User talk:Alba/Archive 2

EB

Hi Alba: I'm not so good at doing redirects; actually some of the things that are redlinked shouldn't even be there; Aethelred of Mercla (with an l) is a misspelling and a redirect would not be helpful; that redlink should probably be deleted. There are some redlinks that are probably legit variant spellings, though. Sorry I'm not terribly helpful. If you can tell me a quick way to do redirects, I can try to work on them. Thanks, FeanorStar7 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (Bot)

The bot will, in 3-4 weeks begin to maintain the WP:SC page doing automatic counts. To be honest I forgot about this...I am still willing to do it though!!!

Whatever percent difference you want...be it .1% or something else, I don't care. (Does not affect my program at all, besides limiting which articles it changes)
Yes I can program the bot to do all three tasks. (the third will take the longest, though It will probably only take about 50 or so lines of code) The other two are basically 2 if than statements:-), as the framework is already installed.
It is my bot, I will run it...especially on the first couple runs...as I need to make sure that my code does no harm to wikipedia.:-)
- It does no harm now...just I must make sure that no harm is done when the new code is added.Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can have this bot up and doing your task in 4-5 weeks, provided that nobody on WP:BOT objects:-)Eagle (talk) (desk)

Sooner if I get time!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on my page, thanksEagle (talk) (desk) 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah...~~I will use your regex statement...As there really is not a better way for that!!!~~Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much this is all go...execpt for going to WP:BOT if we need a flag...Though I can do with out one!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Alba...Do you have any idea of the regex for pages with lists on them...(do they all have a specific template of some kind...some kind of unique formatting...something that seperates them from normal articles.) I have the disambig already written...I forgot that I wrote it about 2 weeks ago!!!:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I did realize a better way to do this!!! \\[\\[ after all if the first two brakets are there, than the other two should be there as well!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (Bot)2

Ok I like the idea with the lists, perhaps, if you know how, you can start fleshing out some regex statements for me???

I programmed Gnome so that it will discrimminate between links to pictures, interwiki links, and category links(plus of course just normal links!!!.
- The percentage will be done only on the number of normal links. If you don't like this holler, but the way I see it we don't want to pick up every picture and interwikilink, we want the links to wikipedia.
I will change the regex from //[//[ to //[//[.*?//]//]

for lists:

1)it looks like if there is more than X bullets than mark as list...

Help me define what X is....

2)if article has section with == .*? [Ll]ist .*? ==

Thats pretty clear...

3)I can't think of the pattern for tables, please help me here!!!

All of this is from meEagle (talk) (desk) 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and for WP:BOT we are going to have to mention the bot on WP:CU and get agreement that the bot is a good idea there...We can do this now... Once it has been agreed as a good idea on WP:CU than I will go to WP:BOT and post the initial change of mission for Gnome (Bot). You can come in and support me... Show that it is worthwhile ect.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not an active member of WP:CU you had better get agreement for me... than we go to WP:BOTEagle (talk) (desk) 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome code sample...Don't forget new message above.

This says if the article text contians the words {{Disambig}} or {{disambig}} than...

Replace every {{Cleanup}} or {{cleanup}} with {{disambig-cleanup}}

there is more code, but I don't know if you can program or not...

     if (Regex::IsMatch(tbText,"\\{\\{[Dd]isambig\\}\\}"))
     {
     tbText = Regex::Replace(tbText,"\\{\\{[Cc]leanup\\}\\}","{{disambig-cleanup}}");
     }

Anyway is that what you want for the Disambig thing...If not as you see I only have to change one or two things!!!:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code Sample 2---don't forget above messages

Here is the translation: if the Articles contents contain ==<something or nothing here>list<something or nothing here>==. This is case insensitive, In other words this could be List, liSt, ect.

Than: find and replace every instance of {{Cleanup}} with {{Cleanup-List}}

  if (Regex::IsMatch(tbText,"==.*?[Ll][Ii][sS][Tt].*?=="))
  {
  tbText = Regex::Replace(tbText,"\\{\\{[Cc]leanup\\}\\}","{{cleanup-list}}");
  }

Agian, just tell me if this is what we want...or am I missing something.(remember this is one out of 3 for the lists.) I still have to write something to detect a table and something to count bullet points.

Cheers...Sorry for writing so much, but I just am coding away here!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CodeSample from...Can you guess??

