Jump to content

User talk:Addshore

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David122 (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 16 February 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Addshore/scrollUser:Addshore/userboxes/talkreply

Botanical taxa orphan tagging -- completely pointless

Please don't continue tagging botanical taxa as orphans. It serves no purpose, particularly when the articles are stubs, and they're linked appropriately within their taxoboxes. Their is no purpose in linking every taxon within Wikipedia, even the most obscure, and the idea for the botanical articles is to include every taxon, as named species are notable. Tagging each and every taxon as an orphan, when it is already appropriately linked to its evolutionary position would simply result in pointless lists or just naming taxa that appear in certain areas. This adds no value, particularly to stubs So, please stop your bot creating work that need undone by human editors and thereby consuming the time of human editors that could be used researched and referencing and even linking articles. Thank you. --KP Botany (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My bot is simply out there to tag anything that is classed as an orphan as that. If you would like to discuss why these articles should not be tagged then please post a message here. Thanks for the message. -·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I posted there, they said post here, so STOP. That's all. --KP Botany (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zodon only said you should ask here if you have concerns about bot re-tagging. Otherwise, we can answer your questions at the Orphanage. --JaGatalk 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn't. --KP Botany (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford College (England)

You marked Bradford College (England) as orphaned. I have reverted it because this page was recently moved from Bradford College and I am now updating links to point to the new article (where appropriate). -- NRTurner (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand why you have untagged the article and I know you understand why it was taggged, though if the links are not added at the next scan the bot will re-tag the article. Thhanks for the message. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

New topic: how can I get started in creating bots for Wikipedia? I do have a programmer background ... thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Take a look at Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot. Really all you need is something for the bot to do and the means of doing it. Then request for the bot to be approved and your away :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, will follow you advice. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever need any more specific advice feel free to ask me :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New stubs

Tagging new stubs as orphans is absurd, especially as stubs may be created in response to article requests (by well-established process) rather than immediately to support other existing articles. At the least, move the tagging in the case of new stubs to their discussion pages. —SlamDiego←T 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The bot isn't that clever and does not know how long or how short an article is. Its jobs is to simply tag an article with an orphan tag if and when it finds it. The fact is a short stub that was created even 1 day ago is still an orphan, Therefor it would be tagged. Just wondering, what article did you disagree with this on? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orca Basin

Hi Addshore, Addbot correctly tagged Orca Basin as an orphan. I added links to the article on three other pages and then removed the tag, but now Addbot has put the tag back; am I missing something? Mikenorton (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am sorry and I think this is a bug with the list that the bot reads from. As the page has 3 links to articles now the bot should NOT tag it again. If it does get re tagged again please drop me in another message. Thanks :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Dod Armstrong Number of links of this article (6) is more than the criteria of only 3 so why is it orphaned? Daytrivia (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links. --JaGatalk 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error reporting

This edit was in error and has been reverted. --KP Botany (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is no a bug and this page will probabbly be retagged automaticly. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another error

This error was also in error and has been reverted. I don't see the point of this tag in article space, and on a microbrewery article just begs the creation of wikicrap. --KP Botany (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. On its next full sweep the bot will retag the article as an orphan as it only has 2 links to the article space, Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#Number of Links. As for your opinion on the tags, they may not help the reader but they help the people trying to improve the articles. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. Because I am the person trying to improve the articles, and they didn't help me. So, your bot has decided that the only thing I can spend my time on on Wikipedia is removing its tags. You sent me to that crapfest already, and they sent me back here. Guess what I have to say to that?
I am really tired of editors who waste my time with crap like this. --KP Botany (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only one trying to improve the articles, the tags will help all of the people in the Orphanage wiki project. The tag is just like a big arrow saying somethign else needs to link here. If somebody links 3 articles to it then it is removed. Simple. And if you have removed it without the article having 3 or more links from the articls space then it will simply be re added at a letter date. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're NOT editing plant species articles. I am. Or I was. But now, apparently I am tasked with fighting your bot, just because a project is trying to create a need for itself. So, fine, you don't want me to write articles, edit articles, revert vandalism. The only worthy task is reverting your bot. --KP Botany (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the way you take words out of my mouth I have not said. Of course I want you to write articles and edit articles and revert vandalism. Reverting my bot isnt exactly a worthy task, you will be there for a long time (infinity). And the Orphanage will edit all the articles with the Orphan tags on, thats the point of them. The tags may look ugly and if you think they should be changed suggest it but they have been used for years. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This tag has not been used for years on the plant articles I've been editing. If it had been, I would have seen it on these articles that I reverted, which were not exactly new articles. Link the bot approval page that shows where you got approval to add this tag to plant species stubs. And, who exactly in the orphan article project is editing these plant species articles? No one. So don't tell me something that isn't true. --KP Botany (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have been used on these articles before but it has been used globally on Wikipedia and has been accepted. You are being insanely pecific to the plant species stubs here in my opinion. -·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal insults are not necessary. I am not being "insanely" specific to plant species stubs, I don't mind the tag on the other articles where I've seen it, good god. --KP Botany (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addbot

As far I'm aware, the wiki software (MediaWiki) determines orphaned-ness based on whether or not there's one incoming link to an article. Your bot appears to be marking articles that have less than 2(?) links. This has several issues:

  1. I don't see any approval from WP:BAG or the specific bot approval page regarding using an arbitrary number to consider whether a page is orphaned.
  2. I don't see consensus anywhere (including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage) to base orphaned-ness on an arbitrary number.

