Are you aware that defaultsorts with each word starting with an uppercase are no longer needed? Since a few months, the sorting is case-insensitive, which means that e.g. this defaultsort doesn't change the sorting in Category:Construction records any more, and an article like List of highest church naves, without a defaultsort, will automatically be sorted before the one you changed. The defaultsorts you add aren't incorrect, they are just completely unnecessary.
If this is standard AWB behaviour and not something specific to your version of it, I'll take it up on the AWB talk page. Fram (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. I just finally twigged to the change myself, despite spending days fix bad sort keys. Besides finally doing the right thing and being case-insensitive, sorting is also space-insensitive: "Du Barry", "DuBarry" and "du Barry" are now all sorting the same (or at least adjacent with a hidden secondary sort, I haven't checked yet). I'd argue that space compression is right also (it's what the online E. Britannica has long done). So tools that used to "fix" some things due to broken collation can do less now. Accented characters are still sorting wrongly though, after Z. Studerby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, has been discussed on this page. Strangely although voting for the collation bug on Bugzilla I did not get an email when it was resolved. RichFarmbrough, 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month
I made some changes to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. One of them is to change the order of the categories, to bring them closer to a-z. Btw, you are invited to check that, especially since I am not aware of the precise order of characters in ASCI.
Another is to add a temporary remark in from of categories that are not present in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates, with the purpose of adding them there. I hope that won't disturb your bot. In any case, I see it has already done its job for this month, and I don't plan to leave them that long.
This edit added the "Wikipedia" which was in vogue for a while as pseudo name-space. Because of the other changes I didn't pick up that this was a divergence from other templates and let it go as not too important, but the talk page discussion shows that nobody was particularly for the extra word, nor did they pick up that this was a category fork. For that reason I will revert that part of the change. RichFarmbrough, 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hello,
My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals.
I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper.
I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too.
Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.
Thank you,
Natalia Olaru
Email: natalia.ioana.olaru at the domain gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich, Smackbot had an issue with Family tree of William Jardine (1784-1843) on the grounds of notability. This guy was pretty important in the history of trade with China and the article (read tree) links to five other by definition notable articles (six if you include William Jardine himself) and now has a couple of references. I have therefore removed Smackbot's tag but I'm interested as to how he/she/it picked it up :). Best, ► Philg88 ◄talk11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SmackBot just dates the tags. Of course the Jardine family are famous in terms of Far Eastern trade, so I don't think there's a basic includion problem here. Nonetheless this might be better in William Jardine (1784–1843), or moved to Jardine family rather than being an article apparently about the tree. RichFarmbrough, 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. I just saw template {{Dn}}. It is fully protected, so I can't do anything with it. I'd suggest to 1. add detection for substitution 2. add dated subcategories 3. spell out "Disambiguation needed" 4. add this template to Smackbot.
I improved the documentation somewhat. If you add dated subcategories or move the template to its full name, the documentation and category page should be updated with that also (I could do that later). Debresser (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen to (1). The template used to be called {{ambiguous link}}. I wonder if it should be moved back there? Regarding (2), doesn't {{fix}} add the dated categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way to make a substituted template substitute to its transcluded version. Would that be desirable here? Amalthea09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's genius! This way be the way forward. The only downside is the huge complication it adds to the template code. Let's see what the others think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a bit easier to use, by outsourcing the work to a helper template. Shouldn't be any harder on the servers. All parameter names and values still have to be listed at the top, but it's only one line with some boilerplate. Oh, and I think the explicitly numbered parameters will have to remain, I don't think parameter values with equal signs would work otherwise (like in {{dn|1= Foo=Bar}}) Amalthea12:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started creating the matching template and category structure. In the middle of this I noticed a bot had also taking up this process. Hope I didn't mess it up. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the move request. The rationale was ridiculous! Move the template, because the documentation uses another name. The obvious solution would have been to change the documentation! Debresser (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have this template? Template:Ambiguous I shaped it up considerably, but it might need some more editing. Smackbot doesn't know it, that I am sure of. At least it doesn't involve a new category structure. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. This template is in use one precisely 2 pages. Admitted it is a relatively new template. Still, may I conclude that you hold that all maintenance templates should use monthly subcategories? Or did you just not pay attention to the low number of transclusions, and if you'd know you'd not have created monthly subcategories? This is a general question I wanted to ask you. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even low usage ones benefit, because we can say "OMG it's been like that since 2006!" As I said on the talk page, it is not clear to me how this template should be used, I.E. what is to stop someone rea-adding it in good faith after an article has had all its refs checked. By all means merge the cats. RichFarmbrough, 12:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