Ok here we go...If: the number of *'s (bullets) in the article is more than the number that I put into the bot before running (right now Defult is 5...if we change this it should go up...)

Than: Replace every instance of Cleanup with Cleanup-list.

  if (bulletCounter > Convert::ToInt32(txtBulletCounter->Text))
  {
  tbText = Regex::Replace(tbText,"\\{\\{[Cc]leanup\\}\\}","{{cleanup-list}}");
  }

I think you got the drill here...tell me what you think...is there something out of place ect.(is this what you want).

P.S. We need to be carefull with this...particurally the statements that find lists...What if the list is only part of the article...Say it is section 5 out of 5...That is some false positives that we don't want...

My suggestion to fix is this... if the article has more than X words than don't apply this and add to a list for human review. Tell me what you think...I can even give you the lists...:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can count the number of times that ==<something>== shows up in an article. That number exeedes a certian value...we put it on a list for human review...

The lists will look like this...click on the following link... Book stubs → Novel stubs (this is an actual list generated by Gnome (Bot) for WP:NOVEL doing basically a simpler version of what you want.

All the above is from ....guess.... ... ... Eagle (talk) (desk) 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{cleanup} is not the only tag....

Is there a second tag like {cleanup|<date>}??? if so than my program should recognize this too...right?

P.S. can you make sure that you have all of the correct tags...and the right number of them...that way I can get this right the first time.

is there variations of wikify??

is there variations of cleanup-list???

is there variations of disambig-cleanup???

what are the variations of cleanup???(spell them out for me...I'm dumb when it comes to what templates their are/were.!!!)

Thanks Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the night, your talk pages won't grow any more by me!!!Eagle (talk) (desk)

Yes I get the article name...

Brillant Idea!!!! did not think of thatEagle (talk) (desk) 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can you answear the rest...

Human review...

On the lists we may need human review to start. With the disambig and the wikify we don't. But untill we figure out how many *'s to make our set total ect. we need to have the list function send out for human review articles that the code can't tell for sure. (NOT EVERY LIST probably 2-4% of the lists, with the goal of bringing this down)Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) '[reply]

is that it, all we want to detect???

The bot could theorectically find {cleanup} and change to clean up|XX----might be something to bring up with WP:CU so cleanup and cleanup|XX is all my bot needs to care about??? any others...sorry but me and lists of templates don't get along...normally I get mad at my computer and something breaks....:-/Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition-- when you put your message on WP:CU somewhere...drop me a link to it. ThanksEagle (talk) (desk) 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you respond...I may respond back... but for tonight no more messages for me...Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22/7 minus pi

Would you please defend your use of the word "obviously" in your delete vote, with specific reference to the following points:

It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion?
What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of pi topics? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners.
22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions (e.g. "3.14") are rather arbitrary.
This proof is startlingly simple, elegant, and enlightening.

Forgive my exasperation, but I can't help but suspect that these "delete" votes are coming from non-mathematicians. This article has great esthetic charm. Michael Hardy 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's math articles

You must be COMPLETELY unaware of Wikipedia's extremely extensive coverage of mathematics. Probably more than a thousand mathematicians have worked on them. It's probably the field in which Wikipedia is most successful. MOST of the MANY THOUSANDS of mathematics articles are comprehensible only to those who've done some graduate work in mathematics. Do you intend to delete all of them? That seems to be implied by your suggestion that an article should not be here merely because it's comprehensible only to mathematicians. To see how bizarre such a suggestion is, please go to list of mathematics lists and browse. Click on a variety of these. Also, see list of mathematical proofs, which lists mathematical articles devoted only to specific proofs. Will you delete all of those too? You said an article doesn't belong here merely because it's devoted to a specific mathematical proof. Michael Hardy 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and would you please actually look at those BEFORE you reply? Michael Hardy 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Who is the professor you work for? Is there any reason to think he or she has any sense of what is and what is not appropriate in Wikipedia? Michael Hardy 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this:

A proof that illustrates an important property of pi would be encyclopedic, although I would still advise a merge to Pi.

