User talk:A930913/Archives/2014/Mar

About the {{

So does it mean i do {{infobox or do {{ infobox

HelperUset (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@HelperUset: Both will work; {{infobox is vastly more common. However, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject; your draft had none of those. Furthermore, it seems more likely that people looking for "blocks" seek information about one of the topics listed on our block page; an article on the game, if there are enough sources to write one in the first place, should be given a more specific title such as Blocks (2014 video game). My suggestion would be to write a new draft based on third-party coverage via the Article Wizard. For now I've restored the redirect. Huon (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Why doesn't the bot just fix the error with unpaired brackets? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, because it's not Skynet. Knowing where to add a missing bracket (or whether in truth there's a bracket too much) is highly non-trivial. Huon (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As non-trivial as having a bot to patrol all edits to inform people of trivial things such as a missing left or right outer bracket? The effort to do this could simply be used to fix the problem. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to spend more effort on fixing others' bracket mistakes. If you don't want to be notified about your own mistakes, you can opt out. If you can suggest code that will reliably allow the bot to fix bracket errors on its own, I'm sure A930913 would love to hear about it. Other than that, I don't see the purpose of this discussion. Huon (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great, now lets here from the organ grinder. If the bot can post this text on my talkpage "In January 2014 the film was nominated for ten César Awards at the </nowiki>[[39th César Awards]<ref name="CésarNoms">{{cite web |url=http://variety.com/2014/film/news/me-" AND highlight in red the issue, why can't it just fix the problem? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How, by removing the bracket highlighted in red? That wouldn't have helped. Identifying mismatched brackets is easy and requires little more than basic counting; fixing them is highly complex. Let's for argument's sake assume that you had removed both closing square brackets from that link, not just one - how could the bot determine whether the "correct" text was supposed to be "39th César Award", "39th César Awards", "39th César Awards" or maybe just "39th César Awards" without any link? Huon (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Notices

Hi,

Please don't notify me when I fail to add a reflink. Let the bots take care of it.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I doubt a bot will add references sections to pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Huon (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Bracket Edit (Lovebytes Page)

Hello, A930913. You have new messages at Ashleyjohnmartin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, thank-you very much for your advice regarding the broken brackets (syntax). I believe that I have rectified this issue, though I was unsure as to whether I was supposed to delete the brackets or close them with another bracket. I hope that it is correct, if not, I am sure someone will let me know.

Thanks again your feedback was much appreciated!

AshleyAshleyjohnmartin (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ashleyjohnmartin: You may want to look at Help:Link, which explains the code for external links, and probably better yet, WP:Referencing for beginners, which explains how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes (including links) via citation templates such as {{cite web}}. That said, at a glance, the vast majority of the sources for the Lovebytes article seem to be primary sources such as Lovebytes' own website or the websites of people and organizations closely associated with Lovebytes. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources such as news reports about the organization, or articles in reputable art magazines. The quality of sources is at least as important as the sheer quantity, and I fear this article needs some major cleanup work in this regard. Huon (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Bracket Edit (OHWiki Page)

Thanks so much for the information. It was my fault on the broken syntax in the history section of the Ohio State Reformatory. I misread on that one before changing it, but I went back and corrected it, a job well done. OHWiki (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Vada Keyboard Keys

Hey is their any short keys on Vada? ///EuroCarGT 22:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: The functionality is (kind of) there, though I haven't implemented that many. Space clicks the next in the queue, z moves the left diff previous, and x moves the left diff next. 930913(Congratulate) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool! I only knew the Space key, I didn't want to test out random keys. Anyways Vada! is easy to use, without needs of additional installed software, it runs fluidly and is a great vandal catcher! ///EuroCarGT 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

please help delete this from article t is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:

please delete this from Dr Haneef Shareef article it is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern .i request to you delete this deletion..Advance thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Balochi tamur: Firstly, this is not a BracketBot issue; the bot only notifies you about mismatched parentheses. Secondly, the deletion tag should not be removed until the underlying concern is resolved. Multiple editors agreed that's not the case. What we're looking for are articles about Dr Shareef in newspapers or reputable magazines, or similar sources which are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for more details. Huon (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, little bot.

Title said it. 72.218.229.119 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bracketbot's welcome

Hello. I noticed here that Bracketbot added {{welcome}} without any signature. I imagine that this causes some confusion, since the template includes language such as "ask me on my talk page". I wonder if a different template, or maybe directing to the WP:Teahouse would be better. Cnilep (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cnilep: Do you know of a template that I could use? When I added it, it was a quick response from a BRfA comment. 930913(Congratulate) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, um... {{Welcomeshort}} doesn't refer to "my talk page", but it has fewer links to policy pages. Oh, how about {{Welcome6}}? That has the links and no mention of "my talk page" (though it does use the pronoun "I"). Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ReferenceBot – AustralianPope

I am new to Wikipedia, I hope to be useful and improve on many of the articles related to entertainment on Wikipedia. Examples of this include; Video Games, video devices, company brands, computing, software, storage, cell phone service providers, optical media manufacturers, power supply companies, semiconductors, and more.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Video games.

