Jump to content

User talk:BrownHairedGirl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 17 August 2022 (→‎Zotero-only goodness: Reply to AManWithNoPlan: wotabout Category:CS1 errors: bare URL?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 17 August 2022 at 18:24 by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs • logs)

You have mail

I have performed additional testing and the results are in your inbox. Rlink2 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just sending a reminder message Rlink2 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss

Hello! A non-administrator has removed a sourced article from The Times about the subject having had an affair that led to the end of a marriage. WP:BLPN is cited, but I can see nothing there justifying the removal. Can you advise? Thank you very much. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billsmith60: see the big editnotice which appears when you post to this page: please provide links and diffs to help me see what the issue is.
I dunno how you could think that I can offer any useful contribution without that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any big editnotice on this Talk page, but no matter. You edited the Liz Truss page recently, but I see it's only one of the millions you fix. Hence, no worries. Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billsmith60: when you open this page to edit it, User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Editnotice is displayed at the top of the page.
But no notice should be needed. I am sure you mean well, but please don't waste anyone's time by asking for guidance about a specific issue on an unidentified page.
Best wishes BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Looking at the history of this talk page, it looks like Billsmith60 is editing via mobile. Unfortunately edit notices aren't displayed to mobile or Wikipedia app editors. It's been a feature request on Phabricator for four years now, though it looks like after an RfC that closed about a week ago mobile edit notices will be enabled soon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Sideswipe9th. That explains the non-spotting of the notice ... but still, the notice should not be needed. If an editor wants to raise a concern about an edit, then it's not rocket science to see the need to identify the edit concerned. Leaving it to the other person to go hunt to try to figure out what you are referring to is a form of passive aggression, and I am fed up with it.
In future, I may just revert such pointless posts on my talk. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair. While I don't want to encourage such behaviour, I have found both the edit in question and the 2014 BLPN discussion on this issue. The BLPN discussion makes for confusing reading, which isn't helped by massive walls of text.
@Billsmith60: I would recommend posting about this on Talk:Liz Truss, and possibly at WP:BLPN. A lot can happen in 8 years, and consensus can change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to get systematic. I will in future revert such vague requests, and I have made a boilerplate response which I will add to the edit summary of such reverts:

If you want me to review an edit, then I need links and diffs to identify the edit. A vague request which leaves me to go hunt is a form of passive aggression, and a waste of my time. You withheld that info, so I withhold my help.

I don't want to be hostile to newbies, but since most of my work on Wikipedia now consists of small referencing improvements to large number of pages, I seem to be a magnet for this sort of silliness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "a form of passive aģression" is a bit strong for the edit note? Just "thoughtless" or "inconsiderate" might be better and keep things calmer? Possibly include also something like "Note that I make many "housekeeping" edits to articles where I have zero interest in the topic.", to explain further? PamD 05:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if I've stirred up a hornet's nest simply by asking this hardworking and experienced editor for assistance. I couldn't have been more polite, but I won't bother her again. Regards to all Billsmith60 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I thought I had made it very clear that a vague request which omits crucial details is not polite, because it leaves me to do work to find info which was available to the requester, and which could easily have been provided.
But it seems that none of the various terms suggested here describe the problem clearly enough for @Billsmith60. So yes, Bill, please do not bother me again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Edits in Milan malpensa page - 30 July 2022

Hi

please do NOT remove legit edits (e.g. add of new routes) only because some filling of ref.s are not acceptable for you. You can correct what is wrong. You have removed legit information.

