Jump to content

User talk:Addshore/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Jason Quinn RfA

I have to say, I agree with Bwilkins' comment here. Excessive querying and rebutting (I won't call it badgering, but it could be taken that way) of opposes/neutrals can actually cause more harm than good, and there have actually been a small handful of RfAs that have failed because of it. Pick and choose your battles; focus on those that you believe can be persuaded to change their vote for the better. There's no point in trying to argue with those who won't listen. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ks0stm. There is an excessively high level of commenting from you. Although I share your thoughts, trying to get people to change their minds is futile and can be seen as disruption.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, hence why I have tried not to comment again after voting myself. All of my comments were written before I even managed to review the users contributions naturally when voting on an RFA you read the whole RFA first, which I did, and as I did I found multiple unreasoned arguments and in one case a misquoted quote. I try not to see it as badgering also, but more as saying what should be said, at this point I still didn't know how I was going to vote. Also I wasn't trying to comment on opposes and neutrals only but that is where I felt the comments were needed. Cyber you say "Although I share your thoughts", so do you not express some of them? Thanks for the notes guys. Anyway, final word, I am stepping back from that RFA and will not start any further discussions only continue the ones already started ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have discovered that sometimes, it's just better to keep my mouth shut, or in this case, my hands off of the keyboard.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
After continuing to follow the RFA I would like to go on by saying that calling my comments disruption is rather over the top. If I made a comment about a users oppose, they responded to it and I kept going on and on trying to convince them to change their mind I would count it as badering, but I did not. As WP:RFA says "This discussion process is not a vote" implying everything is open to discussion. As this page says "Comments in opposition to an RfA are usually subject to greater examination than comments in support of one", I welcome everyone to comment on my support if they feel I have made an error e.t.c. I do also agree RFA needs some kind of reform, but any reform should not stop users from sharing and discussing their opinions. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not calling your comments a disruption. Nor do I see it as such, but if I place myself into the community's shoes, from what I have experienced here as a Wikipedia editor, some may see it as disruptive.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently so. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
To which part of my statement?—cyberpower ChatOffline 16:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"some may see it as disruptive" ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Figured out how to use someone's talk page

Thank you Addshore for your help regarding the use of the talk page. I'm new to Wikipedia but I always thought that Wikipedia would have a GUI at its backend for the content editing but I guess I can learn to use the current system too. Thank you once again for your support! (Cfb (talk)

No problem ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 07:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot Error

Please see this edit [[1]] thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I spotted and reverted straight away here. Thanks for spotting it also! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw the revert but missed that it was done by you, sorry about that. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Np! Better to be safe than sorry! I had just changed something in the bot so naturally was watching edits go through and spotted it! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Shark Fights 1 AfD

I know the that deletion discussions aren't a democracy, but could you please explain how you arrived at your decision to merge when every editor but one said to delete the article and that editor agreed the coverage was WP:ROUTINE? Papaursa (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The result was not to merge to instead to redirect (suggested by User:Cerebellum). This seems the most reasonable decision, the articles contains details of each of the events and sits link into these articles. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 05:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I see. I knew he had originally voted to merge and I missed his change to redirect. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
NP :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 06:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Piyush Tewari

Hi,

I created an article by the name of Piyush Tewari which has been deleted. Could I please know the reasons so I can work on them?

Snigdha2121 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Snigdha

Please see your talk page which says, Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Swapping {{Unreferenced}} for {{BLP unsourced}} on biographies of dead people

The following bug can be found here (#44).
This report has been assigned to
Addshore (talk ⋅ git)

All the above biographies of dead people have had their tags changed in error, please correct this ASAP, as it is very frustrating. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Having a look at the code now, the bot isn't currently running and I will be able to check back through the last 100 edits and revert any other errors. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have already been through the most recent 500 changes searching edit summaries and I couldn't find anymore.-- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed by Addshore a few moments ago, Take a look and see. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The bot has only made 100 edits that could have made this change (bot currently in trial). I have altered the checks so that first the bot goes through all of the categories of the page looking for categories saying the person is dead (if there is then the bot does nothing). If there are none the bot will then look for categories saying alive and would then swap the tags. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
After testing my fix I found there was a bug in my fix which I then fixed again. I ran against all of the articles in the list above and no edits were made so it would seem it truly is fixed! Sorry for any of your time I wasted of yours reverting the bot edits. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Another 50 edits and the final edit yet again added {{BLP unsourced}} to a page here removing {{unreferenced}}. Still looking into this. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Just looked back at the code and I only accounted for cats such as "XXXX deaths" not "XXX deaths". Fixing now... ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I am starting to think that changing from {{Unreferenced}} for {{BLP unsourced}} might not work as it is easy to see when something that is tagged as BLP should not be but the other way around seems to have too many variables. I will take another look at this check and possibly remove it from the bot before approval. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Can't you just check for Category:Living people or {{blp}} on the talk page? Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not currently checking the talk page. The reason the tags were swapped was due to the fact the articles was in People from Prato and showed no (bot readable) evidence the person was dead. I have now seen the problem and all I should need to do is refine the regex on line 206 here. To only include categories of living, not just categories of people. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reduced the regex so now it should hit less false positives (if any at all). I am just about to start another 100 edit trial. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait a sec. preg_match('/^Category:(Living people$|[0-9]{0,4} births$)/i',$cat) Dead people have Category:XXXX births too. Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That is quite right Legoktm. Give me (or Addshore) a minute or two to fix it. So far a quick search show it is right, However I will it to Addshore. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it goes through and tries to match all 'dead categories first and checks how long then have been alive for. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're randomly picked as the first admin to make an edit on my watchlist