See this example for what happens when people add the date after the url. And you just can't expect people to put the date all of a sudden up front. It's going to be an ugly mess. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added a warning there on {{Copypaste}}'s documentation, see [2]
Actually I think no signature is needed at all. Like all tags, whether on articles or talkpages, that are not followed by signatures. Don't you agree? Debresser (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed to {{DMC}} with a specific note in the edit summary that you might have a better template. And I restored all categories and templates related to the dated maintenance category associated with {{Cv-unsure}}. Do you have time to have a look at issues 5 and 6 above? Debresser (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see from this edit that you understood the necessity of shaping up all the transclusions of {{Cv-unsure}}. Btw, I changed the dated, based on the edit history of the article, but I understand that I won't be able to do that for all articles. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template says clearly that after the issue is resolved, it can be removed. So a "resolved" template wouldn't be necessary. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have now created sections on the talkpages (not all, btw). Discussion of proof will be kept there. In addition, the templates could be Tlx'ed, like {{Editprotected}} templates e.g. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK the plan was to get as many using "url=" as possible and at the same time create sections and pull the sig out. This was all done from my account. SB will in due course start dating new CV-unsure templates, but will need a little tweaking since it is usually restrained from operating outside article space. RichFarmbrough, 23:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Can I ask where consensus for any of these edits was obtained? I'm active in copyright work and have not seen these changes discussed anywhere and only noticed them when lots of your edits appeared on my watchlist. I'm particularly unhappy about the addition of a header above the tag. I think these should be treated the same way as a wikiproject tag and kept at the top of the talk page so as they're obvious, don't get archived etc. I also query the usefulness of a date tag - these tags are placed when someone has investigated and can't find a source but still has reasons for suspecting a copyvio. Dated tags suggest that it's something that needs dealing with and that there is a "backlog" That doesn't apply in this case. Dpmuk (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have sympathy with the idea of keeping a record of copyvio investigations, as is indicated inthe aboce discussion, however the scope of this tag does not allow that. The actual use of the tag is quite varied, from simply a lone tag, which really says nothing (not why a cpoyvio was suspected, nor of what, let alone what investigation has been done) to a fairly common usage where the url is of the suspected source, to part of a section that outlines comprehensively one some or all of the reason for the suspicion, the suspected source, the investigation carried out. For that reason I would suggest a more comprehensive workflow is required than simply tagging a talk page with "Fred thinks that this version of the article may have been a copyvio". RichFarmbrough, 11:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Your unhappiness was no reason to revert all of the changes to the template, including category handling and parameters. Your problem seems to be with SmackBots edits rather than with the changes to the template. In this regard I actually agree with you, that the tag should remain on top of the article page, and no section should be created. But let's keep the discussion on the template talkpage, shall we? Debresser (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may need your help with the Best bet diet article. There really are few decent references about that subject (unless you include some silly websites about that diet) but I have added one reference, and if that is not enough, could you have the article deleted. The only reason I created this article was because it kept being merged with articles that had nothing to do with the best bet diet.
I have nominated the article Ni Hao, Kai-Lan for deletion and placed ((db-spam)) on the page due to it's description being written like an avertisement. If you like to decide whenever to delete or not, please contest it on my talk page. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich. A while back a flag was placed on the Cold Spring Granite page and I have made several attempts to get a response from "request for feedback" on getting the flag removed. My apologies for not sending this to you first, but I am wondering if you could review the page and assist me in getting the flag removed. I have cleaned up the page and removed non-notable objects and sections to make it adhere to the guidelines better. If you could help, it would be greatly appreciated.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks, Rich. I agree with what you said. The tricky thing is that several published sources are wrong according to Stephen C. Carpenter. We cite the sources but qualify them in a footnote. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich,
I see above that the dramaz continue, for which I feel kinda bad. I'm certainly not attempting to add to that, at all. I do hope that we (meaning yourself and I, and anyone else who wishes to say anything) can have a cordial and constructive discussion about SmackBot's name.
