User talk:Nn123645/2010
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nn123645. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you willing to do it? No prob if not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nn has been off-wiki since 27 July. I've sent a tickler email. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah sorry guys, I got a bit side tracked and kind of put this on the back burner (as tends to happen alot with me). I'd be happy to post the source I have so far if anyone wants it, and if no one has taken it on I'd be more than happy to finish the project. --nn123645 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so very much. I had thought you may have retired. Yes, if you could post the source, or work on the project, or anything that moves this forward, I woud be very thankful. I keep running across dead links and they are growing exponentially and I have been very concerned that WebCiteBOT has been down for over 9 months. Thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Source is here (no guarantees I followed best practices, I didn't really write it to be read by other people). Currently the bot is in a semi-working state. The webcite portion is mostly working, but I need to add error handling and logging and the editing portion of the bot. I do plan to continue forward with the project and should be able to put something together at some point, ideally within the next week or so (I hate to make any guarantees, as it always makes me feel bad if I don't meet them). That being said if anyone wants to take this and do it on their own they are welcome to, I think having more than one running bot probably wouldn't hurt. The webcite people asked me to keep the 5 second limit when I last emailed them (around the end of may). If you submit every 5 seconds you should be able to submit a theoretical maximum of 17,280 links per day (last time I checked daily link additions are at about 12,000 links per day, so you should be able to clear the backlog at around 5,000 links per day). As noted in the readme anyone who plans to run this needs to contact webcitation.org and get the email for the bot on the whitelist. At the time they did not have any API or way other than email to whitelist submissions, you also need to have a mailbox that will not fill up when you get thousands of emails per day (one for each request). I have not yet added email integration into the bot, which would be the best way of determining what archive request was successful. I do know they have a daily submission limit but I'm not sure what it is. --nn123645 (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I am very grateful. I just want to double-check, may I post a link to your source code at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent so that others may work on it? Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just knowing that something is happening is a big comfort. If the error logging can simply be piped to a journal file or some such that would make it readable and searchable we could perhaps get some collaboration on identifying issues. Just a thought. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That should be doable, I should be able to run everything on the toolserver and log it to a user database then code a tool to query to that database. I was going to concentrate on just getting the WebCite part up at the moment so we have an archive, as we can always go back later and edit the articles. As far as posting the code, it is licensed under CC-NC-BY-SA. You are free to post it anywhere or do whatever you want with it provided you adhere to those terms, if you have a need for different licensing terms feel free to ask. (NC-BY-SA isn't compatabile with CC-BY-SA or the GFDL, so you can't post the code to Wikipedia directly, only link to it.) --nn123645 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Nn123645. I posted a note at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That should be doable, I should be able to run everything on the toolserver and log it to a user database then code a tool to query to that database. I was going to concentrate on just getting the WebCite part up at the moment so we have an archive, as we can always go back later and edit the articles. As far as posting the code, it is licensed under CC-NC-BY-SA. You are free to post it anywhere or do whatever you want with it provided you adhere to those terms, if you have a need for different licensing terms feel free to ask. (NC-BY-SA isn't compatabile with CC-BY-SA or the GFDL, so you can't post the code to Wikipedia directly, only link to it.) --nn123645 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just knowing that something is happening is a big comfort. If the error logging can simply be piped to a journal file or some such that would make it readable and searchable we could perhaps get some collaboration on identifying issues. Just a thought. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I am very grateful. I just want to double-check, may I post a link to your source code at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent so that others may work on it? Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"personal analysis"
No idea what you are talking about. Disambig pages are certainly supposed to explain the notability of the persons it lists, and my changes to Radulf do exactly that. There were probably 100,000+ 12th century monks; Radulphe is infamous to this day for a specific reason. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- That may very well be the case, but the wording is inherently not Neutral. Prehaps instead of "called for the murder of the Jews" you could say "advocated genocide of the Jewish Population", but even that isn't really an impartial tone. Anyways I'm not sure that you need to add that to the disambiguation page at all. The whole purpose of a disambig is to get users to a page as quickly as possible where there a title can have multiple meanings. While there may be hundreds of thousands of 12th century monks I doubt there are hundreds of thousands of 12 century monks whom are notable and have wikipedia articles. --nn123645 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of a disambig is to get users to a page as quickly as possible Exactly, and if all the reader knew beyond the basics was that Radulf/Radople was a religious figure in the late Middle Ages he'd have to check 2 other articles first before finding the one he was looking for, since he shares a name with a bishop and an abbot of the period as well. Neutrality isn't really an issue as this is a plain case of WP:SPADE; not many 12th century monks get written about in the Jewish Encyclopedia. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still think the mention of murder is too judgemental. The objective is to clairify the difference, murder or suprmicist is pretty much a label that should be avoided as much as possible, except in cases where it obviously applies (e.g. Jack the Ripper or Ted Bundy). While I realize you are not overtly calling him that it leans in that direction. --nn123645 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point; "killing" might be more exacting. Thanks for clarifying what the bot was up to. Rants about Judaism are probably common among vandals as well, but as long as the bot isn't going to make a habit of chasing me around whenever I pop thru to clean up the articles I maintain on interfaith relations without logging in, I'm a happy camper. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
- One of the statistics it uses is if the user has been reverted for vandalism before, but that is about all the chasing around it does. The bot is set up to automatically exclude logged in and anonymous editors (the logged in edit threshold is lower) that have over a certain number of contribs, so if you were logged in you would not have been reverted at all, assuming of course that you are above the limit. --nn123645 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, yeah my home IP did recently change (I even accidentally {{welcome}}d myself). A script-assisted human just did the exact same reversion on me on Rudolph so the bot at least passes the Turing Test on this one. OK, must log out before I glance at my watchlist or else I'll be here all week. :) -- Kendrick7talk 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- One of the statistics it uses is if the user has been reverted for vandalism before, but that is about all the chasing around it does. The bot is set up to automatically exclude logged in and anonymous editors (the logged in edit threshold is lower) that have over a certain number of contribs, so if you were logged in you would not have been reverted at all, assuming of course that you are above the limit. --nn123645 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point; "killing" might be more exacting. Thanks for clarifying what the bot was up to. Rants about Judaism are probably common among vandals as well, but as long as the bot isn't going to make a habit of chasing me around whenever I pop thru to clean up the articles I maintain on interfaith relations without logging in, I'm a happy camper. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
- I still think the mention of murder is too judgemental. The objective is to clairify the difference, murder or suprmicist is pretty much a label that should be avoided as much as possible, except in cases where it obviously applies (e.g. Jack the Ripper or Ted Bundy). While I realize you are not overtly calling him that it leans in that direction. --nn123645 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of a disambig is to get users to a page as quickly as possible Exactly, and if all the reader knew beyond the basics was that Radulf/Radople was a religious figure in the late Middle Ages he'd have to check 2 other articles first before finding the one he was looking for, since he shares a name with a bishop and an abbot of the period as well. Neutrality isn't really an issue as this is a plain case of WP:SPADE; not many 12th century monks get written about in the Jewish Encyclopedia. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
lol, know the feeling. Huggle also excludes editors who have over a certain number of edits, fairly or not anon editors are treated with much more suspicion than logged in editors. In addition most of the edit filters that exist are setup to exclude any autoconfirmed user. Because of this you may want to try creating an alternate account (within the limits of WP:SOCK, of course) to edit from rather than editing anonymously. --nn123645 (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks; I've made a few pernicious frenemies in my time and know that would never word out well. Besides, I like seeing how the other half lives; it's the only way I can continue to steer the project towards the openness it originally envisaged. I'm a true believer, nay, even a zealot, at heart! -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)