Available for any information.
Riktetta (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Riktetta: It is a matter of common courtesy to give a link to the article you are talking about - Milan Malpensa Airport here - so that the person you are talking to can go there with one click. You may, or may not, have seen a popup "edit message" telling you this when you came to this page (depends on software), and it is displayed boldly at the top of BHG's talk page, but please remember to do this in all posts on all talk pages. Thanks. PamD 16:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Riktetta: please read the edit summary in my revert.[1]
I did not object to the filing of refs. I reverted because you had changed a correct date to a wrong date, added unlinked URLs, and used non-specific URLs which did not support the facts asserted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:Again, I maybe wrong with dates and urls, but, instead of undid a bunch of edit (much of them not related to these errors), you could have just correct what was wrong or, alternatively, inform me about mistakes.Riktetta (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Riktetta: obviously, I considered partial reverts. But there were so many problems that it would have been too much work to unpick any good bits. When a bunch of edits includes multiple refs which do not support the facts asserted, I distrust the whole lot. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British Overseas Territories

Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Overseas_Territories Dreddmoto (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreddmoto: I am unclear why you want my input. "Article could be expanded" is uncontroversial. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some of your edits and have liked them. Some people don't like including new parts of articles or, might think they would be better in a new article. If you could think of anything else regarding BOT police uniforms that would be useful. That's why. --Dreddmoto (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, @Dreddmoto ... but to be honest, police uniform is a topic of no interest to me anywhere, let alone those in the absurd remnants of a cruel empire which we in Ireland were able to shake off only by a war because the Brits refused to accept the outcome of the first almost-democratic election which they allowed us to hold, banned our national parliament, and deployed state terrorists to suppress our democracy, even burning the centre of a major city.
However, if that topic interests you, then that's great. Editors should work on topic that interest them, and I hope that you enjoy your work on it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered reply. I'll do more research, including seeing those links which are new to me. The views of others regarding edits are a form of helpful advice for me so, I appreciate that. --Dreddmoto (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Albwiki001&action=view reverted my edits based on "vandalism" with no further reason. I explained my edits when I made them, I even opened a discussion in the respective talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edi_Rama#Mako%C3%A7i's_testimony_in_divorce_hearings . Besides that the user called me "Rama Minion" and I'm not the first one to be name like that. What I should I do and have I done anything wrong? S.G ReDark (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S.G ReDark
It's hard to understand what the issue is when you don't provide diffs of the actions, but from what I can see, it doesn't look like anything I would want to get involved with.
You may want to raise this at WP:ANI, but I have to warn you that you won't get far there without diffs. See Help:Diff. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I forgot to add diffs. Also thanks for your help. S.G ReDark (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do next....help....

hello. I created a page that got moved to a draftspace. The notation was that the paraphrasing was too close to the source used. I have since rephrased those sections of Draft:Virgil Village, Los Angeles. Does it look okay to you? Help! If it looks okay, what do I do now? Help?!? Thanks, Phatblackmama (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Phatblackmama, but I have a huge todo list, and no spare time or energy to review drafts.
If you think that the problems have been resolved, then the next step is to submit it for review at WP:AFC. There are instructions on that page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category header template for crimes by country and century

Hi BHG, all best wishes for the summer.

As you have done such a fine job with the templates in Category:Crime chronology category header templates, e.g. Template:YYYY crimes by country category header, please would you do a similar one for centuries?

Unlike years and decades, with centuries there is an additional opportunity for cross-linking between crimes and criminals, e.g. Category:21st-century crimes in India and Category:21st-century Indian criminals (I have manually linked those two).

It would take me considerable time to understand & mimic your previous templates, so I hope this is something you would like to and have capacity to do yourself. I would be willing to help with the roll-out. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fayenatic london -- long time no speak. Hope you are well.
Today the 202208101 database dump became available, so I will be flat out for the next few fays running a huge bunch of scans and AWB jobs to tackle the bare URL backlog. (I currently have 8 AWB jobs running in pre-parse mode on this PC, and the scans on my other PC, and it will be like that for a few days).
But once I have most of that in hand, it should be fairly easy for me to make the extra template. If I don't get back to you by Friday, please gimme a poke.
While we are on the subject, I have long thought that this whole whole tree is misnamed. It seems to me that it should be a topic category "crime" rather than the set category "crimes", to allow inclusion of crime sprees, policing activities, legislation etc ... instead of limiting it to individual crimes. Do you have any thoughts on that? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have touched on this before, and I disagreed about renaming the whole tree. I'd rather suggest a parent Crime category where it would be useful. For now, I've been renaming some crime parents to crimes. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