Weird!! Will you now nominate ALL of the articles in list of topics related to pi for merger into the pi article??? Please actually look at that page and some of the articles on it before you reply. Michael Hardy 17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion. I would also like to know if you think this qualifies as WP:POINT, and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)[reply]

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

Gnome Bot 3(I think)

sorry for not responding very quickly, Yes I am willing to program my bot to archive...that is not a problem, as usual i already have some of the functions nessacary to do this task already done...I just need to put the pieces togather in a bug free way...Thats the idea anyway:-)

I will be doing very little work on this this week, as I am going into surgery soon. In a couple weeks I will finish the final parts of the bot and start its movement to aproval by WP:BOT, untill than you can work on getting agreement that this should be done by WP:CU??? Thanks for leaving the link...I have not gotten to it yet, but I will:-).

Thanks for the extra specifications...I like that, if you be that specific with everything about this bot I will have a much easier job!!!! Really Thanks very much!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I forgot to respond to one of your questions...Once we get a sampling of what the bot pulls in...and how much the bot will put in wikify, than we can make the request...Great Idea though, I did not think of that!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice posting for Gnome bot

Very nicely done!!! I took that and copied and pasted it into User:Gnome (bot)'s description of job taskings. (Will soon become it's number one task, as I may get someone else to work with WP:SC.

It may be wise to metion that the bot is programmed in C++/CLI, as this deviate's from the normal python bots. (I leave this up to you, as you know WP:CU better than I, though obiously I am going to be getting very involved:-)

Nice job of recruting!!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi, would you be intreseted in taking a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil?--Striver 12:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome bot proposal on WP:CU

This is going well, no objections and more ideas...Have a look at them and my comments and get back to me about them!!!(I may get the bot working faster than I thought:-)....I may go ahead and put in some of the other requested fetures as well before requesting on WP:BOT, as they like to know every little change done...Lord knows I don't want to have to go to them for every new thing the bot does...So lets get in as much as we can before I propose...Say in 2-3 weeks.:-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decieded to keep track of what features are done on the WP:CU talk page. (the same spot that you put the proposal), that way everyone knows how far the bot is done. (some of the features are half-done, just need final tweaking, when I am done with the final tweaking they will go there too)Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed one of your proposed behaviors includes the following...if not titles are found and article is >10 kb thann put {{sections}}

- - I hate to tell you my bot does not count how large the article is...Hence please tell me how many words or charectors 10 kb is. Thanks. (I'm thinking something like 2000 words.), could be more or less, probably less.

Mark Weiser / Calm technology

While I think the merger is/was probably the right thing to do, it would have been nice if you had waited more than 3 minutes after proposing it to actually do it. A day or two to think about it would have been nice. However, the result is fine, only the process is concerning. Best -- Gnetwerker 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome bot v. Blue bot

its not a wreasling match, I just did it for the fun of it!!!

Any way you said the Blue bot can do it... You are right, I looked it up on it's talk page, but it only does it when there are no other templates...Apparently that is a tad controversial for it's stated mission.

My bot doing it should not be a problem here as it will only change articles with cleanup to wikify.

P.S. I got that part of the code going today!!!! look at WP:CU for more info and suggestions...I do suggest that we get as many features as possible before we propose. Keep them comming!!!

P.S.S. We need to make sure that WP:CU is in agreement that the bot is a good idea...in other words, can you get mention of gnomebot posted to a more prominent place...Something like go here to check out proposed bot actions. (If I can prove that the majority if not all of the wikiproject supports, going to WP:BOT will be so much easier.Eagle (talk) (desk) 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition i suggest that you mention my bot on the Cleanup proposal, (i found the link), I really don't want to program this and than have my work be useless...(will there be a place for Gnome (bot) when all is said and done??)

Seeing the urgency of the matter I will get this bot up and running ASAP. I have about 2/3's of the programing done...I can get this up by next friday....perhaps sooner(around one week)Eagle (talk) (desk)

Please look at one of the proposals on WP:CU's talk page...It involves removing the cleanup link after a set time period..., perhaps with a bit of inovative thinking the bot can do this as well.

I am dead serious about this...I did not realize the magnatude of the problem...Right now I am going to go FULL SPEED AHEAD...As soon as I can make sure the bot is operating right...I will PUSH this through WP:BOT...With the crises, there is no way they will turn this bot down.:-) Eagle (talk) (desk)

Please respond to all of my messages here, and as soon as possible...I am going to get Gnome bot up and running, MARK MY WORDS.:-)...As such I would like the most upto date info as possible.Eagle (talk) (desk) 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bot page User:Gnome (Bot) to see proof that the bot is solely at WP:CU's command. In addition I added your name to the top of the bot's user page as the person who gave it purpose!!!, I had to recognize your ideas someway!!!