I know that this has been mentioned before in the past, but the talk page archives are so noisy with people's use of SmackBot's name that it's difficult to find old discussions on the issue. I was just wondering if you'd be receptive to the idea of changing the bot's name, at all? The bot's name isn't actually that big of a deal, but you've gotta know that "SmackBot" has a mildly negative connotation to it. I suspect that may be part of the "you're going off on your 'I know better then any of you' editing sprees again, aren't you?" perception issues that have been coming up recently. Something less snarky might help with the PR issues, is all. Regards, — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it - I like it, and so does my redacted on grounds of privacy. It's kinda funny - "naughty person, don't leave off those dates again". Stay cool. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That, right there, is actually exactly why I'm concerned with it. The problem is that I don't think: "naughty person, don't leave off those dates again" is what we should be telling people. I don't see any issue with people who are manually editing pages (or even those who are semi-auto editing) leaving off optional parameters. There's absolutely no requirement for, and there should never be a requirement for, editors to use date parameters, or any other maintenance parameter, with templates. SmackBot is welcome to add them, of course, for all of our convenience. We certainly shouldn't be implying that editors are doing something wrong that SmackBot has to chase them around in order to "correct". — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pointed out to me that you can't change the actual account name, but I don't see that as being very relevant. I didn't think that you could anyway, actually. My recommendation here is to simply start using a different name. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes choice of name was perhaps a little hasty - as indicated on SmackBot's user page. It should definitely have had a space in it! I don't think I've had more than one or two complaints about the name, it might be worth considering using a different account, though, as there is not even meant to be a hint of reproach. A I remarked on someone else's talk page, the workload caused by the chance of making an error manually adding the dates exceeds the cost of processing a few more pages in my perception. RichFarmbrough, 13:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Rich, may I add my voice to those calling for a rename of SmackBot?" Strategy:Proposal:Be_More_Inclusive_and_Friendly_to_Newbies#Proposal singles out SmackBot as a bot name that is offputting to Newbies. I'm sure that isn't your intent but a gentler name would take little effort, and even if only one in a hundred newbies thought smackbot had smacked them. For such a busy bot that would be an awful lot of newbies. ϢereSpielChequers21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to beat on this to death or anything, but I think that "SmackBot" really does come across as "bitey". I just hope that this is constructive criticism, rather then "hey, let's beat up on Rich this way" kind of thing. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, edits like these[3][4][5][6][7] seem to be in violation of your editing restriction: "indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page".
Any reason why in this edit you once change "pmc" to "PMC", and once "PMC" to "pmc"? Either leaving it alone, or changing them consistenly, would have been better.
In this edit, you change "TV" to "television" inside the title field of a cite template, thereby "correcting" the official title of that page. Text inside such template should usually be left alone.
In this edit, you "correct" the word "eles" to "eels", even though "eles" is correct in this case. Similarly, in this edit you change "Mehet-weret" (another name of Hathor) to "Mehet-weren't", which is funny but wrong.
Why did you need 12 edits (5 by Pixie, 7 by yourself) to correct a simple error, and to change month-day format to day-month format (which, as far as I know, is normally not allowed: first editor preference is kept, not changed, without a very good reason)? You reverted your bot twice at the end to achieve absolutely nothing[8]? Very strange...
You were also reverting corrections made by other bots, like here. You eventually left both articles in a correct state, so no problem there, but it still is strange to see you make such edits. Fram (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot not only has to make the right correction, but it has to make it for the right reason. In the case of "Jule" (also "Juny") it is not clear by using a simple metric whether this should be "June" or "July" (although in some senses it really doesn't matter if a trivial number of articles get put in the wrong month, they are still in the workflow) - [9] a bot makes an assumption - in this case incorrect, that "June" is meant. Actually we have additional information available to us to make the decision, and that is that it is currently July, which means that July is almost certainly meant (it is). RichFarmbrough, 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
But in the cases I linked, you didn't revert an incorrect bot edit, you reverted a correct bot edit. That the bot sometimes makes mistakes, bad assumptions, is not a reason to revert the correct edits it makes... Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday evening, you made two edits with your sock account User:Megaphone Duck: [10][11]. Both seem to be violations of your editing restriction, making no change to the page output (the first inserts a space before the ref tag, which is wrong: the second puts a space brfore blogs, which is also wrong). Please check your AWB edits, don't make inconsequential edits with it, and don't introduce too many errors (the occasional one is unavoidable). Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. That's an error rate of two out of two. Edit stalking? You are known to have a higher error rate than many other frequent AWB users{{cn}], you have editing restrictions, but you gradually seem to be slipping into old habits again. I don't interfere with any content edits you make, I sometimes keep an eye on the quality of your semi-automated edits. I left you alone for three months or so, to see whether my checks had anything to do with the quality of your AWB edits. It doesn't look as if the lack of checks has improved your error rate. As for the cause of these errors; perhaps you don't check your AWB edits carefully enough? Fram (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you make mistakes in your manual edits probably at a higher rate than my AWB edits. Perhaps you could review the two and come up with some definitive figures? RichFarmbrough, 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Apples and oranges. I usually don't make existing articles worse with my edits, contrary to the two edits by Megaphone Duck we are discussing here. Fram (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue pointing out your errors, and ignore the strange replies you are making, as they are hardly productive. If you really believe that I have such an enormous negative impact on the project, you'ld better start a process to get me banned. Fram (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still dating multiple issues, which doesn't have or need a date tag
date with small letters should also not be in the tag if the expert-subject is not present. We don't date tag Multiple issues. date is used additionally when expert-subject contains something else than date. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or... we could just fix the problem that was causing the bot to act up. The actual page was Suffix (name). Rich, please review the history and make sure that something like that can't happen again (check that "Date" is a parameter name and not value before changing it's casing (e.g. you could check that it is preceded by a pipe, etc.)) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich. Little blip in the above. Check out the edit she made here.