Can you look at this edit history? Medeis is repeatedly taking action based on his interpretation of policy and refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page. The spirit of BRD should mean the initial version gets left while the topic is discussed. Ryan Vesey 23:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to [2] :P Legoktm (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I don't know how that happened. Ryan Vesey 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Having a look now! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have commented on the users page here prompting them to look back at the talk page, I am also now watching the article. If a 'war' continues the page will be protected until the changes are discussed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. However, please don't protect the page if he restores his version. I'll leave his version in place if he does (I was going to leave his version in place earlier, but he didn't even give the courtesy of a talk page explanation after his edit). As a current event, having the article be protected would be far more damaging than not having the correct bolding/lead. Ryan Vesey 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I just spotted the {{current}} tag at the top of the article... I didn't seem to take that in when I was writing the reply as I was looking at Talk:Chibombo_bus_crash#Title ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to have an opinion on how MOS:BOLDTITLE should be applied? It's clear that both Medeis and I think we are interpreting it correctly. Or do you want to stay out of it since you're watching the page in an administrative capacity. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think for now I will keep my opinions out of this one and just see how it pans out :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. gwickwiretalkedits 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment regarding the issue which was closed before I had time to post
My attention was brought to User:Demiurge1000 on IRC after they 'refactored' an oppose on an RFA here. I agreed that this edit was a going above and beyond what I thought WP:Refactor has and should be used for and prompted User:John F. Lewis to undo the change if he chose to and approach Demiurge1000 to understand the reasons behind the change.
I then also stumbled upon the recent edits on AutomaticStrikeouts user page and posted a gentle message here on Demiurge1000's talk page which was removed which is perfectly fine (I also noticed this little bit of history). After posting this section I got a few lovely message through on IRC asking if I was the user that posted to their talk page, why?, was I an administrator?, why?, then calling my comment 'stupid' and leaving.
My original message to Demiurge1000 stands, don't edit war and keep in mind that communication between users is always a good idea and can avoid all of this as proven here.·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikidata weekly summary #44

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment of the first parts of phase 2 (infoboxes/statements) on wikidata.org done - see it live for example here, here and here
    • Diffs for statement edits can now be shown
    • Started work on query definitions
    • Edit links are now disabled in the interface when the user does not have the rights to edit
    • Edit links are now hidden when viewing old revision
    • Worked on search field for WikibaseSolr
    • More work on Lua templates for Wikibase entities
    • Worked on bugfixes in the statement user interface
    • New features in the statement user interface (references counter/heading)
    • JavaScript editing for table showing labels and description of the same item in different languages
    • Repaired and updated the demo system
    • Resumed work on Linked Data interface
    • Support for enhanced recent changes format in client
    • There are automatic comments for statement edits as well in the history now
    • Special page for unconnected pages, that is pages on the client that are not connected to items on the repository
    • Added permission checks for statements, so a user that can not edit will not be able to edit or that only a group can be allowed to do some changes like creating statements
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • FOSDEM
    • upcoming: office hour (English; German later)
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Use_Multiple_templates

Can I get your input willingness to do this task? I know addbot does several similar tasks. Werieth (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind you beat me to it :) Werieth (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hah! Yep just spotted it while replying to the section above. *points at [3]. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cerabot bot approval request.

Hey Addshore,

I noticed your comment on the Cerabot BRFA and I wanted to ask if you could guide me through setting up my bot on the Wikimedia Labs cluster. It's a non-interactive script (doesn't need any extra input to run), so it works in cron. I already was approved for a WM Labs account, admittedly, I haven't taken much use of it. Cheers, --ceradon talkcontribs 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So I am guessing you have an account on labsconsole.wikimedia.org? :) If not, make one and pop back here :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Most certainly, I just logged in and updated my ssh key not 5 minutes ago. --ceradon talkcontribs 19:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Amazing, so, the project page for bot is here which explains a few things although you dont really need to read it. You do need to read this which explains how to SSh from the login server 'bastion' onto one of the private instances. Have you been added to the bots project? If not what is your username and I will get you added :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I don't think I've been added. My user name is 'ceradon', same as on wiki. Cheers, --ceradon talkcontribs 20:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay I have just added you to both bastion and bots. Which means now you should be able to ssh to 'bastion.wmflabs.org' and from there ssh to an instance such as 'bots-bnr1'. Instructions for using SSH key forwarding on your client can be found here :).
So remember SSH to bastion first and then SSH to an instance on the bots project. If you get stuck drop me a note. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

sneazy

I notice sneazy has decided to continue this on his talk page. Given that, I'll mention here that in all my years of editting WP I have never had my talk/ref desk page edits edited for spelling more than once, but sneazy's edit has been the third time (twice by IP, with objections made by me in my edit summary reversing the "correction") and once in direct opposition to my hidden comments which were removed. (If you really want diffs let me know on my talk page, but otherwise I will not be watching this drama any more.) When a newly created account such as sneazy's engages in such specific and sophisticated oppositional editting thaty exactly duplicates IP editting it makes me think two things: troll and sock puppet. That's what made me put a final, rather than a first warning for vandalism. I'm still going to assume that my edits won't be reversed any time soon. Thanks for the prior head's up. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the previous changes to your comment as naturally I was just looking for the username, not an ip. In regards to their English, selective reading maybe, sometimes that's just the way it is :/ ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Mendeis, you should have seen the fact Sneazy is under adoption and in such a case I would have much appreciated if you had notified me if this issue directly rather than jumping over three talk pages and havin me get administrator evolvement. This is simple a quick note. Plus accusing of socking is bad faith. Always assume good faith with new editors otherwise this could be considered biting. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That's medeis, not mendeis. And next time someone who's been adopted makes the exact same unwelcome edit three times, over an edit summary, and over the most obvious possible hidden comments you can imagine, deleting "'''<!--lay off with the edits to my comment-->'''" around every phrase in my edit, while leaving "or" in place between the hidden comments, i'll go to you first. In the meantime, please refrain from further comments in regard to this user on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
God, I am sorry, Addshore, I should have put this on Lewis's page. Oh, I am so sorry. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You had already apologised by time I had read it! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you wrote about making and edit "over an edit summary" You mean an edit summary like this one?[4]