Page:Nuon (DVD Tchnology)

Diff:

Comment/question: Says there is a referencing error but I can not see it.

AustralianPope (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed in subsequent edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help A.S.A.P

sorry for the inconvenience (Disturbance) Bro , Can you help me to fix my article >? List of wars involving the Philippines i broken some lines! i appreciate your advice and help for instance? Thank you!

@Philipandrew: Firstly, it would help if you didn't misspell your username. Secondly, the article is a mess that should likely be deleted. The layout is anything but standard, it is one big WP:NPOV violation because it's clearly written from a Philippine point of view throughout, and it contains numerous factual errors - and those are only te errors I, hardly an expert on Philippine history, could identify at a glance. It also cites no reliable sources and is a less complete version of the (also problematic) Military history of the Philippines article. I have fixed the table, but the other issues are much more severe. Huon (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible bug - new section not created

BracketBot's message did not create a new section in this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs)

It put it correctly under the existing heading, but didn't start it on a new line for a reason that will need to be investigated. 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

refbot2

You did it again.[1] Please stop, and let the bots handle it. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the article. The article had been in the "missing reflist" state for over two hours. I presume that if a bot were able to fix it, that would have happened by now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

doubled parens mishandled

See [2] and my response. Looks like twin (...) pairs in a sentence cause a false positive test. (for me your bot is wrong 5 out of 6 edits bothered.) // FrankB 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed bracket problem, unless I'm totally misreading the sentences that were added. I didn't see any multiple pairs of parentheses, only an open parenthesis ( with a closing curly bracket }. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not a false positive. Huon (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I'm Mr. Guye. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

It would help if you could provide some context here. Who is A930913 supposed to have harassed? Huon (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

refbot3

And yet again.[3] Stop it. Put me on an exception list or something. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, your edits are causing big red error messages to appear in articles. That is why you are being notified. While you are in these articles, you could avoid the error message and the notification by adding the following to the end of the article, above the Categories:

==References==
{{reflist}}

I fixed one for you here as an example. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The bot that used to clean up after you is indef-blocked, and has been so for the past two years. You'll have to clean up after yourself. Huon (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There were other bots that did the same. And it's a simple enough task to program a bot to do. — kwami (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

refbot4

This is getting annoying. Please just put me on an exclusion list. I'm not going to fix any of them. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Premios TVyNovelas

Hello BracketBot, thank you for your comment. have done something little mistake and try to correct them. if you want of course. you can helping me? Thank you very much ... Alka21Alka21 (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have fixed that yourself. Thanks! Huon (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Vada documentation

Hi, I got a message about my edit to page: Tom Bertram (singer-songwriter) and am confused as to what went wrong with my edit? Thank you talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Heya, I was wondering. If needed, I could help update the vada documentation. Is it needed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Probably, though I'm not sure what . Newyorkadam is better on the documentation side. 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

BracketBot – Sangoma doctor mwanda

good day, Mr BracketBot,am sangoma Doctor Mwanda and would like to inform you that am the Head of all tarditional healers in South africa, my additions should be left to exist because am there to help those that may need need any reference or would like to know the true and false sangomas in south africa reference Please do not delete my additions 435 church street Pretoria other referees at 0843088741 Regards--Sangoma doctor mwanda (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia content, particularly about living persons, should be based on reliable published sources. Your personal information is not a published source. Huon (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

yay! :) Danielasaldes (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference bot