It's been a few weeks, I've been waiting for your response to my email. Hope all has been well. Thanks. Rlink2 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in British Honduras has been nominated for merging

Category:Years in British Honduras has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The title of the URL you changed in Special:Diff/1103131480 is "Realcork", so why you title it "Home"? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: because it's the home page of realcork.org.
Old ref: http://www.realcork.org/
New ref: "Home". realcork.org.
If you feel that there is a better way of filling the ref, please feel free to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, by actually filling in the title. I have just checked a random two dozen of your most recent edits, none of which had a title of "Home". Please revert so that people know that the correct information still needs filling in. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: no need to revert. If anyone thinks that there is a better title to use, it easier for them to do so when there is already a cite template in place. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't. A bar URL obviously triggers some sort of notice or awareness that there is an issue. A {{cite web}} with a title of "Home" tells no one that anything needs fixing. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: a title of "Home" clearly indicates that it is the homepage of the website. Anyone who thinks that is an inappropriate title can see it clearly. Think of it as a placeholder, like |title=Archived copy
And because the cite template is in place, they simply need to replace te value of |title= with whatever they chose. That's much easier than having to add the cite template.
Nearly all these bare URL refs to root have been like that for months or years. Citation bot hasn't fixed them in multiple passes, so a manual cleanup is needed. These adds remove no info from the display, are clear to the reader, and facilitate further improvement. It's an incremental step forward. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I interpreting this correctly that you are actively (and intentionally) adding incorrect information just so that someone might find it "easier to fix" down the line? If so, I find that unacceptable, and unless you can get consensus, I must insist that you cease making these changes. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: no, I am not adding incorrect information, and I resent that prejudicial misrepresentation.
I am adding an accurate generic title which in most cases is good enough, and which in all other cases facilitates improvement — just as IAbot does. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behindwoods.com

Is behindwoods.com a reliable source? Deepika o (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepika o: I dunno. I haven't investigated; I am just filling WP:Bare URLs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can you please investigate? You are filling many links using reflinks. Deepika o (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepika o: I have not added any links. I am just filling them.
And no, I won't investigate. Sorry, but I am busy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you. Deepika o (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Duncan

I'm rather confused by your recent edit to the Meg Duncan article. You added a reference to the WorldCat search page. When I did a search several books written by Meg Duncan came up. However, the article is about a fictional girl detective, and not about an author. Could you tell me the reason for adding the reference? Perhaps I could refine the reference if you found something about the subject of the article. I don't want to revert your edit if there's a good reason for adding the WorldCat page. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: No, I did NOT add a reference to the WorldCat search page.

What I did do was this semi-automated edit[2], in which I filled an existing bare URL reference to http://www.worldcat.org ... which is the home page of Worldcat

This table shows what I did:

  wikicode text rendered
before BHG's edit <ref>http://www.worldcat.org</ref> http://www.worldcat.org
after BHG's edit <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldcat.org/ |title=Home |website=worldcat.org}}</ref> "Home". worldcat.org.

My edit was done at speed, using WP:AWB. I never even viewed the page; all my checking was done in the code I had written.

But I agree that it is a pointless reference, for all the reasons that you set out. So who did add that pointless reference?

I checked the article's history, and found two relevant edits.

Working backwards in time through the article history, I first found this edit[3] on 7 January 2014, in which User:BG19bot converted the text <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref> to a proper URL: <ref>http://www.worldcat.org</ref>

So who added the <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref>?

I found it, in this edit[4] on 23 March 2013. The pointless reference <ref>www.worldcat.org</ref> was added by ... guess who?

Yes, it was added by @Karenthewriter.