And "over the most obvious possible hidden comments you can imagine". You mean like this?[5]

And "Making the exact same unwelcome edit three times" You mean like this?[6][7][8] (the sneaky attempt to make your change again after the section was archived was an interesting choice).

And of course multiple editors told you you were wrong.[9][10][11][12][13]

None of this, of course, excuses sneazy, who was out of line, but given your own history of using repeated reverts to collapse other editor's comments against consensus and mostly without talk page discussion, your outrage about sneazy correcting the spelling in your comments rings a bit hollow. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion

The article Shepard Ambellas was deleted this morning at Latest revision as of 14:36, 11 February 2013 (edit) (undo) User:J04n (talk | contribs)(Closing debate, result was delete)

You had Re-listed the Discussion for Delete prior to the last few actions which are clearly an organized attack. The primary point that is being overlooked is there originally was a warning that certain edits were recommended. These edits were done and satisfied all requirements. Simultaneously, the article got flagged as AfD which overlooked any edits made.

The actions taken by all parties do not appear to be in good faith not neutral at all. The actions taken appear to be an aggressive suppression of Conspiracy Theory related information as expressed in comments and insults by certain individuals.

I will include one extremely ignorant comment: Delete Article about a Fringe dweller and not well sourced. He is a cipher on references pointing to him. User:GenQuest "Talk to Me" 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Any Wikipedia user making this kind of statement should be banned from review and considered a danger to the community.

Anyone viewing this process would be hard pressed to say this review has been fair, objective or unbiased. If you can reverse the actions taken, then a proper review of the article may take place.

  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
  • Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, Excaliber12 -- Excaliber12 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not really the person you need to be talking to, you need to talk to the closing admin User:J04n who reviewed the discussion before deleting the article. I simply decided at the time that I looked at it there was not consensus for any action. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot wiped out About hatnote

This well-intended but evidently not entirely housebroken bot wiped out an "About" hatnote on the One-off page (instead of inserting itself above it). Seems like it needs a bit more paper training. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look into it, the bot wont edit until I have :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the code and there should have been no reason for this to happen at all, I have seen the bot edits many articles inserting tags below hat notes but for some reason this time it broke. I am building a small check into the bot. Currently the bot finds all of the hatnotes and added the tags below, the check will be that if it finds a hatnote, when it comes to post the page it makes sure that the hat note is still there. Thanks for finding the error. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

AWB

Hello Addshore; you've helped me in the past. I'm trying to set up AWB for VoxelBot's trial, but the "ignore external/internal links, comments, etc" option doesn't do anything. What am I doing wrong? Vacation9 12:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the most recent snapshot? :) I have no idea if this would make a difference but its worth a try! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe so, but I'll make sure. In the case I can't use this option, do you know of a good RegEx for external/internal links? Vacation9 12:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I do :) here on line 276 ish. '/\[\[([^]]+)\]\]/i' will match any link image e.t.c. Could you make the bot skip any page with that regex and the character your replacing in it? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Argh, I was trying to figure one out for ages. Thanks. What do you mean by skip any page with that regex? I'm just thinking to add that to all the regexes as a negative lookbehind or lookahead. Still fixing unicode errors with a different area of the bot. Vacation9 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your idea sounds perfect :) Let me know how it goes! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the approval (and the regex, it really helped). I had to work a bit with the lookarounds, but it all worked out in the end. Vacation9 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
NP! :) Regex is great and also so so annoying at the same time ;p ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Even though I listed the bot as supervised, is it okay if I run the move part non-supervised? There's really not many errors that could happen. Find and replace will be supervised, but I don't think move and WhatLinksHere-replace needs to be. Just making sure since you approved the bot. Vacation9 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, soudns fine :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uncategorized stub

Edits such as this should place the template at the bottom of the article not at the top (although I think a better place to put them would be on the talk page of the article).

From the guidance given in the documentation of the template: "The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste [it] at the bottom of the article."

-- PBS (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As with Template:Uncategorized the documentation should probably read "It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories, although it is a somewhat common practice among some editors to put it at the top."
The bot was originally approved 4 years ago adding the tags to the top of articles and this is what it has done for 4 years.
I am in no rush to make the bot add such templates to specific areas of pages as there is nothing specifically saying that they must be places there, although this is probably going to be the next natural progression for the bot. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is here; please disable any interwiki bots on the English Wikipedia

Hi!

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Going forward, Wikidata will manage interwiki links. Further information: m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions and <https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892>.

Important note: Bots that continue to add, remove, or update interwiki links on the English Wikipedia may be blocked from editing after Saturday, February 16, 2013.

If you are running pywikipedia's interwiki.py, please update to pyrev:11073 which will automatically prevent your bot from updating links on this wiki.