Please make sure that you fill out User:ReferenceBot#Opting_out. I know it is exclusion compliant from the BRFA, but you should provide that info. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that such information should be provided, I wonder why anybody would want to opt out from a bot with virtually zero false positives. Huon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some people just dont want to be bugged by bot notices, and it is a requirement to post such information if one operates a bot that is exclusion compliant. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: It was not intentionally exclusion compliant, rather a feature of the library used. Can you show me this requirement? 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you stated it in the BRFA, the first bullet point of WP:BOTCONFIG would be the relevant section of policy. Since you declared that the bot was compliant, its just good practice to post that information. If for some reason you wish to change that status feel free to request an amendment from BAG, but until then the bot was approved as exclusion complaint and should honor that status. Werieth (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: As you said, it's good practice, not a requirement. I'm "encouraged to", and "may wish to implement" it, but with the false positive rate as it is, I'm yet to hear a reason why to opt out wouldn't be in bad faith. For the record, the reason why BracketBot has the opt out is that the false positives give legitimate reasons like due to editing many mathematical articles which have unpaired greater and less than signs. 930913(Congratulate) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have already stated that your bot is compliant, and thus you should publish the opt-out process. If you want to push this and be difficult, Ill have the policy clarified to make it more than a nice phrasing. Your bot was approved with an opt-out, and that should be published on the bot user page. If you had gotten approval while stating that you where non-compliant this wouldnt be an issue, but since you are compliant it needs to be published. For related discussion see Wikipedia:VPP#RfC:_I_do_not_want_to_be_bothered_by_editing_bots_any_more Werieth (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: By all means, if you want to clarify the consensus on the policy, go ahead, but bear in mind that my time spent opposing (for reasons you yourself stated) could be better spent on more useful things. Note that if your stance is indeed the consensus, then I will try reBAGging it first. 930913(Congratulate) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the bot still actually exclusion-compliant? If so, I don't really understand why you are reluctant to provide the instructions. If not, you definitely should run it thru the approval process again or seek the advice of the BAG member who approved it. –xeno^talk 11:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• A930913, can you either re-file for approval or list opt out instructions on the user page please? Werieth (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Werieth: 2 suggestions as A930913 (talk · contribs) does not seem to be responding to this good faith request: (1) boldly add the instructions yourself and/or (2) modify {{Infobox Bot}} to have the words "Exclusion compliant?" link to instructions on opting out of exclusion-compliant bots. –xeno^talk 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Xeno: given his failure to meet the basic requirements for being a bot operator (addressing good faith issues) I am questioning if I should request that his bot approvals be revoked. Given that this is a fairly small issue that I am requesting redress for what would happen if it was a more serious issue? Werieth (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  If it were more serious, probably a block would be issued on the bot. I'm really not sure why s/he doesn't want to put the instructions, or why s/he isn't responding here (or even where this "pending consensus" discussion referenced in the "Opting out" section is happening). –xeno^talk 15:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth and Xeno: There is no requirement for an opt out explanation. There are three ways of getting me to add one. These are listed from quickest to slowest:

1. Provide me with a legitimate, good faith reason that someone would want to opt out with.
2. Provide me with a consensus that says ReferenceBot should have an opt out (explanation).
3. Change the requirements from shoulds to musts and then hope that reBAGging fails.

Naturally I would prefer the first, because that is the least time consuming and gives a real use for opting out, and would consider the third underhand.

As for my response times, due to real world workload, I don't always respond to non critical messages immediately. Bear in mind that this talk page often gets more traffic than some pumps. 930913(Congratulate) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pick 1) they receive more than one false positive report from your bot and no longer wish to help you bug fix it. –xeno^talk 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Granted there is more credence to be given to this scenario now that we have our first true false positive report as of last week, but I reject this for a number of reasons. Firstly, the chance of this happening is like lightening striking twice in one place, were they wanting to opt out I would explain how to them personally, and the chances of a true report for a given editor remains much greater than chance (unlike BracketBot).

Indeed, were false positives to become a more common occurrence for some reason, this could become an acceptable reason, but until then, it is not. 930913(Congratulate) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the goalposts just moved. –xeno^talk 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Given how frequently that lighting hits here. The same place has probably been hit thousands of times. Either add the needed information or Ill seen revocation of your BRFAs Werieth (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A. T. Bartholomew

I wonder if you can help. I'm interested in A. T. Bartholomew, who has a page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Theodore_Bartholomew

At the foot of the article is a link to an article entitled "Love in the Library: Charles Sayle, A. T. Bartholomew, and the Making of Gay Bibliography." The website where this was originally uploaded no longer exists, but I would very much like to get at the article. I notice you added a link to Charles Sayle in the main article; might you know where or how I can access the 'Love in the library' piece, or have a copy of it yourself?

Liam Sims (Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK - email ls457@cam.ac.uk)

@131.111.184.102: It took a little effort, but ultimately the Wayback Machine remembers. I have updated the link in the article, too. Huon (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

refbot

Hi, please don't notify me about missing ref fields. The bots can take care of that. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, human editors fix this and other errors that ReferenceBot and BracketBot notify editors about. If the error was fixable by a bot, a bot would do it instead of notifying editors. In your case, another editor fixed the article in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is fixable by bot. I've seen it hundreds of times. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am open to learning from your experience. Please provide an example of a bot edit that added a reference list to an article that was missing one. I based the above statement on the information given at Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references#Proposals. That page is linked from the posting that ReferenceBot makes on editors' Talk pages when they cause this error on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's one where there was no ref section, and here's one where there was no ref template in the ref section. Both were in response to the info box generating an unsupported fn. I've seen other bots do the same, though I don't recall which they were. User:PotatoBot, maybe? — kwami (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Although Xqbot (and probably others) can add the missing references section, it's good form to not break an article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Xqbot just fixed one of mine.[4] Given the thousands of these I've generated, and the time it would have taken to fix them manually, it seems silly not to let a bot handle it. Maybe Refbot could add them to Xqbot's working list? — kwami (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Did ReferenceBot warn you for that edit? No, because Xqbot had fixed it. Pending another bot that fixes them all, I think it to be in the wiki's best interest for you to fix all the large red errors you introduce, or even better, not introduce them in the first place; we wouldn't want the large red errors in articles for the prolonged time between your edit and a bot's, would we? 930913(Congratulate) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just the kind of thing bots are for: To prevent the waste of time of fixing things that can be automated. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)