User talk:A930913: Difference between revisions
→Reference bot: +reply |
→BracketBot – {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}: new section |
||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
I think I fixed my typo. Thanks! |
I think I fixed my typo. Thanks! |
||
[[User:Rebhelm|Rebhelm]] ([[User talk:Rebhelm|talk]]) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC) |
[[User:Rebhelm|Rebhelm]] ([[User talk:Rebhelm|talk]]) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
== BracketBot – 76.103.108.10 == |
|||
<!-- Leave this line alone. --> |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) --><span style="display:none;">[[User:A930913]], [[User:Dru_of_Id]], [[User:Legoktm]], [[User:Bgwhite]]</span> {{User:A930913/BBresolved|no}} |
|||
<!-- What page did BracketBot notify you about? --> |
|||
'''Page:''' |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_binary |
|||
<!-- Please give a link to the diff if you can. --> |
|||
'''Diff:''' |
|||
<!-- What is your comment/question? --> |
|||
'''Comment/question:''' |
|||
BracketBot flagged an edit of mine because I my edit removed a single parenthesis --- but this one was unpaired, which is why I removed it. I'm guessing BB looks for edits with unpaired brackets, but w/o including brackets in the original page, this will be inaccurate. No need to reply. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/76.103.108.10|76.103.108.10]] ([[User talk:76.103.108.10|talk]]) 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:31, 20 March 2014
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
Vada documentation
Heya, I was wondering. If needed, I could help update the vada documentation. Is it needed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Rsrikanth05: Probably, though I'm not sure what
. Newyorkadam is better on the documentation side. 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alright. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
ReferenceBot – Underlying lk
Page: Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases
Diff: [1]
Comment/question: The bot shouldn't notify about broken links in pages with the "foo/testcases" name, because it doesn't matter if those pages include non-working references, they are just there to test a template not for their content.
eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is a good suggestion. Pages in the categories "Template test cases" and "Template sandboxes" could be safely ignored. I routinely ignore them when checking the Template namespace for citation errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Need help A.S.A.P
sorry for the inconvenience (Disturbance) Bro , Can you help me to fix my article >? List of wars involving the Philippines i broken some lines! i appreciate your advice and help for instance? Thank you!
- @Philipandrew: Firstly, it would help if you didn't misspell your username. Secondly, the article is a mess that should likely be deleted. The layout is anything but standard, it is one big WP:NPOV violation because it's clearly written from a Philippine point of view throughout, and it contains numerous factual errors - and those are only te errors I, hardly an expert on Philippine history, could identify at a glance. It also cites no reliable sources and is a less complete version of the (also problematic) Military history of the Philippines article. I have fixed the table, but the other issues are much more severe. Huon (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Reference bot
Please make sure that you fill out User:ReferenceBot#Opting_out. I know it is exclusion compliant from the BRFA, but you should provide that info. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree in principle that such information should be provided, I wonder why anybody would want to opt out from a bot with virtually zero false positives. Huon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Some people just dont want to be bugged by bot notices, and it is a requirement to post such information if one operates a bot that is exclusion compliant. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Werieth: It was not intentionally exclusion compliant, rather a feature of the library used. Can you show me this requirement? 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since you stated it in the BRFA, the first bullet point of WP:BOTCONFIG would be the relevant section of policy. Since you declared that the bot was compliant, its just good practice to post that information. If for some reason you wish to change that status feel free to request an amendment from BAG, but until then the bot was approved as exclusion complaint and should honor that status. Werieth (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Werieth: As you said, it's good practice, not a requirement. I'm "encouraged to", and "may wish to implement" it, but with the false positive rate as it is, I'm yet to hear a reason why to opt out wouldn't be in bad faith. For the record, the reason why BracketBot has the opt out is that the false positives give legitimate reasons like due to editing many mathematical articles which have unpaired greater and less than signs. 930913(Congratulate) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have already stated that your bot is compliant, and thus you should publish the opt-out process. If you want to push this and be difficult, Ill have the policy clarified to make it more than a nice phrasing. Your bot was approved with an opt-out, and that should be published on the bot user page. If you had gotten approval while stating that you where non-compliant this wouldnt be an issue, but since you are compliant it needs to be published. For related discussion see Wikipedia:VPP#RfC:_I_do_not_want_to_be_bothered_by_editing_bots_any_more Werieth (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Werieth: By all means, if you want to clarify the consensus on the policy, go ahead, but bear in mind that my time spent opposing (for reasons you yourself stated) could be better spent on more useful things. Note that if your stance is indeed the consensus, then I will try reBAGging it first. 