If you have any questions, please ask at the bot owners' noticeboard. Thank you for your past work maintaining interwiki links. It has been very appreciated and we're looking forward to an even brighter future with Wikidata. Legoktm (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi Addhore. Some months ago you protected Cyprus. I thought it was about the Bloody Christmas (1963) edit-war, which has not been discussed since December 2012 and has become a stale issue. So recently I filed a report for unprotection. But it was denied, because the responding admin at RFPP thought that there is no consensus on the talkpage. The thing is, in the talkpage there has been no discussion of the Bloody Christmas link at all and that issue has become stale. The only discussion that had been going on there was one about splitting the article, but there is no reason for the article to be protected during a split discussion. So I cannot see why the article is still protected. Hopefully you can let me know if you think the article can be unprotected, since you are the admin who protected Cyprus back in December and you know the reasons for protecting it better that anyone. This is not meant as forum shopping but rather as a request for a second opinion. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. After reviewing everything I have removed the protection that was on the article. It seems that the IP editor that was involved in the initial edit war is now also a blocked proxy. If there are any more problems on the article feel free to send me a message. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Addshore. I will let you know if anything develops following the unprotection. Thank you also for letting me know about the IP. I had not noticed that they were a blocked proxy. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Category killer bot error

Hi. Addbot tagged Category killer with {{Underpopulated category}}, presumably because of the name of the page. — RockMFR 00:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that is strange. I have added {{bots|deny=Addbot}} to the page until I can work out exactly how it managed to mistake it for a category. Thanks for spotting the edit and I will let you know when I have have found the bug! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Article: Djedmaatesankh

Hi there, thanks for your feedback. I have addressed your concerns, would you please re-review? Thanks! JYResearch (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to contact me at all. User:Addbot is an automated program that tags articles. I can see from the article history that you have addressed all of the bots concerns. Good luck with your article! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 04:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That stable IP

About 98% of his edits are legitimate one; but once in a while, he will post an appallingly blatant edit to an article about a Democratic legislator in the range between a teabagger sneer and a Westboro Baptist sign. As a Southern-born white, I reacted strongly to the suggestion of lynching an African-American for the crime of opposing Gov. Walker's agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubinbot

Hello! Please, unblock my bot Rubinbot - it's stopped now Rubin16 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thanks a lot and sorry for bad wiki markup - it's not easy to edit from smartphone :) Rubin16 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
hehe, np! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding Underpopulated category not appropriate for monthly clean-up categories

Hi Addshore! I have reverted this edit, as I don't believe that it is appropriate to add {{Underpopulated category}} to those categories with {{Monthly clean-up category}}. Could you please revert any other mistakes made by your bot? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep I just spotted this happening to another category and I have reverted and fixed in the bot, just looking for any other categories it has added to now. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
All cleaned up although the site is struggling to load contributions by namespace so I will double check with a DB query of edits to the category namespace. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 18:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #45

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Deployment to English Wikipedia
    • Fix various minor bugs in client, including watchlist toggle with preference to default to always show Wikidata edits
    • Added the new Baso Minangkabau Wikipedia (min)
    • Fixed wrong revision of statements being shown in diff and old revision view
    • Diff visualization for claims (simple version for main snak)
    • Diff visualization for claims (extended version for references, qualifiers, ranks)
    • Tooltip that notifies about the license your contributions will be covered by while editing (can be disabled by each user)
    • Started with valueview refactoring
    • Started with user interface handling of deleted properties
    • Started with refactoring of local partial entity lookup
    • Started with refactoring of toolbar usage in jQuery.wikibase view widgets
    • Finished improvement on jQuery.wikibase.claimview’s edit mode handling
    • Improved search by using entity selector in search field instead of normal MediaWiki search field
    • More work on Lua-based templates for entities
    • Specified the capabilities of the query language we need
    • Created query object
    • Proper bot-flagging of edits (bugzilla:44857)
    • Use of ID to directly address an item or property
    • Search should give more of the complete matches now
    • Special:ItemByTitle should work for canonical namespaces and later on for local namespaces
    • More robust format for notifications of changes on the repository to the client
    • Started work on refactoring API and autocomments code
    • Started to maintain documentation of configuration options in git
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
    • Upcoming: Wikipedia Day NYC
    • Upcoming: office hour in English tomorrow
    • Note: changed day of next German office hour to March 8
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • We have a time scheduled when Wikidata will be read-only for a database migration. The window for that is Feb 20 19:00 to Feb 21 2:00 UTC.
    • New features and bugfixes on Wikidata are planned to be deployed on Monday (Feb 18). This should among other things include:
      • Showing useful diffs for edits of claims (they’re currently empty)
      • Automatic comments for editing of claims (there are currently none)
      • Ability to add items to claims by their ID
      • Better handling of deleted properties
      • More results in the entity selector (that’s the thing that lets you select properties, items and so on) so you can add everything and not just the first few matches that are shown
    • We’re still working on the issue that sometimes editing of certain parts of items or properties isn’t possible. If you’re running into it try to reload the page and/or change the URL to the www. version or the non-www. version respectively.
    • Deployment on all other Wikipedias is currently planned for March 6 (a note to the Village Pumps of all affected projects will follow soon)
    • Check out a well-done item
  • Open Tasks for You
  • Help expand en:Wikipedia:Wikidata
  • Help expand and translate Wikidata/Deployment Questions
  • Hack on one these
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of the {{uncategorized}} tag?