Not sure why she is whipping out the | , but sure it's just a quick tweak :-) Best wishes Haruth (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take note that TagUpdater function of AWB does it right so this is not an AWB bug. AWB now fixes "Date" and "dates" to "date". Check Wikipedia:GENFIXES#Dated_tags_.28TagUpdater.29 for more. By giving feedback to AWB on common issues will reduce bugs caused probably by complicated regexes which keep reappearing in bot's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is similar. I don't like the way AWB is coded, it is extremely clever, extremely object orientated, and extremely (to me) obscure. I didn't want to touch (or even have a copy of) the source, partly because I knew I would get accused of doing certain things (which I was), partly because I didn't want to learn another computer language (which partly happened), and partly because I didn't want to get into another time sink, and only did so because I was forced by an admin to patch the source or be blocked. Nor is a minor bug that affected one edit really a reason for a total re-write of my code (that I didn't want to write in the first place, but again was forced to by circumstances you are familiar with), nor do I have time for that. RichFarmbrough, 08:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What about the cat 'Portrait painter'? I found it in the wikipedia list. Second question:where can I find a cat called 'Lithographer'. Thanks for your answer. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Scout Releases albums
An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to walk into a problem with three related templates in the Russian Wikipedia when I looked up an article about a certain actress. The problem expressed itself in various redlinked categories. Posted an editprotected request, and now wait for my fixes to be implemented. It's fun to use my experience here on other wiki's as well. Debresser (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot continues to date the "multiple issues" tag, something which you describe as "extra unecessary edits to claanup tags, which are suppsoed to be ephemeral." Please stop making these changes. An edit like this is a pure waste of resources.
This is actually the type of edit for which this bot was invented, and for which used it was approved. Dating tags is a useful thing. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dating tags which support a date is useful. Dating tags that don't support it is not useful. Dating tags that only support it in very limited circumstances, without checking for these circumstances, is a nuisance. Every tag inside the "multiple issues" template has its own date, no additional date is needed for the whole template. Fram (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the part I didn't understand also. I am sure Rich will explain that, though. Or discontinue it, if it shouldn't be done. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has always happened. It is for simplicity. Yes it may be slightly sub-optimal, depending on your perspective. If there was an actual problem, then I would code around it. It so happens that I was intending to introduce a subject parameter, which would have changed things. However an editor decided that me editing protected templates constituted "admin abuse" and reverted all the changes, and reported me to ANI. Now they catch moan about one of the (incredibly minor) problems that they stopped being fixed I am not really well disposed to do what they want. RichFarmbrough, 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What simplicity? It is not needed, not wanted, not helpful, not informative. Some tags need dates, some don't. This one already has pultiple dates, one per issue. A general one for this is a completely waste of time, and is only confusing (what is that date doing there?). The ones that don't should be excluded from your bot. Simple. Apart from that, if you don't understand why changing fully protected templates at your whim isn't admin abuse, then it is time that you put down the admin tools. You can always propose any changes at the talk page of the template, just like any other user would do. Fram (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many maintenance categories which at first did not take a date parameter have later started to take a date parameter. The fact that they don't take a date parameter yet, might be because 1. no one has considered to add it, even though that should have been done long ago 2. the tag is not being used much, which does not mean it will not be used later, as it becomes more well-known and editors start to pay more attention to the specific problem the tag comes to note. Therefore, it is very wise to date all maintenance categories, to avoid cases where all articles presently in a category have to be dated arbitrarily with the month and year the category started to be a dated category, while in reality they were tagged over the course of some years (resulting in abnormally large first dated categories). Debresser (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, dating tags that aren't used a lot creates lots of near-empty subcategories, instead of one medium-sized one. Bots (and bot owners) shouldn't be adding unused tags because perhaps, someday, they may get used. Stick to what is needed and currently useful. Fram (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. If the template doesn't have the infrastructure the categories are not created.