So I suggest that you write a complaint to @Karenthewriter. Or alternatively, please take some to learn about how to read an article's revision history. The best place to start is Help:Diff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my dreadful mistake. I am so sorry for bothering you. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, hope its okay to message directly to get some insight from you. I noticed that you were recent editors of the List of places for NSW and Victoria and was keen to get a perspective of a well informed person.

Are Urban Centres the actual city/town boundaries that most every day Aussies think of when they think of their cities? Do every day folks even know or care about the boundaries defined by the GCCSA and SUA of the same capital or major city ?

And I get that the LGA is not even considered as a place in the hierachy of places (Suburbs/Localities->Cities/Towns->State).

Thanks! Sdinesh2222 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdinesh2222: you didn't leave a link, but it appears that you are talking about e.g. this page. Although BHG was the last editor to change the page, that was four months ago and a purely technical edit, so BHG (i) may well not remember it and (ii) probably has no specific knowledge or interest in the topic of your question.
If you look further down the page history, you will see which editors actually expanded the encyclopaedic content. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) (WP:TPS)[reply]
@Sdinesh2222: my helpful friend @Fayenatic london is correct. My edit[5] was a purely technical edit, to add {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
As Fayenatic guessed, I have no specific knowledge or interest in the topic of your question. All I know about that place is that it appears to be on the underside of this planet, where people have to wear velcro on their shoes to avoid falling off the earth and hurtling into space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alerts

Hi there BHG, I see that you have been keeping busy this summer. You great work is causing my alerts to light up like a Christmas tree. I know that I did a silly thing by adding <!--ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE! --> to many articles, but the message you intend has been received loud and clear. I would really appreciate it if you stopped flagging me each time you put it right, because I would risk not seeing alerts for other things that need my attention. Regards, -- Ohc revolution of our times 18:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ohconfucius, AFAICR I have not done any removals of those comments in the last week or two, so I dunno why you are still getting alerts. (I just checked: the last such edit was on 17 July).
I included the pings solely so that you could verify my reverts.
But really, wouldn't it have been much better for you to clean up your own error? You were very nice about it when I raised the issue, and you promptly stopped, but it really should not be left to me fix your errors.
And from my side it doesn't feel great for you to return from your holidays and object to my courtesy pings as I cleaned up your mistake. Please could you fix the remaining 53 articles? 31 of them just have the comment <!--ACTUAL ARTICLE TITLE BELONGS HERE! -->; the others contain a title which should be restored. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG, Haha, I probably got the same surprise as you, but on a much larger scale – to come back from my holidays to find a huge number of alerts in my in-box, which may explain my reaction. Your 187 corrections, complete with pings, were all done with amazing efficiency on the same day! You said that I was very nice when you raised the issue of my silly mistake, which to me implies you find my message (above) the opposite of very nice. Of course I didn't mean to leave it to you alone to fix my mistakes. I adjusted my script to reverse the mistake and I have yet to run in on an article with the error. Let's not forget Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Anyway, thanks again for correcting my errors. And also, no offense taken or intended on my part. Keep up the good work, and best regards, -- Ohc revolution of our times 23:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohconfucius: thanks again for your kind words.
However, the fact remains that your script mangled over 200 articles before you fixed the script. I have undone most of them, but there are still 53 pages to be fixed. Please fix them! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zotero only

Point me to a page of pages to run and I will beta test my new code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: I have a list of ~40,000 pages which is almost ready to roll. How many pages do you want? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with 10K. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gimme 5 minutes to get it ready. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
should it skip urls that have titles but no dates? by default we look for dates? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AManWithNoPlan: the list is ready, at User:BrownHairedGirl/sandbox941.
The whole list was 39,525 pages, and this 10K is a random selection of that set, alpha-sorted.
I am not sure what you mean by "skip urls that have titles but no dates".
Is that about
  1. bare URLs where the bot can get a title but not a date?
  2. Partially-filled URLs where there is a title but no date? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should it skip already partially filled in URLs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AManWithNoPlan: yes please, skip partially-filled -- at least for now.
I would like this job to concentrate on fixing the completely bare, rather than on improving existing templates. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: it's looking good so far, with 200 pages processed in 20 minutes. That's about 600/hour, which is probably 4 or 5 times as fast as usual.