What is the point of adding the {{uncategorized}} tag to an article? Isn't the lack of any [[:category:]] template already a clear and easy-to-check sign that the article has no [[:category:]] template?
Also why is the tag added to the article? Messages to other editors should never be placed in the article, they belong in the talk page. That used to be one of the few hard and wise rules of Wikipedia; when was it turned on its head?
And why is the tag placed at the top of the article? How many readers will know how to add category tags, or will be interested in doing so, or will even know what "categories" means in Wikipedia?
(Same questions with "editor" in place of "reader".)
By the way, frankly, is the Wikipedia category system of any use to anyone?
Wikipedia is dying because it cannot attract new editors and it is losing old ones at a steady rate. The causes are many, but it is obvious that editing Wikipedia articles has become increasingly less fun, and increasingly more irritating over the last six years or so. For example, imagine what an editor feels when he sees that the article on "frobonium" that cost him an hour of careful editing has been over-stamped with an obnoxious and absolutely pointless message by a mindless robot, that adds absolutely nothing to Wikipedia's value to readers or editors. So now the reader who looks up "frobonium", before even being told what a "frobonium" is, will be told in screaming tones that someone though that someone else should add some category tags, otherwise someone who is not looking for the "frobonium" article may not find it.
Please be considerate and turn this robot off. Never demand that other editors do some work because you think is important. If you feel that an article should have categories, go ahead and add them. If you can't do that, please leave the article alone.
Thank you, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! {{uncategorized}} puts templates into Category:Category_needed so articles can easily be found and then categorised, otherwise it is very hard to find such articles. If that has been a rule in the past then it has changed as all maintenance templates are placed on articles and not on talk pages.
The tag can either be placed at the top or at the bottom, I think all tags belong at the top together. The tag links to a page explaining how to add categories if a user wants to. The tag itself doesn't add to the article but it does prompt for users to add a category, there is a group of people that use the category listed above to find articles with no category and categorise them (then removing the tag), many of the tags that get added only stay on an article for a few days as people add categories.
I am not demanding that anyone add categories, it is merely a suggestion. As you can see from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Categories/uncategorized only 1600 articles have the tag, if you have any other questions feel free to post here again but I will not be turning the bot off unless there is some sort of community consensus to stop using maintenance tags or to change the way they are used and placed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all that work you've added to your bot to deal with template bombing and redundant templates. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Currently a slight issue with the removing of duplicates but sorting out Multiple issues is all working! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you restored 2 iw links to the Kingston upon Hull article with this edit. I have already checked and both of these appear to be on wikidata so why restore them here? I added the missing entry to wikidata before removing the links from the article. May be I am missing some thing here. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that is the script I was using to check not recognising those two links, your removal was perfect and I have reverted myself. Sorry for jumping on you it is just that I am currently seeing lots of interwiki links getting removed that are not yet on wikidata! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Hey Addshore! Well, thank you very much for that response in my talk page. I was not really aware of that new feature involving Wikidata but it's all clear to me now. Thanks again. ;) Mediran (t • c) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Glad I could help! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues bot task may be too aggressive

Hi again! I think that your bot to add {{Multiple issues}} may be a bit too aggressive. For example, in this edit, your bot moved {{Howto}} from under a section header to the top of the article. I reverted your edit and changed {{Howto}} to {{How-to|section}} instead. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To solve this issue in particular I propose adding a check that will add the section parameter to any tags below a header (excluding the obvious uncat e.t.c). Then the bot would leave them alone! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I agree that adding a section parameter would be good. However, while changing {{refimprove}} to {{refimprove section}} in most sections is fine, changing it in a "Notes" or "References" section would not be OK. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I would have to leave any templates such as unreferenced|emptysection|refimprove|unsourced|footnotes|uncategorized ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you give an example of when/where this might ever be necessary? Which templates are being widely misplaced, and does it really matter? It seems that most templates belong where people put them, and it's hard to imagine a bot that can decide otherwise.
(BTW, and I mentioned this only because you are writing bots, "e.t.c." is not correct. The abbreviation for the Latin phrase et cetera is "etc.") —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
When what is necessary? Adding the section parameter to a template or the movement of templates ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry – when is it necessary to move a template from under a section heading to the top? {{Howto}}'s doc specifically states "If the problem only related to one section, add {{Howto|section}} to the top of the section." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, the bot already leaves those templates exactly where they are. It is when whoever has added the template has not specified the 'section' parameter for the tag. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
What I'm concerned about is the situation where someone adds {{Howto}} (without the section name as param 1), under a section header. I think it's entirely likely that's exactly where the template belongs, not at the top. It just needs the section name param added to it to categorize the article correctly. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, hence my proposed fix above where if the bot finds a template below a section it will add the section parameter to it. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot shouldn't do this