Preston McAfee

It's actually a pretty modest writeup; some people have credentials so substantial that anything accurate and reasonably comprehensive they write about themselves will be seen as self-promotional. If anything, the article should be beefed up to give more extensive descriptions of his work and achievements, not toned down. Monicasdude 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your vote for deletion on the article I wrote about Ron Horsley, an author whom I've both read and corresponded with in the past. I wrote the article, not Mr. Horsley, and though he's aware of it and was willing to provide one of his book cover design images for it, it's not a vanity article in that he didn't write it and I didn't write it because he's a family member or direct business associate or something. I wrote it because he's a genuinely good author and artist who has been working to make a serious mark on horror-writing and publishing quality, as well as doing some good work in his own writing. That's all. Even the wiki rules say that levels of fame are subejctive and not necessarily guidelines for deleting an article just because the subject isn't widely-known.

In reading the Wiki rules about this, I don't see it as a violation of those concepts though I agree that it could be debatable, but no more so than some other authors similar to him who are also featured on Wiki. As far as the vandals go, doesn't Wiki have options for warning them and reversion without having to delete the article? It seems to me that if vandals only editing an article once every few months for maybe a day or two at a time can get an article deleted completely, it's saying that Wiki can be coerced into removing an article rather than just blocking it if enough people with some timeon their hands waste it vandalizing pages.

Thanks. just wanted to get a chance to talk to you about it. I do genuinely believe there's value in recognizing his work, and I didn't do it to promote some specific product or website of his.--Zeppelin85

The Go

I just thought I should mention that I've put The Go, an article you previously listed for AFD, up for deletion review in case you'd like to add your input. Cheers. Leith p 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome Bots Normal role

Don't worry about gnomebots normal role being abondend, This job is far more usefull to wikipedia. It's old role will still be there!!! when this is all siad and done!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just continue to give me ideas on how to continue development!!!

Rearing and ready to Go!!!

Gnome bot is now able to recognize everything on our list...We just need to sit down and deciede what the limits will be.

Here is what Gnome bot will do to start...At the end I will put new stuff that is not programmed, but will not be hard to do so.

NOTE when I mention cleanup I mean {{cleanup}} or {{cleanup-date}}

NOTE examples come from [[Category:Cleanup from April 2005]]

1) If the article has less than <X> words than replace cleanup with {{stub}}

I suggest X = 100 or 200, somewhere in there.
NOTE this has not been discussed.. I only put it in when I saw these articles
- Examples Cruiser Division 13 (78 words), D-separation (138 words), DAIWA Securities (29 words), Danzanryu (27 words).
- I could go on and on...I think what I will do is create a list of those articles that fit the criteria and post them somewhere where the stub sorters can get to. (I really don't want to overflow {{stub}}, as this will have serious potential to do so)

2) If the article has {{Disambig}}, than replace cleanup with {{disambig-cleanup}}

3) If the title contians "list", than replace cleanup with {{cleanup-list}}

4) If There is only one section, whose name contains "List", than replace cleanup with {{cleanup-list}}

we can modify this so it states if there is 2 or fewer sections...as some lists have a title(section) and than the list(section). Agian this is probably not the right time for this... but remember that we can tweak all of these. (each one is only 3 lines of code)....backed up by about 300:-)

5) If Article contians more than <MaxBullet> bullet points, than replace cleanup with {{cleanup-list}} 8)* As agreed elsewhere MaxBullet = 20, with tweaking as time goes.

This one I am going to have the bot put every article that qualifies into a seperate list, so that you and I can go over and make sure that my code did what it is supposed to do. (I will only generate this list once...THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THE BOT WILL DO EVERY TIME IT RUNS...only during it's first trial run...untill I am satified.:-).

6) If Article contians 0 sections and Article has > <X> words than replace cleanup with {{Sections}}

X = 2000, to start with...this can be changed as you know. (just a reminder)

7) If less than <MINWIKI> of its content is a wikilink than replace cleanup with {{wikify}} (probable text dump)

MINWIKI = 0.1%...We will definatly be tweaking this...(up or down, I don't know):-)
After I am satified with #5, I may have the bot generate a list of articles that fit #7's criteria...That way we can get a feeling for how many articles are we picking up. (Agian the list is not permenent...Think of it as a gauge, It lets us know EXACLY how many articles fit.