This is a very useful speed-up, but is less less than I had expected. Is it definitely doing only completely bare URLs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The still bare ones are the ones that often dont resolve etc. Which are the slow ones. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned a bunch. Done some fixes and I am restarting from the top. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many many thanks for all your work on this, @AManWithNoPlan. Even this first pass has been very productive, increasing throughput by several hundred percent. If something like this eventually goes live, it will make for a big speedup in my work and a big load reduction on Citation bot's resources.
Now that I think about it, I know what you mean about the non-resolves being slow. Back in February & March, I did a series of huge trawls through what was then a set of about 250K articles with bare URLs. First round tagging the URLs that gave a clear HTTP 404 or 410 error, and then I went through those that I had timed out. I used a VPN to spoof my location in 10 difft cities dotted around the globe, each time keeping only the URLs that timed out. Even with ten lookup jobs running simultaneously, waiting for each timeout took forever: the whole job took about ten days of 24/7, but it did allow me to tag about 80K bare URLs as dead.
One of my current manual tasks is working through a set of ~350 bare gov.in URLs, which are a horrible mix of slow responses and timeouts. Progress is glacially slow. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going, @AManWithNoPlan? The bot was making great progress through the 10,000 articles, with a significant fill rate, which is great.

But I see that the last edit was over 3 hours ago: this one[6] at 12:32 UTC, #6342/10000. Is it paused for more code development? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did have to stop it. It is now going again. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks again, @AManWithNoPlan.
Do you reckon it's getting near a stable version? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is stable. This is a "last resort" mode, in that it waits for 45 seconds on Zotero before giving up. On the other hand, it gives up on DOIs really fast. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @AManWithNoPlan, that's great. A 45-sec timeout sounds ideal for this task: it's exactly what I settled on when I was doing my mass wait-for-timeout runs when I was looking for URLs that were effectively dead.
Have you had any thoughts about making some way in which I could access this mode without bugging you? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most errors are like this:


  !Operation timed out after 45001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received   For URL: http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2013/aug/0806.htm
  >Could not resolve URL http://www.burnslakeband.ca/#!/business/elections/2016/by-election/
  >Retrieved info from http://eletmod50.com/a-misinatol-a-tubesig-a-teljes-pecsi-panorama/   (note that this then did nothing, meaning that the title was empty, but "found")
  >Received invalid title data for URL https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/results/round_results.mhtml?tourn_id=8965&round_id=330192: Tabroom.com. (note that title is just website).
  !Did not get a title for URL http://www.tarnetar.com/history.htm: {"type":"https://mediawiki.org/wiki/HyperSwitch/errors/unknown_error","method":"get","uri":"/en.wikipedia.org/v1/data/citation/zotero/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tarnetar.com%2Fhistory.htm"}
  >Received invalid title data for URL http://www.hikespeak.com/trails/tri-peaks/: Tri Peaks Trail | Malibu | Hikespeak.com  (this is a bit picky, since it sees the website and ignores the title.  This is because these titles are usually junk).


 
AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a linked page run and do not select slow mode, and the page name/path includes "ZOTERO" in it, then is should do this mode.  https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/commit/ce67de308382d61d2702e66cab10d8a92cc7b9b1  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AManWithNoPlan.  Is there a size limit?


I will try that, but linked page runs have not worked for me since the big expansion in capacity a month or two back.  I will try this and report back. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: I tried it with User:BrownHairedGirl/no ZOTERO - Remainder from 20220801 - Group B not otherwise processed - part 1


As I feared, the bot interface responded with    !No links to expand found


Same response from multiple browsers.