"Helpful" Pixie Bot is now edit-warring to include this useless date tag, without making any other change[30]. Bots shouldn't be edit warring in general, and certainly not for when their edit isn't helpful in any way at all. Please correct this as soon as possible. Fram (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is not edit-warring as a conscious act. It is in this like all robots, who automatically repeat their actions, until they attain the result for which they have been programmed. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not as a conscious act, obviously, but how does that matter? Many bots here are programmed to skip a certain action if it gets reverted once or twice. This one obviously is not. Fram (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it again was a check to see if the bot was coded to stop editing a page multiple times in a row or not. Obviously, it isn't. A bot that edit wars to include things that shouldn't be there in the first place is a thing that the bot operator needs to correct, either by excluding that task from the bot code, or by including code that stops the bot from edit warring. Fram (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about jumping the gun and doing some of the substitutions. I figured since it was a job for AWB I may as well download it and help out. I see now that you were getting permission for a bot to do it. There are still quite a few to do and I can stop to let your bot finish it or if you no longer wish to I will continue using AWB. Regards AIRcorn(talk)13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please test new bot functionality in your userspace or a testwiki, not in the mainspace. Five big large errors in a row, and more in the past few days... Fram (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This time I concentrated to improve and hope that I succeeded today. I now understand the references, hope I did not overdo. I still want to shorten the article. Will try again. I also need to create an info box but don't know how. With kind regards, Kalaharih --Kalaharih (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today I sent on request an article more elaborated than before about Museum van Bommel van Dam, as i was advised to make links possible, which the adjonction of:presence of early etchings of HH in that museum procures. Now that link just realized and sent, a totally new person tags the article with red flags of violation. I do not even have time to get the necessary material to write another article about things like professors or teachers mentioned in the article. Maybe you know for me what I should do. In the meantime thank you for the demand of more categories. I saw I could do that right. With regards Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can help much more with this, you really need references, ideally to printed works or scholarly papers, or museum catalogues. Presumably there is a WikiProject Art that may be able to help. RichFarmbrough, 00:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, you had noted on this page (January 2010) that it had incorrect inline citations. I have since edited the page. Can you please recheck and remove the note if everything is now in order? Thanks! Eglobe55 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. SmackBot just dates those templates, though, and if the problem has been fixed anyone may remove them (I have done it in this case). RichFarmbrough, 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Would you care to see what happens if you use {{#ifexpr:({{#expr: abs({{CURRENTYEAR}}*12+{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{{year|0}}}*12-{{{monthno|0}}})}})>1 It won't harm the deletion of past categories, will only add future ones. Btw, why is it ">1" and not ">0"? Does that mean that last months categories are kept, don't think so. So why the "1"? And how will that affect future categories? Or will the "1" mean that the present category will be nominated as well when absolute value is added? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wondered if I could ask you for help? Some time ago someone started a stub for all the villages of North Cyprus. The problem is that they used the Greek names, which are today historical (they have not been used since the war in 1974). Today the Turkish names are used. Hence, as I understand it, according to WP:NAME (see the discussion on Gdańsk vs Danzig) the Turkish names should be used in the articles (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
Hi, you can look at any guide-book in English of "North Cyprus" or "Northern Cyprus" (Books which are published in the English speaking world) and you will see the the Turkish names are used. Thanks, Guestworker (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help with article...
Hi, this is my first time "trying" to edit a Wikipedia article (David L Boushey), I work on webpages with Adobe software (Dreamweaver, Flash, etc...) so my friend ask me for help on this (she thought that because I do webpages, I suppose to be good at this... wrong!), I did some changes trying to find more References, and I think that works, but still need some Citations, We are working on it, the problem we have now is about the "Autobiography", how we can fix that?, any help is really appreciated, thank you very much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinko2000 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_47, can you explain why citation needed was removed? I couldn't find any information as to why it's "officially" called Seaside Fwy. None of the signs call it that. Additionally it used to be called Seaside Ave at some point but any references to that have been removed. Also, http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy-pt2.html mentions that Seaside Freeway/Expressway. This was a portion of Route 47. I was hoping someone would prove me otherwise as I don't have enough resources 'city planning' etc to find as a reference that it is still the case.
Supagene (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified). *
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified). *
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified). *
I am going to be requesting a bot task in relation to the U.S. Collaboration of the Month and I was hoping I could ask you a couple questions. Right now I am just gathering data for the writup but basically I am trying to streamline and automate some of the manual functions that are required to maintain the Collaboration. Basically the bot would do the following things:
Notify all WikiProject's associated to the article when an article is selected as a US Collaboration candidate.
Notify all WikiProject's associated to the article when an article is selected as the US Collaboration of the Month
Notify any editors who have worked on the article in the past (I would say at least the top 10 or 20 editors at least). Not including IP's, bot's or blocked users. if the article is a US Collaboration candidate.
Notify any editors who have worked on the article in the past (I would say at least the top 10 or 20 editors at least). Not including IP's, bot's or blocked users. if the article is selected as the US Collaboration of the Month.