NOTE I am still looking for where to find out what namespace an article is in...I have an idea...I will have this done very soon. Applies for the next 2

8)If page is in the Category: namespace, change tag to {{cleanup-list}} This I am putting on hold, as implenting it will require a extensive rewrite, right now my program does not even open articles that are in any other namespace, this will be a feature we can add on later to pick up the 10 or 15 articles that qulify under this

9)If page is in the Image: namespace, change tag to {{cleanup-image}} See the bold above

Speculation If you comment on anything in this post...Comment on what is below here!!!

Regarding autocategorization...If we choose generic categories...like music, geography, science, ect....The bot can simply look at what categories an article is already in...and than put the article in the apropriate cleanup category...

Pros---The bot will almost never be wrong...as long as the humans who put the article into say Category:chemistry are right.
Cons---As there are almost infinate categories on wikipedia the bot will not be able to match each one...We would just program the 50-100 or so categories that are most commen in the cleanup backlog and go from there. (As this gets moveing I can expand from the initial 50 or so into however many we need.
Catch---We have to keep our categories very broad, needed for any robotic assistance (start with a category for each portal) you know...science, math, ect. (we could end up with 20 effective categories.)...As long as we keep our scheme simple the bot will be able to do this very easily.

Second idea regarding auto categorization...Agian with generic categories. Useing this idea the bot will look thought the WHOLE article for keywords...Than the bot will put the article into the appropriate category based on this.

This I think was what you thought I was thinking....when you posted about having a high margen of error....I mention this only to contrast with my, (i think, better) idea above.
Lots of cons, few pros... The idea above is far better...and easier to program:-)

I suggest at a minimum put the 1st idea up on WP:CU or equivalent location. (that way when we come up with a categorization scheme....) we can make sure that the bot can match up correctly the infomation.!!!!! Please get on this idea....I have put much thought and effort into it...:-).Eagle (talk) (desk) 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE IF AUTOMATED CATEGORIZATION IS TO BE POSSIBLE...we must make sure that the categories are "bot friendly" look at my first proposal for Ideas...Bassically keep the categories broad, and the rest the bot can do with out one human eyeball!!!!

At minimum...at least comment on the above.

Gnome bot testing....Its doing no edits, I am just looking at what It would do if it were editing

Below here will be several "points" or things I notice...Just give me your comments on each please....I won't make any more headings for testing, new "points" will be posted below the last.Eagle (talk) (desk)

NOTE: when I say sections I mean ==<subtitle, ect>== with as many = symbols as needed. (the code does not care wherther or not it is 2 or 5 equal signs on each side.

NOTE2: when I say bullets i mean the * symbol

NOTE3: When I ask what Gnome bot is to do with an article, I put in bold the stats that are the most interesting.

1

What should Gnome bot do with this??? Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its colonies

Gnome bots readings were.... 2834 words, 11 links, 1 category, 0 images, 0 interwikilinks, 00.38814% of the text was wikified, 25 sections, and 189 bullets.

2

I think the NINWIKI needs to be increased from 00.1% to something like ~~00.5%~~ 1%. In other words instead of putting wikifiy on articles if fewer than 1 out of 1000 words are wikified, I suggest that it be upped to 1 out of ~~200~~ 100 words.

As the programmer all I can do is ask you to trust me on this...You know by now that I won't indiscrimminatly harm wikipedia. The increased limit is because of a pattern that my program has detected...(the program actually recomends 1.34%).
I put in about 50 lines of code to analyze what the bot is seeing... so we can optimize its preformece faster.

3(new feature to implent in Gnome bot)

3) I just thought of a new function for Gnome bot...hear me out.
- If Article contians 0 categories and has greater than 1000(or whatever number works) words, Than replace cleanup with {{Uncategorized}}
  - Example: Causes of the Great Depression

4

What should Gnome bot do with this??? Demographic history of the United States

Gnome bots readings were.... 650 words, 32 links, 2 category, 0 images, 1 interwikilinks, 4.923% of the text was wikified, 58 sections, and 6 bullets.

5

What should Gnome bot do with this??? eGovernment

Gnome bots readings were.... 1995 words, 96 links, 3 category, 0 images, 3 interwikilinks, 4.8120% of the text was wikified, 35 sections, and 140 bullets.
I bolded both sections and bullets, because they are both rather abnormal...Personally this one the bot needs to leave alone.(unless this qualifies as a list....)