When we discussed this before, you said that the same page worked you.  I dunno what the problem is with my requests, but that is why gave up using Linked pages.


So if I am going to be able to use the wonderful new mode with you have created, I need to be able to access it using pipe-separated list format. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you accidentally enter "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrownHairedGirl/no_ZOTERO_-_Remainder_from_20220801_-_Group_B_not_otherwise_processed_-_part_1" instead of "User:BrownHairedGirl/no_ZOTERO_-_Remainder_from_20220801_-_Group_B_not_otherwise_processed_-_part_1" on the webform?  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: no, definitely not the URL.  Just the name as copied from the heading: User:BrownHairedGirl/no ZOTERO - Remainder from 20220801 - Group B not otherwise processed - part 1


This is exactly what I did every one of the many hundred times I used the bot for nearly a year, until it stopped working when the bot was upgraded. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS When linked pages started failing for me, I tried everything.  Multiple browsers, different list length, removing from the list page all text and links other than the list. I logged in and out multiple times, and I tried 3 browsers on my other PC. but still no go. All still gave me the same response: !No links to expand found


It's a pity, because I liked the transparency of using linked lists, where I can publicly document how the list was made and any interested editor can see what I am doing.  But when a fix was not forthcoming (for the very understandable reason that you could not replicate the problem!), I just used piped lists as a workaround. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I hate saying this but "I works for me".  So, please try again.  I have added some debug logging. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



@AManWithNoPlan: whatever you have done, that seemed to work on first attempt, just after 11:42 UTC.


I will see if the job shows up in the contribs.  It has 3701 pages, which should be a unique number.


And yes, it is working: see e.g. [7]


Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Thank you thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: it seems that I spoke too soon.


The bot crashed a few hours ago, and all jobs were dropped. Now linked list doesn't work again. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the Bot got rebooted.  Nothing in the logs other than the bot starting up.  Looks like it was done by the toolforge masters.  Can you enter the page name again on the webform, unselect the the "Thorough mode" button and then click on the "Process Pages Linked From" button and let me know what the error is.  I will watch the logs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the need to uncheck the box with better code order.  Also, the page API now accepts ZOTERO_ONLY as your first page in a pipe separated list as the magic flag.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: Thanks again for your work on this.


I have just submitted a piped list with 2574 entries, including the "ZOTERO_ONLY" first item.


And with that I am right out of batches, until the morning. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, three morning batches of 3,2xx pages each (i.e. 3222, 3425, 3429), all submitted as piped lists with ZOTERO_ONLY.


And the bot is chomping through them as if it had afterburners.  This is really great work, @AManWithNoPlan!  I get my jobs done faster, and the bot's resources get less hammered.


To get a glimpse, see the bot's edits just now, and do a Ctl-F in-page search for /32 BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Zotero-only goodness


@AManWithNoPlan: I have now had about 12 hours of the Zotero-only mode running on multiple lists.  And I have another piece of learning: that longer timeout makes it way more thorough.

I have a list of "list of foo" articles which I have been running through the bot.  I started out with 1,022 articles, and in the first 4 passes the bot filled only 2 refs. Out of frustration, I manually filled a few.  So for the fifth pass, the list was down to 1,010 pages.

Right now the contribs list shows that bot has processed 181/1010 pages, and filled 8 of them.  If it sustains that average, that will be 45 out of the full set, on a batch where most of the articles had already been processed several time recently.

Within ten days, I will have run the entire set of remaining bare URLs through Zotero-only mode.  It will make a big dent in the backlog.

But one question: will this mode work on refs where there is a Citation template with no title? e.g. {{cite web |url=http://example.com/fubar}}.