I saw in this edit that your bot removes spaces in headers and after headers. Please notice that 1. this is not Wikipedia house style 2. bots are not allowed to make such edits. Please let me know what you plan to do about this, or I will have to report your bot. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw in this and this edit that your bot moves templates from sections to the top of articles (using Template:Multiple issues). Obviously those templates related only to the specific sections they were in, and you should not have done this. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Addshore addressed this in the #Multiple issues bot task may be too aggressive section above. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw this edit, where your bot removed a stub template from an article. That article is definitely a stub, because it has almost no content apart from a very long plot section. And in general, how would a bot determine what is or isn't a stub. Per WP:STUB the length is not the decisive indicator. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If it is decided that bots can not make edits such as these naturally I will stop, the code and changes the bot makes with spaces are taken from the AWB general fixes and are only applied if another significant change is made on the page such as the removal of a tag.
I have corrected the pages you have linked to where the bot moves tags around the page, this is due to the fact that when the tags were originally added to the page they were added incorrectly, please see that this was also reported just above this section where I have proposed and will work on a solution.
I have seen and will respond to ANI after finishing this message.
The article that you have linked to is not a stub, but it may need a longer lead section. The appropriate tag is already at the top of the page {{All plot}}. When looking for stubs the bot removes all elements such as templates, tables, lists, links, external links, references, infoboxes, personadata e.t.c and counts the words, if the page has more than 500 words after it has been stripped down the bot sees fit to remove the stub tag. I quote from WP:STUB "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete. With these larger articles, a cleanup template is usually added instead of a stub template."
·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. I will take this up on the AWB page then.
  2. I hadn't noticed the discussion above. In any case, it is hard to say that the articles were incorrectly tagged. After all, a problem of a section is a problem of the article. Still, I think there is no way that a bot can be allowed to move tags from sections to the top of an article, since in most cases the correct course of action is to add the "section" parameter instead. Would you agree with me on that?
Yes hence my suggested change to the bot, but if the tag is used in a section it should have already have the section parameter, otherwise the wording in the template refers to an article and not a section (hence it should be at the top if it doesnt have the section param). ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. If that is the way the bot operates, then please remove that function or stop using the bot. Not every article (stripped down) of over 500 words is not a stub any more. If that were so, then WP:STUB should mention this. That is in general. And this specific article has a bloated plot section, and is nothing without it, and therefore most certainly is a stub. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said above there are more appropriate ways of tagging the article that you linked to, it is not a stub, it is {{All plot}} ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Debresser, You are right that not every article with more than 500 words is not a stub. With this, It was integrated by request that plant stubs are not removed due to the decision and consideration of it. Most stubs are under 500 words and once they go past this figure can be considered a start article instead of a stub. However some are considered a stub even though passing Addbot's criteria. If you feel the article that Addbot removed the stub tag to is actually still a stub then feel free to revert. However I see the criteria as a reasonably valid though not outlined by a policy. If you could recommend another more suitable or a type of stub (like plants) that have a stub criteria of their own, please state it and me or Addshore would be more than happy to take a look and blacklist it with Addbot. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Bots shouldn't be adding or removing stub tags, AWB shouldn't have anything to add or remove stub tags. These shouldn't be automated or semi-automated decisions, they're subjective and based on whether or not the article presents encyclopedic information adequately, not on size. Ryan Vesey 20:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not use AWB and AWB has no effect on this bot. Before the task was approved there was a discussion in the BRFA regarding the task. I also had a discussion with the people over at stub and also at wiki project plants as there was a specific issue raised by an editor.
Please see that "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" AND "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete. With these larger articles, a cleanup template is usually added instead of a stub template."
I would be more than happy to work on some new criteria the bot would work to rather than the current 500 words. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It is my opinion, and the opinion of Ryan above, that there is no way a bot can make that decision, based on any practically workable criteria.
As to your statement above that "the code and changes the bot makes with spaces are taken from the AWB general fixes". The guys at AWB deny this, see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Spaces_in_and_after_headings. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no way to determine exactly when an article becomes a stub and stops becoming a stub, That is why the code currently use 500 words not 250 as an example when most of the articles it would take down would be stubs. My proposal is to keep the 500 word check in place but ALSO FIRST check the lead section and make sure it is over 200 or 250 words (I will do some checks and see what this will change). This way the article initially raised here would not be untagged but others than have a larger lead and equal sized second section would be untagged.
I will have a look at exactly which check fiddles with the white space in and after headings and see if we can resolve it. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be most satisfactory. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have found and fixed the header lines ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have also added the lead check mentioned above to the stub tag removal. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review this edit and many more like it. Please feel free to unblock your bot when this issue is resolved. NW (Talk) 20:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I think I may have jumped the gun on this one. I'm reading the pages and while I don't fully understand everything, I get the sense that the old interwiki links are no longer needed as usual? If so, could you please provide a more descriptive edit summary for the bot when you unblock? Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikidata. Everything's fine --Rschen7754 20:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thee bot was in a 50 edits trial Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_32. All edits went through as expected, there is no issue :) Also the bot hasn't made an edit in hours. The edit summary provides a link to a page explaining what wikidata is and also to the page that contains the wikilinks, I don't really know what else I can add to this but if you a suggestion please let me know! I have unblocked the bot. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
All I saw was "removing X links" and a reference to a project that I thought was supposed to be a data repository a la Commons and figured that had to be a bot misfire. A simple tweak like "Bot: Updating X wikilinks (link) per Wikipedia:Wikidata (report errors)" might make it a little easier more understandable to clueless folk like me. NW (Talk) 20:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I will make some changes when the bot runs again :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Bot approved and I have just changed the edit summary! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be quite happy with this. But the point is, there is still a bot active that massively removes valid interwiki links. Should you not first care for the fact that the bot is grossly dysfunctional, instead of it being approved in a process that is apparently just as dysfunctional as the bot itself?--MWAK (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. The bot is removing supposedly-valid langlinks so that the new system can take hold. There are no interwiki bots running on enwiki, and the links are becoming quickly out of date. Wikidata is the solution moving forward, and Addbot is helping us move forward just a tad bit faster. Legoktm (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I can only say I strongly disagree. This boils down to information being hidden, and its control in practice being made inaccessible, to normal users, a bad thing. But I shouldn't blame the bot, that's true...--MWAK (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
How is the information being hidden? In fact its even easier to change langlinks by hitting "edit links", and that now all of that information is being licensed under CC-Zero, making it even more accessible. Legoktm (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In practice they'll never even find it, let alone hit it. There is a vast amount of literature about making interfaces user-friendly. Perhaps you should read it.--MWAK (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're telling me that people are unable to find the "edit links" button in the sidebar, right underneath the langlinks, but are able to search though all the wikitext on the page and find the links at the bottom (usually) of text and edit those??? Legoktm (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The new way of using language links with the 'edit links' link under the languages is much clearer, before you would have researched how to link to other languages if you were a new user, now you can look and the bar, see that something is missing, click edit and let Wikidata do the rest!]
The links are not hidden away, infact when the bot makes its edit it links to the page on which they are stored, this page can also be found using the langugae links 'edit links' button. If you have any suggestions for alterations to the UI I am sure the people over at Wikidata would love to hear them! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Legoktm, I am one of those people who noticed the hidden interlinks at the bottom of articles but not the visible ones to the left. What can I tell you, I guess I unconsciously categorized it as noise at some early stage and never paid attention afterwards. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Undent: It seems to me that this may be a possible UI improvement which should be added as a bug in Bugzilla for the developers to change. In a list of 100 interwiki links, I would see it as very easy to miss the "edit links" link all the way at the bottom. It seems to me though that there is only top, or bottom, and both options have their pluses and minutes. I wonder if the Wikidata devs have considered that question. I do have to question MWAK's assertion that "they will never find it"; obviously, people have found it. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to have the edit links button in a better place! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