6

What should Gnome bot do with this??? Energy psychology

Gnome bots readings were.... 359 words, 29 links, 4 category, 0 images, 0 interwikilinks, 8.07799% of the text was wikified, 4 sections, and 20 bullets.
Are we going to classify this as a list??? Please give me some ideas on this, as this is not the only article that is like this.

7 (Max bullet point)

I am not confident on replacing cleanup with cleanup list based on Gnome bot's test run(I did no edits).

Here are the problems.

1)large articles will be classified as lists

some articles have 2500 words or more and have 32 bulletpoints. Based on our system, the bot will quietly make it a list...something it is not.
- Solution #1, make it a percentage of bullet points, <bullet points> /(divided by) <number of words>.
- Solution #2, compare the number of links to the number of bullet points. If the ratio is above a certian number than classify as list.
- Solution #3, Has not been thought up yet, thats your job!!:-)

Untill we get this problem fixed, when the bot runs it will generate a list of what articles it made into lists based on this criteria Of course we will phase out the list as time goes by, and I don't find any more flaws.

8 (which critiria should dominate)

The way the code is set up now, the bot will look and see...ohh not enough words. that makes it a stub. Then it will look and see, ohh not enough links, that makes it fit in wikify. Then it will look at the title of the article, ohh it has list, that makes it a cleanup-list. Then....and so on.

Sorry about the messy entrence there, but we need to pick witch of our criteria should be checked for first. If one criteria is true, the bot needs to do it, and then stop, save the article, and move on.

give me ideas. like this...hypothetical only

1)check and see if {{disambig}} is in the article. (than we change it to disambig list and leave the rest be)

2)check and see if it has list in title. (pretty much a list can only be a list)

3)check and see if it has "list" in any of the sub sections

4)....you get the idea, I hope. (This will prevent something being labled {{disambig-cleanup}} {{cleanup-list}} {{stub}} all at once!!!

9 (Possible new function for Gnome (bot))

Ok here we go. Generally the more big words that are in an article, the more complex that peice of writing is. Alot of technical jargon involves useing big words. These are the cases where here at wikipedia we request an expert look at it.

Here is what I suggest.

NOTE: <avg word size> = <length of article> /(divided by) <Number of words in the article>

If <avg word size > <X> Than replace {{cleanup}} with {{expert}}

X can be equal to any number, it represents the number of letters in a word. ( I would suggest something like 6 or 7) I will make up a test list to show you exactly what this will do.

Authored by...

All the above is posted by Eagle (talk) (desk). I did not date this because I am just going to add new findings to the list

when do you get back???

look at the titleEagle (talk) (desk) 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Display of what Gnome bot will do, automated of coarse...

This list only shows the logic behind Gnome bot.

When the bot runs It will do the first thing that is in italics. (The others just indicate that the article fits some of the other critiria as well. The bot will only do one, in this case the first one)Eagle (talk) (desk)

I would post this...It was looking good earlier, but now, parden my language I can't squash this damn bug. Once I ki;; the bug, we will be ready to test the bot and post on WP:BEagle (talk) (desk) 03:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best consolidation I can give you is this link. There is only one item, but it still shows some of the logic.

User:Eagle 101/Sandbox

I fixed the bug...here is a look at what the bot detects, I was bored and wanted to see if my code worked right(a good thing) so I went crazy and triggered as many of the if than statements as I could. The bots output here looks like nonsense because I intended to see that the bot could trigger correctly each of the conditions. (I missed some, most noticibly the MAXBULLET POINT one, but I have issues with that one. Look ubove in one of my many messages) :-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagle 101/Gnome/OutputTesting

I smell something burning....

Oh it's the cleanup backlog getting chopped down to size by little Gnomes

Sorry about that, its just....IT WORKS, and I'm really not sane here so parden me!!!

try agian...What follows is a link to 101(like the numbers after my name:-) articles that Gnome(bot) went through and instead of editing, it just put down what it saw, and If it were editing, what it would do.

NOTE: before looking at the data, please read the top of the page(after you click on the link) very carefully. (its easier to understand)

Ok, I talked to long...starting to sound like a lawyer:-(

User:Gnome (Bot)/Testing/1

You know who this is by now, but in case...Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome bot is proposed on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#User:Gnome (Bot) requesting trial run and evential bot flag

I jumped the gun...sorry but there is nothing stoping the bot...the code is working perfectly.