There are 29,000 of them in Category:CS1 errors: bare URL, and my previous attempts to feed them to the bot have made only trivial progress.  But with the longer timeout, zotero-only mode should do a more thorough job, if it includes them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



great news.  yes, a template with no title will run. The special code just says "why yes, this citation is prefect as it is" when a title is present. an empty title param does not count.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AManWithNoPlan.  That's good to know.  It's a usefully more sophisticated approach than my crude notions that this would be a strict bare-URLs-only mode, catching only something like <ref[^>]*?>\s*https?:[^>< \|\[\]]+\s*(\{\{bare *url *inline[^\}]*\}\} *)?<\s*/\s*ref


Would you be able to feed Category:CS1 errors: bare URL to the bot in zotero-only mode via your command line tool?  Or should I chop it into 8 chunks and feed it through the web interface? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Michael, Row the Boat Ashore


BHG: Thanks for the alert that this article still contains bare URL cites. I will try to resolve those deficiencies later today or perhaps tomorrow, as I think I may be responsible for some of them. PDGPA (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks, @PDGPA.  That's great! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl Take a look when you can, and either remove the banner or let me know what more needs to be done. PDGPA (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a slow reply, @PDGPA.


I just took a peek, and found this edit[8]. It is very nicely done: you have filled out the template fields very thoroughly. You got this figured out!


One thing, tho. The two refs which you worked on so well were not actually bare.  They were formatted crudely, and are much the better for your good work ... but they were not actually bare URLs, which are refs without any accompanying information about the linked page.


There is still one actually bare URL in the article: the last one, https://hymnary.org/node/14783?ref=related


Do you want to fill that too, and then remove the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} banner? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Table code


Hi there. Could you explain the reasoning behind the changes to the table code in this change at Mahamadou Diarra? Is "style="text-align:center;"|" to be preferred over "align="center"|" Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Hi @Robby.is.on


Short answer: yes, it is to be preferred. align=center was the markup used in old versions of HTML, but is now deprecated in facour of CSS styles.


In this case it was done automatically by WP:Reflinks when I used that tool to fill a bare URL ref.


Hope this helps. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That helps indeed. Thank you!


WP:FOOTY probably should update the table code at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics to adapt to the deprecation. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: yes, if there is a standard skeleton used for such articles, it should be updated.


Since I have the tools, would you like me to do it? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page is used as a template.


That would be great! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: 'tis done.[9] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are v welcome, Robby. It has been a pleasure to meet you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Robby.is.on (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Publishing in the Soviet Union has been nominated for merging


Category:Publishing in the Soviet Union has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting your time editing an article in my sandbox


User:Deisenbe/sandbox/Jacob Ezekiel
That article is an obsolete draft that's years old.  deisenbe (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



@Deisenbe: that edit[10] was just one of a set of 408 semi-automated edits made to implement the outcome of WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_3#Template:Cite_article.  Almost no effort involved.


If the page is an obsolete draft, it might be better to delete it or blank it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!







The Tireless Contributor Barnstar




Despite the recent outburst of drama over bare URL filling, the work you have been doing there is definitely appreciated by me and no doubt many others.  * Pppery * it has begun... 22:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Many many thanks, @Pppery -- both for the v kind barnstar, and for the very thoughtful and well-informed input you offered at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Mass_addition_of_Cleanup_bare_URLs_template  ... especially for pinging me to a discussion where the editor complaining about my work made no attempt to notify me of the discussion, and indeed seems to have intentionally omitted the basic courtesy of notification.


I despair of the Wikipedia community's willingness to tolerate timewasting mischief-makers like that one, who has chosen in that discussion to repeatedly lie and insult (apparently with impunity) ... but the pleasure of working with thoughtful, skilled decent folk like you is what keeps me here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Fox RFC


I suggest you move your comment into the bottom of the "Survey" section, please and thank you Andre🚐 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for spotting that, @Andrevan, and for the headsup.  I am tired after wasting tie fending off abuse from a serial liar in another discussion, and I guess I misread the forest of section headings.


Done[11] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, sending good vibes your way! Thanks! Andre🚐 23:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]








Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&oldid=1104950219"