I didn't say it was vandalism. I simply asked for a link to a rational explanation, which you provided. Thank you.Cresix (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Is SethAllen really screwing things up? If so, perhaps a block is in order? – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since his last warning I haven't seen any issues but if it comes up again let us know. --Rschen7754 02:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I came across this on the Ludwig von Mises edit. Couldn't figure out if it was a good edit or what. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The user seems to have stopped :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter.
Message added 23:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Concerning filter 531, which you've setup recently. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot did not remove four links here related to the FA/GA link template, but it could... see my follow-up diff. FYI. Kolophon (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The removal of such links is still under discussion hence the bot will not automatically remove them. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
the bot is now approved and will remove these links. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ver-bot already updated.

Please unblock Ver-bot. Bot is currently updated to the newest pyrev and it did only three edits yesterday (which were reverted straight away). Regards.--Verwolff (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 13:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg errors

I reverted a change that your bot made to Battle of Gettysburg. It deleted a large number of inter-wiki links. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not an error see Wikipedia:Wikidata Werieth (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The links for the article are d:Q33132 <<there :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it looked like they were being removed. For future edits, it would be less confusing for your edit summary to say "<number> of inter-wiki links MOVED" rather than UPDATED. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed to 'Updated' after a request but I have now changed to 'Migrated' per another request! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A new log for Addbot?

Is there any place where Addbot is logging interwiki links which are not being removed? In that diff, there are a handful of links which needed to be added to the Wikidata page. It would be nice to get a listing somewhere of all the pages that Addbot visits that Addbot leaves behind with links still remaining. (Of course, I realize such a list would be large....) --Izno (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me 1 second ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Once Addbot runs through all pages, it would be trivial for a toolserver use to run a query to find those pages. Werieth (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have turned User:Addbot/log/wikidata back on, new entries are added to the bottom! Please add done if you have completed one of the sections. Would be great if more people got involved, the reason I turned it off is I was getting swamped so it seemed pointless! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Werieth's solution might be a better solution, actually. That said, changing the format of the output might help. In my mind, I've got something like the below in mind:
Article Wikidata item Interwikis not removed Status
en:Constellation d:q8928 pnb, tl Not done
Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem with that is the bot makes so many edits noone else can edit the page unless they edit a specific section ( I was also going to setup archiving for the page soon). We wouldnt be able to use the nice table above unless the bot created a subpage for every report. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me!#
Maybe create a new section with a new table every 100 pages and do log pages up to 1000 pages? Every 50 pages with a new table and section and no subpages? I'm just throwing stuff at you to see what sticks. :) If necessary, we can go with Werieth's solution, as I said above. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Werieth's solution above would probably work, after the first zillions of interwiki links are removed the bot can re check over all of the articles in the database looking for interwiki links again before posting a log similar to your suggestion :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
So, should I leave it on or off currently? :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have turned it off as currently the page is already at 114,629 bytes ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, just leave it off. We can leverage WP:DBR when your bot is done running. Thanks though. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Space after the bullet point

If I see this bot making edits that remove the space between the asterisk and the start of a citation so altering the editing format of a bullet point (but not the reader's view) -- as it did here -- I will press the big red button. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was adding spaces, making it far easier to read the text. Werieth (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Which it is approved for as part of its general fixes, if you really feel it is an issue I will of course disable this fix. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"Which it is approved for as part of its general fixes" Where is this list of "general fixes"?
Whether the bot adds spaces or takes them away is not really important. Its like adding or talking away blank lines under headers. Some editors prefer them some do not. Adding or deleting white spaces from one consistent format to another that do not alter the presentation of the text is not a general fix, such changes cause noise on the page and can make it difficult to see the wood from the trees in the diffs. If you are running a bot to "Updating 63 interwikilinks per Wikidata d:q48314" perhaps it is better to stick to what it says it is doing, particularly if your bot's algorithm is not up to telling the difference between consistency within an article (in this case nearly two score of bullet points formatted the same way) and inconsistency. -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed all such white space fixes from the bot, there is no list on wiki of the general fixes although then can be found on github. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne -- interwikilink removals