I did this also because from the output on User:Gnome (Bot)/Testing/1 I found that almost 50% of the articles would have been changed by the bot. I can see that 14000 strong backlog go down to 7000. :-). We can only improve from there

forgot to sign....sorry about that Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome Bot is approved for one week trial run!!! on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#User:Gnome (Bot) requesting trial run and evential bot flag

Ast the title saysEagle (talk) (desk) 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that Gnome bot has done

Desert Combat---I am putthing this here now to let every one know Gnome bot made this edit.

Is this a list or not??? Untill I know, this functions is being disabled...Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct, personally I can't tell.

Bot has been blocked

Please help me justify it's actions.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gnome (Bot).

Little to no reasoning for the block..."bot was removing cleanup tags....the blocker did not realize it was also adding {{stub}}

I love botophobia!!!

Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion

I have made suggestion about the tasks for Gnome Bot on CleanUpDiscussion page that may interest you, I would value your comments. User:Ping(found it in the edit history)08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the signature to make it clear that it is not Eagle (talk) (desk) talking)Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botophobia!!!! as a result...wikibreak

I am taking a break from wikipedia... this is due to misunderstanding between me and some admins(who will remian unamamed). Adimins when I return I hope that you look at the WP:FAITH, especially in regards to my mistake on some of the criteria with User:Gnome (Bot). The bot was blocked 30 minutes after it stoped operating...(that was ok), and than agian a full 24 hours after the first block(while the bot was still blocked) for continuing to run the bot...The problem is that my bot could NOT have done any more edits as it was already blocked. But yet on the admin's notice board NONE of the admins choose to look at the situation. (or the links to pages contianing discussions supporting Gnome bot. IN ESSENCE I FEEL LIKE I HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A VANDAL. I have never knowingly wandalized a page in my life!!!, and as soon as I realized there was a problem with the bot I stopped it and reprogrammed it...When I return, I may try and run it agian...or I may not...depends on how much I feel like putting up with admins

I was blocked with no understandable reason....Twice in fact... as if the first was not enough (NOOO we had to throw fuel in the fire. THANKS ADMINS, NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE WATCHING OUT FOR US "NORMAL" USERS)

NOTE::I spent an hour on IRC trying to get admins to realize that I wanted to do good and make a comprimise....I finally found a few people who were willing to discuss... But It is rediculous that I had to "prove" mulitple times that I was working in good faith.

Please parden me for my rant above...These feelings I have toward ADMINS are not helping the encyclopedia...Thus rather than going crazy and denouncing admins in general or going around and making WP:POINTs, I am going to take a vacation. My leaving is the only way I can see that I can aid Wikipedia. It is the only Good Faith course of action left to me.

I refuse to go down to the level of WP:ATTACK or WP:SOCK... and I hope you respect me for that.

I will return in 1-2 months and see if things go any better.

If you want to reach me...feel free to email me.|}Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alba...Feel free to email me...you may convince me to return early. Just right now I am too angry over what happend to edit in a conductive manner... but If you can convince the naysayers for me, or at least get them to be willing to listen to me... I will return early (if the admins will listin)... as I have put a lot of time into designing this bot for you. User:Gnome (Bot) has links and block data on what happend. In addition look at my talk page (archived)---. As it is I am really sorry for what happend... I tried to do right... but I was percived to be wrong... no matter what I did.... The rant above is just a small bit of what I feel right now.

Shhhhh...Alba I will be checking my talk page daily for any message from you...I will respond only to you...(Others...I am on wiki-break, and they can contact me by email) The bot I have programmed was too much work to toss away because of botophobia.

Agian, I am truly sorry for what happend...(not sure what I did), but I am sorry for what ever it is.Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome

I think Eagle 101 is taking this way too seriously. There is a very strong disagreement about how the Gnome bot is acting in its removal of cleanup tags and replacing them with stub tags. This is something that should not be done with a bot, because usually the cleanup is grammatical, tone, wikification in nature and not the length of the article. If you can remove the cleanup -> stub language from the bot, there's no reason to keep it blocked, but that behavior was very unnerving, to say the least. Nobody has botophobia, it's what the bot is doing, not that it's a bot itself, that people had problems with. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]