Potentially allow users to be notified (like myself as an example) if an article is submitted as the collaboration of the month candidate or is selected even if they are not associated to a project or the article in question. This would be similar to how many newsletters work.
I have some other potential things that might be doable also but these are the main things. A couple of the others are:
automatically updating the affected articles or templates when the collaboration of the month is selected or if a candidate time has expired
Yes there are as you say newsletter bots that could do that part of the task. The functionality for notifying top X editors exists in some form I think. Updateing time expired candidates is suitable small task for Femto bot or any other small-task bot. Vote counts ditto, but beware natural language parsing limitations - this could be made automatic. RichFarmbrough, 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}.. *
I'm very interested to having the bot generate a list for WikiProject Conservatism, but I have a question. RecentChangesLinked does not automatically show changes to associated talk pages, and it doesn't look like the bot generates entries for associated talk pages. Is there a way to also show changes to talk pages? – Lionel(talk)16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I cannot see why Smackbot is adding a date parameter to a reference as in this edit. The date for the reference is invalid as it is after the accessdate and if required should use month and year parameters as it is not a full date. Keith D (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, in the course of the research involved I stumbled upon a few things that need to be improved, or that I don't understand, or that I would like to do differently. Both in the categories as well as in the related templates.
So I have two questions: 1. Are you up to the issues I found with both the new categories and the others we had before? 2. Are you up to adding 9 (or 12) new categories with monthly subcategories to your system of automated creation and maintenance?
Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month drives the new monthly category creation ahead of time, so adding missing categories there is no bad thing. If a category is missing here it will still be created once an article is added to it, provided there is a progress box for that set of categories. It could be argued that some of the categories are so sparse (Categories for cleanup, for example) that it is not worth creating a category every month, only to speedy G6 it once the month has elapsed, but I think on balance it would be a very minor problem if that happened. RichFarmbrough, 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Ok. Then I will add them there. Is there a need to mention templates to be added to SmackBot here seperately, or are they somehow noticed in the process? And I'll make the appropriate templates etc. (like progress boxes), just like I did last time. Can I post my questions, suggestions and requests related to the new categories and templates here, and hope that you'll find time to give me advise and help out where needed? Debresser (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. {{Cleanup-list}} is supposed to sort into Category:Wikipedia list cleanup as well. That is what it says on the category page. And so it was till this edit of yours. Since the template is fully protected, could you add {{DMCA|Wikipedia list cleanup|from|{{{date|}}}}} to it?
Well, I ask the question "is the qualifier needed to distinguish between content categories and maintenance categories" - notably things like "Category:Tools" needs to be distinct from "Category:Wikipedia tools" most of the other stuff I find overqualified, if anything, more so now that we have a largely hidden hierarchy. On top of this having "Articles .... " (while widely used) might mean we eventually end up with a parallel hierarchy for "Categories... " "Images..." "Templates...." and "Portal pages ....", so I'm inclined not to add "Articles...". RichFarmbrough, 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think the answer to your question is yes. Which is why I raised the subject. In addition, I seem to remember that I was one of those who were involved in the formulation of that question, and that it was meant to apply only to the word "Wikipedia" but not to the word "articles".
The complication you mention, which has happened with {{Cleanup}}, regrettably, could be avoided by using the word "pages". But that should probably be done across the board, and is not a solution to be used ad hoc. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of implementing the word "Pages" instead of "Articles" and "Wikipedia articles", and certainly consider it preferable to having nothing as in this case. But I think that should be discussed and applied to all maintenance categories in one big step. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. {{Update after}} actually uses the word "since" instead of "from". A remnant of a long-forgotten era. :) Note the double category structure in Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. In addition, it has per year categories. Note that this tag is used to denote the date when updating is needed, not when the tag was placed. Something like {{As of}} but only for future dates. Which makes it interesting, because it may have future months. What do you say about using "from"? Btw, are you familiar with {{Dated update category}}?
6. Please replace the category handling code of the fully protected {{Copypaste}}
from <includeonly>{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}}}</includeonly>
to {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided|from|{{{date|}}}}}}}, which adds dated subcategories for the "with url provided" category.
Can these two be merged with an #if:, or is the space between the words a problem? That would have the advantage of removing double categorisation. I mean that at present an article with a specified url shows up in the general category as well.
like {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections{{#if:{{{url|}}}|&-#-32-;with url provided}}|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}} Note what I had to do to that unicode.
This can of course also be done by using {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}}} but the previous code is the most elegant.
