would be nice if the song listings also included the location where each of the songs was actually performed/recorded. Does anyone know where this information could be found? john factorial 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Source of "Comes a Time"
The original source of the text on this track was indeed Mario Savio's speech on the steps of the Sproul Hall [see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0], but the rendering of it on this album is certainly the version paraphrased by Utah Phillips on the track "Unless You Are Free" from his and DiFranco's collaborative record Fellow Workers. The text exactly matches Phillips' version but not Savio's (e.g. Phillips says "there comes a time", Savio originally said "there is a time", et al.), and it's unmistakably the same voice (Phillips' slight lisp) and intonation (unfortunately this track doesn't seem to be on YouTube for comparison purposes).  tomasz.  00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:So Much Shouting, So Much Laughter


text:
Chapmanville

Chapmanville may refer to:

 * Chapmanville, a village in Plum Township in Venango County, Pennsylvania
 * Chapmanville, West Virginia
 * Chapmanville is a historic place name for Chapmantown, a neighborhood in Chico, California

title: Chapmanville


text:
Isuzu Axiom

The Isuzu Axiom is a mid-size SUV introduced by Isuzu in 2001 for the 2002 model year. The Axiom is derived from the Isuzu Rodeo and was intended to be Isuzu's response to the popularity of car-based SUVs, such as the Toyota Highlander, replacing the Trooper as Isuzu's flagship vehicle in the United States.

Exclusively sold in the United States and Costa Rica, the Axiom was built alongside the Rodeo in Lafayette, Indiana, at Subaru Isuzu Automotive, Inc. The peculiar styling and truck-based platform was poorly received in the marketplace. The Axiom was discontinued and replaced by the Chevrolet TrailBlazer-derived Isuzu Ascender in 2004, leading to Isuzu's withdrawal from manufacturing and selling passenger vehicles in North America in 2009.

The Axiom had two trim levels: the base and the up-level XS. The XS trim had features like fog lamps, a sunroof, heated front seats, an auto-dimming mirror with Homelink, 12-speaker premium audio, and leather upholstery.The name "Axiom" was determined by a naming contest held by Isuzu and won by Dr. Hakan Urey from Redmond, Washington, who suggested the name and won his own Axiom in 2001. The word means an established, accepted, or self-evidently true statement or proposition.

The Axiom is available with a Torque-On-Demand four-wheel drive system, a direct-injection 6VE1-DI V6 engine and an Aisin Warner AW30-40LS automatic transmission was added in 2004, boosting power from 230 to 250 hp (172 to 186 kW). A new chrome bar grille and liftgate chrome that stretched tail light to tail light was also added.

The Axiom was discontinued in July 2004, and the Lafayette plant was retooled to build the Subaru B9 Tribeca. With the retirement of the Rodeo and Axiom, Isuzu, which once sold a complete line of cars, trucks and SUVs, no longer offered any Japanese-built consumer vehicles in the United States (from 2006–2009, the lineup consisted only of rebadged General Motors vehicles).

In 2013, a recall was issued for the Isuzu Axiom for frames with severe rust issues, NHTSA Campaign Number 13V547000. Similar related vehicles, 1998–2002 Isuzu Rodeo and Honda Passport NHTSA Recall Campaign Number 10V436000, and Isuzu Amigo in 2012, Campaign Number 12V306000.

The Axiom is a slightly diluted production version of the 1999 Isuzu ZXS concept that debuted at the 1999 Tokyo Motor Show. Isuzu also built 3 Axiom concepts: the 2001 Axiom XSF, 2002 Axiom XSR, and 2003 Axiom XST.

Chinese manufacturer Great Wall later copied the design of the Axiom for their Great Wall Haval/Hover SUV, albeit with a minor restyling of the body.

The 2001 movie Spy Kids and its 2002 sequel featured an Isuzu Axiom as part of a promotion, even having a lenticular poster and an RC car made by RadioShack.

title: Isuzu Axiom