930913(Congratulate) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have already stated that your bot is compliant, and thus you should publish the opt-out process. If you want to push this and be difficult, Ill have the policy clarified to make it more than a nice phrasing. Your bot was approved with an opt-out, and that should be published on the bot user page. If you had gotten approval while stating that you where non-compliant this wouldnt be an issue, but since you are compliant it needs to be published. For related discussion see Wikipedia:VPP#RfC:_I_do_not_want_to_be_bothered_by_editing_bots_any_more Werieth (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Werieth: As you said, it's good practice, not a requirement. I'm "encouraged to", and "may wish to implement" it, but with the false positive rate as it is, I'm yet to hear a reason why to opt out wouldn't be in bad faith. For the record, the reason why BracketBot has the opt out is that the false positives give legitimate reasons like due to editing many mathematical articles which have unpaired greater and less than signs. 930913(Congratulate) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since you stated it in the BRFA, the first bullet point of WP:BOTCONFIG would be the relevant section of policy. Since you declared that the bot was compliant, its just good practice to post that information. If for some reason you wish to change that status feel free to request an amendment from BAG, but until then the bot was approved as exclusion complaint and should honor that status. Werieth (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot – TornadoLGS
Page: Enhanced Fujita scale
Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_Fujita_scale&diff=600155053&oldid=600115267
Comment/question: I was told to leave a message here if BracketBot misinterpreted an edit. So I made the above edit, using the chevrons as they are used in mathematics: to indicate a quantity greater than a given value. The brackets were not intended for use in formatting.
TornadoLGS (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
refbot
Hi, please don't notify me about missing ref fields. The bots can take care of that. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kwamikagami, human editors fix this and other errors that ReferenceBot and BracketBot notify editors about. If the error was fixable by a bot, a bot would do it instead of notifying editors. In your case, another editor fixed the article in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is fixable by bot. I've seen it hundreds of times. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am open to learning from your experience. Please provide an example of a bot edit that added a reference list to an article that was missing one. I based the above statement on the information given at Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references#Proposals. That page is linked from the posting that ReferenceBot makes on editors' Talk pages when they cause this error on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is fixable by bot. I've seen it hundreds of times. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Possible bug - new section not created
BracketBot's message did not create a new section in this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs)
- It put it correctly under the existing heading, but didn't start it on a new line for a reason that will need to be investigated. 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
refbot2
You did it again.[2] Please stop, and let the bots handle it. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed the article. The article had been in the "missing reflist" state for over two hours. I presume that if a bot were able to fix it, that would have happened by now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot – Corkythehornetfan
Page:List of University of Alabama people
Diff:[3]
Comment/question:I used the )'s after the numbers as an alternative way, instead of using a period. You can see I did at List of Emporia State University people, and other pages. If it needs to be changed, please let me know. Thanks!
Corkythehornetfan(talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot – Robert Austin-Moore
Page:
Diff:
Comment/question:
Robert Austin-Moore (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Good morning,
Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. I have a question. I followed the instructions to upload a picture to include in the Final years chapter of Dame Anna and although the box and text has appeared on the page, the actual photo hasn't. Can you assist me please? Many thanks, Robert Austin-Moore
BracketBot – Dmitry Dzhagarov
Page:
Diff:
Comment/question:
Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC) I am sorry, but I misunderstood what happened. Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot – Rebhelm
Page: Susanna Camusso
Diff:
Comment/question: I think I fixed my typo. Thanks! Rebhelm (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot – 76.103.108.10
Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_binary
Diff:
Comment/question: BracketBot flagged an edit of mine because I my edit removed a single parenthesis --- but this one was unpaired, which is why I removed it. I'm guessing BB looks for edits with unpaired brackets, but w/o including brackets in the original page, this will be inaccurate. No need to reply. 76.103.108.10 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)