Larger issues are the one mentioned on MSGJ's talkpage below, all-inclusive categories (which I'd be happy to help tackle), and perhaps a rename of all relevant monthly maintenance categories to use the word "Pages" or "Wikipedia pages". Have to leave sth for the future. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this template (my first) after it was used WP:BOLDly by another user and discussed it at [31]. My inclusion of the word Aotearoa was a deliberate considered act which I shared with others met no resistance. If there is a good reason to exclude it (I understand it changes the name of the corresponded category) that's fine, but I'm not keen on removing it just to tidy things. My use of the word is related to a local cultural movement summarised in part at Māori language revival. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, and I should probably have dropped you a note. The Maori language revival is of course not unique, even as far as its extension to place names - as any visitor to Wales will confirm. This being the English language Wikipedia, we provide the names of places in other relevant languages in the articles pertaining to them, usually both in the lead and the infobox, but use the WP:Common name as the article title, and also in most contexts. There is of course the language Wikipedia which, by and large, I believe does things the same way (using the Maori name and providing the English version, (where appropriate) in the infobox). The other interesting parallel is of course the renaming (or respelling, depending how you look at it) of many places in India, here some of the revived versions such as Mumbai have become the common name in English (although I understand that in the city "Bombay" is still generally used) and we have moved the articles. RichFarmbrough, 10:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Problem:this article needed more categories and I found categories that were accepted on the Dutch version in Wikimedia Commons. I suppose this is not how it is used on Wikipedia. Probably only
an administrator can find a solution, as the categories are now in red. Thank you, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have some feedback on issues 7 and 8 also, especially since they take two minutes each, but issue 6 is the only one involving a protected template, so there I depend on you. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of {{Update after}}. You changed the monthly categories from "since" to "from", but not the yearly categories "since 2007, 2008, etc". And they are populated. What to do with them? Debresser (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it some consideration, I'd say that since when the year alone is specified, the template is activated on January 1, we could change {{DMCA|Wikipedia articles in need of updating|since|{{{1}}}}}}} to {{DMCA|Wikipedia articles in need of updating|from|January {{{1}}}}}}}, and that's it. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did my best not to forget an explanation for shorter text and more cats added, but I stumble on the demands for better work, still there. Could you give clarity. i am not impatient, but very unsure. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Smackbot gets in the way, this time at Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Does it not recognize the {{inuse}} tag? This is not the first time I have quarrelled about your bots, but I was just doing very complicated fixup of references and thanks to your bot, I lost the lot because of an edit conflict.
I think your bots are far more trouble than they are worth. But I know you have a different opinion.
Sincerely Rich I know you are committed to Wikipedia and do lots of good work, but this kind of annoyance from your bots is not helpful. Please take this in the same spirit of encouragement and good will, it may not seem so but I do mean it so. I don't think the bot should go meddling when there is an {{700|ft|m}} → 700 feet (210 m) versus {{convert|-700|ft|m}} → −700 feet (−210 m)
Although it seems shoddy now, to round the negative amount as "−213.4" rather than −210, few users have noticed, because most measurements are positive numbers. After the fix for negative numbers, I think we should eliminate all special treatment of "imperial units" versus "US customary units" by editing all those subtemplates, as a major step toward simplifying Convert; the plan to edit U.S. & imperial templates is discussed at:
In fact, I think most of those U.S./imperial subtemplates (as "Template:Convert/imp*" and "Template:Convert/us*") are basically unused, so most could be reduced to "semi-protection" to allow easier editing of each, as time permits. More later. -Wikid7714:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rule as to lists of people is that, if an entry lacks both a wikipedia article and a ref -- it is properly deleted.