huh? I'm pretty sure removing every single interwikilink is not this bot's intention? o.O ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, I think it is; Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Basically, what this means is that we don't have to manually add interwiki links like that any more; Wikidata handles it for us. (You can see that the interwiki links are still all there in the sidebar, even though the ones in the text have been removed.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at d:Q30449 [= ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
(Okay that's two Edit Conflicts now... lol) Sorry, meant to delete this (or undo it after it went through) immediately after posting (I didn't even sign!!). I saw that it was definitely its purpose. I was confused because a couple other articles left quite a few of them in the article so I assumed it was a "cleanup" bot. But now that I see there's the new wikidata thing, all is good. Please disregard. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, no problem :) I hope Wikidata makes sense! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This bot has lit up my watchlist with different articles and now I see that it's not defecting by having removed all those interwikilinks. Good to know. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hehe! I would love to see a screenshot! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Not that interesting; it's only affected nine articles on my watchlist so far: Angelina Jolie,‎ Avatar (2009 film)‎, Brad Pitt‎, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)‎, Birth control‎, Chris Brown (American entertainer)‎, Brokeback Mountain‎, Child‎ and Child sexual abuse‎ (all in that order). Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
How alphabetical! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks for pointing that out. You seem like you have a great sense of humor, by the way. Great quality to have. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
HAH! cheers! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Woolley moor united fc

Hi there,

I have seen that this page is 'proposed that this article be deleted'. As this is my first attempted to make a Wikipedia page i am asking for some guidance. I have sourced as much info as i can on the internet for this club. The problem is that most of the information on this clubs history is in old newspapers that are not on the net so it is hard to reference them. The club has had many highs and look to do so again.

Having a Wikipedia page would also increase interest on the club as it looks more professional. We have people working round the clock to push the club forward and back to where it belongs at a higher level. Their is already a team at our level that has a Wikipedia page up and running so I don't see why ours would get rejected??

Also the page has been put in as 'Woolley moor united fc' I would like to put capital letters for each word so it reads 'Woolley Moor United FC' is this possible??

Any help would be very grateful

Thank you

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWoolley (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, I've reverted the following edit [14] on the Compact Disc article as it removed all the interwikilinks. Please could you look into and see if you can find the issue in the bot's source. Hope that helps, —Sladen (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary and the linked WP:WDATA? I've reverted your revert. Legoktm (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see that all of the links that have been removed from the article can be found on d:q34467. Please see Wikipedia:Wikidata ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for modifying the edit summary slightly. Please could you consider doing the following two things in addition. (1) replace the word "updating" with "nuking" or "migrating (NN) interwiki links to WP:WIKIDATA database entry d:123456" or "deleting"… something that implies the bot knows what it is doing; at the moment it looks like it's a bot gone AWOL during an "update". (2) remove the unrelated white-space mangling, as this increases the noise and has the side-effect of also making it look like the bot is AWOL. Once again, thanks for the updates, and hope this helps. —Sladen (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I like the term "migrating", it's what my bot uses. Ex: (Bot: Migrating langlinks to WP:Wikidata - d:q411) Legoktm (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I was originally saying removing but someone prompted me to change it, although I have now changed it yet again to use Migrating! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 11:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Addshore. You have new messages at SchreyP's talk page.
Message added 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bot log page

No problem! :D I always like finding a backlog somewhere to work on. I've got all the right gadgets installed so i'm going through quite quick. Great work with the bot as always! Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! If I left the logging part of the bot running you wouldnt be able to load the page by now! If you have any comments on the way the log could be laid out in the future just say! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot gone wild

and it is indiscriminately removing Interwikis. It needs to be stopped.--Galassi (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see all of the sections above. If you read the edit summary and read the links you will find out that all interwiki links are now stored on Wikipedia:Wikidata! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might wanna edit this sucker for a couple of weeks. MBisanz talk 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great plan! I had just considered putting a notice at the top of my page but I didn't think of an edit notice! :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Another suggestion: I think the bot's edit summary could be much clearer. With the edit summary saying "updated links", one who clicks through to the diff is likely going to expect to see changes, corrections, etc., not wholesale removal of them. The "per Wikidata" bit is also not the best. Might I suggest something like "[[User:Addbot|Bot:]] Removing ## interwiki links that are now hosted on and provided by [[d:|Wikidata]] at [[d:123456]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikidata]] for more information) ([[User talk:Addbot|Report Errors]])"? When it comes to mass bot edits, especially ones that are doing something people might not expect, there's no such thing as an edit summary that's too clear. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

i have altered the edit summary using your example (although it is not exactly the same I think it is clearer. It may take 30 mins for the summary to flush through the not processes! Let me know what you think! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks! jcgoble3 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Rights Request

Hello, AddShore! I know that you're a pretty active administrator, so I don't mean to bother you, but if you get a bit of time and could review my request for Reviewer permissions at the [for Permissions] page along with any advice, either relating to what to do to earn the right (which I am seeking to make my editing as well as others' more streamlined while reducing the administration workload) or how to best implement the right (if you so choose to assign it), I would greatly appreciate your time. Thank you so much, and kind regards! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I respect Go Phightins and Nerdfighter's opinions and as you can already be trusted with ACC I see no reason not to be able to trust you with Reviewer also. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 12:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Addshore/Archive_13&oldid=1233904355"