Many such lists are replete with such entries. I've spent a good deal of time cleaning up many nation lists the past two weeks. Is there any way for a bot to do it? And is there any way to block new entries that lack both indicia of notability? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer, yes to the first and no to the second. (Well you could use editfilters, but I suspect the edit filter people would say the overhead was not worth it.) Using a bot would have to be restricted to certain pages (like [[<Nationality> people]]) and would have to assume that any ref, web link or WP article blue link on the line meant it was OK. It would have a very small risk of breaking stuff even so. RichFarmbrough, 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That would be fantastic -- even the first would be a great help, and relieve contributing editors of bot-work. How might we move that forward? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you create a list of the pages? The I could put in a BRFA citing this thread and see what happens. My BRFAs do seem to take an inordinate amount of time right now. RichFarmbrough, 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The hundreds of lists of people that are listed at the following page (and the indicated sub-categories) would be an amazing start:
If the red-links there are not footnoted, I think they are subject to deletion, per wp:LISTPEOPLE. Which says: "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability." But, if you think it better, perhaps we could start with a very small and clean group of lists, such as Category:Lists of people by U.S. cities. Or, (and this has more "gray" entries, which I could cull if you like) Category:Lists of people by nationality.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant, pretty much, by a list of the pages. (The example I gave would escape the letter of the rule, but would fall foul of a bot, but there are others such as List of Swedish ambassadors to the Ukraine which are clearly not the sort of thing meant, but technically fall under the rule.) The purpose of the rule is to protect against massive, unmaintainable and (possibly) inaccurate lists. RichFarmbrough, 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I've been asked that question, but didn't have the response: if the entry has no wikilink, I can see how it can be done. However, if the entry has a wikilink, is a bot capable of detecting it if there is no article behind it? --Ohconfucius¡digame!03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but AWB isn't. Use wget or similar to pull the HTML of the page and check for red links. I have the code for this somewhere, I'm trying to remember what I used it for. RichFarmbrough, 13:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Is this what you are looking for? It is a first cut -- some 200 lists. More can (and should) be added (If the format is fine, and you would like me to, I can work on expanding the list for you). I wasn't certain what format you need (e.g., should I bluelink the lists for you?). Also, is it ok with you if I refer to this discussion at the wp:listpeople talkpage? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rich I had a small question about how Femto bot updates the Recent changes for WikiProjects. On Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recent changes you will see that the list is getting quite long and I was going to trim out some of the earlier pages to say reflect only the last 30 or so. I assume that the highest number (in this case 75) is the most recent but when I look at the edit history of the pages they all seem to update regularly so I couldn't put my finger on how it was doing it or which was the most recent. Is it safe to delete some of these pages and if so how do I tell what the most current one is? Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich. A while back I began adding infoboxes to Norwegian villages, mostly unreferenced stubs lying around from 2006 which were created by Punkmorten (Geshicte). Given that he won't so much as make the tiniest edit to Norwegian geo articles these days, somebody has to do it.Basically it just adding an infobox with the location info county etc and a pin map like Kjelvik. I was wondering if you could copy the that infobox and use some sort of script to add infoboxes (and copy the coordinates from the bototm of the page into the infoboxes to the rest of the villages by county of the Category:Populated places in Norway. So far I've done Finnmark and Sog. Browse Category:Villages in Akershus for starters for example.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please look into the bot edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Roberts
which I attempted to make slightly more conform to the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" and, in the process, moved the “resume” warning bot edit to the bottom of the article right above the "stub" notice. What is in the present article is all the objective information I can gather about the person; I initially wrote the article to resolve a couple of red links to her and, although I met her briefly twice (in 2004 and 2005), I have no reason to promote her or in any other way write in a non-neutral tone but may appear to have done so because all the available information is all positive.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, on the 17th of july was added an external link this lemma. It looks VERY much like advertising or publishing and does not serve the interest of the reader about a Museum, please have a look, I have not yet encountered this kind of vandalism, which should be removed. I am myself hesitant of removing, but I ask you as you made a last correction on it. Thanks, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does look like it, but the left link was to a useful page about the museum. The right hand link (which I have now removed in favour of flat text) was to the top page of the site. RichFarmbrough, 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your intervention, looks efficient against the unwanted pubicity. By the way, on my request by mail to this Museum about the work of HH, NOT visible on their 'Highlights', I
received a very positive answer, meant to be reassuring, of the actual Director himself, Mr. Rick Vercauteren: that 25 etchings and lithographs have been found and still belong to the collection. Written in Dutch, how would you suggest to use it as a valid reference, up to now uncertain. Greetings, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest referring to the catalogue of the museum: in standard academic works you would cite this as "personal communication" however that does not meet the verifiability criteria for Wikipedia. Clearly the catalogue is not as easy to verify as an on-line catalogue, or a widely circulated printed catalogue, but it is still verifiable by visiting the museum. RichFarmbrough, 22:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Fixed I'm waiting for Rich to address a topic above and noticed your question. In this edit I removed the space before "Video", and now it seems to sort properly. So I went ahead and fixed the rest of them too. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they were created for completeness originally. But they serve a (hypothetical at least) purpose of marking articles where there is an ISO style date for a good reason. RichFarmbrough, 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I removed the template from 103 articles so far, emptying 5 categories, leaving only 6 instances. It seems to be added to all articles related to cryptography, regardless of whether they actually have dates at all and use ymd or not. When ymd was used only in citation templates for the date or accessdate parameters, I also removed the template, since the template would apply to the article also, and using ymd in articles is usually rather awkward. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
talk 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Done (Did you see issue #4 above?) Debresser (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Request Expired.. *
Speedily Approved.. *
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified). *
Denied.. *
Fixed I'm waiting for Rich to address a topic above and noticed your question. In this edit I removed the space before "Video", and now it seems to sort properly. So I went ahead and fixed the rest of them too. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