Please clarify or adjust the bot. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up the question I would like answered, where is the bot's approval and specific bot approval page for what it is doing? Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a chat with MZMcBride so here are some key things i said.
[1] Is the BRFA. I have been told (as i have been told before) that a brfa is not needed for a simple code change or source change. The line this bot fits under is "If the page is an orphan the bot will add {{orphan|date=*****}}".
All of the pages tagged are orphans per this and are sourced from this. The bot has now stopped editing an I ill open up a new BRFA again for this task (in mroe detail). ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA now located here ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, everything Addbot has tagged thus far has zero links, not even from lists. It's based on this toolserver report I created, which in turn is based on WikiProject Orphanage criteria. The report is organized so Addbot tagged zero-link orphans before anything else. The Orca Basin tagging report above happened because of an edit conflict, so to speak; Addbot loaded a list of zero-link orphans, an editor added links to the article, and then Addbot tagged it. I removed the tag myself, but if I hadn't, JL-bot would've picked it up on its next de-orphan tagging run. --JaGatalk 09:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that's not the criteria given about lonely pages, which is, supposedly, a synonym for orphans. And the wikiproject orphanage declares it must have three links to it. For an obscure organism, the probability will be that only one link to it will exist from either a genus, family (plants) or order (animals) depending upon how obscure, and if the genus/ family or order page has a list of species. This means, these will always be tagged as orphans, with a tag, at the top of the, bigger and more attention-getting than the text of the stub itself. The wikiproject orphanage editors are not editing species articles as far as I can see. So, you've distracted the reader from the article, and you've not gotten any editing help, but you've occupied the time of editors to remove your tags, so that readers can actually read the limited text that's in the article. A zero-link orphan may be just that, a zero-link orphan. However, since it has a taxobox, the user can get around to the genus, family or order articles, just fine. If they're not totally confused by the orphan tag, which then takes them to a page that's a wikiproject page, not a policy page explaining what an orphaned article is.
So, I should trash out other articles, making them unreadable, to link obscure species to as many as three articles to remove the orphan tag so a wikiproject can, .... I don't know. With even some tribes of the Asteraceae, this would mean creating articles that are hundreds of thousands of bytes in length to satisfy wikiproject orphan. How is that going to help the reader? It's not. --KP Botany (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well im getting bored of all these long messages, why dont we all stop fighting and come up with something sensible? Such as i change to bot so it will only edit pages over a certain length or it will ignore all stubs? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue over the Orca Basin article. Just to make it clear that without the bot I wouldn't have got around to adding the links on other pages and the same is true of a group of articles that I'm watching that have recently been tagged (I'll be working on them over the next few days). The tag is a very useful spur to get on and create links, I have no problem with it, I just thought that it might be malfunctioning in the particular case I mentioned above. As to your suggestion Addshore, I would say yes to minimum article length as a criteria, but no to ignoring all stubs. Mikenorton (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need spurring on, I'm not a draft animal, I'm a human volunteer. --KP Botany (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered adding the template to the talk page instead? This would still prompt editors to correct biota links, without cluttering up the header. The information is of no use to our readers, the reason that Pelargonium drummondii was orphaned was that nobody had got around to making a list of the 200 species of Pelargonium. cygnis insignis 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Addbot, and per the documentation on Template:Orphan the tag should be added to the top of the article. Maybe it would make a good change for mantainence tags to be moved? ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging a very specific page

COST Hata model has been marked as orphan. I am not sure this makes sense. That page is the child of COST 231 Model, which is a disambiguation link pointed from many pages.--Pot (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see from Special:WhatLinksHere/COST_Hata_model It should be tagged. It has only a single link in but at this current time the criteria for the bot may be getting changed. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Your addbot is faulty, very much so. That it added the orphan template to the given name article Ardian, overflowing with links & context, is astounding. It's also an astounding waste of time to revert the addbot. A from L.A. (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. An Orphan is when an article has little or no incomming links. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Ardian the article has no incomming links from the article space. The tag was added rightly. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was reverted rightly. Where would you link an incomming link? In Albanian language? In Ardiaei? In Albanian name? Add that template again and I'll revert you again and report you for being a nuisance. A from L.A. (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like threats but anyway th bot hasnt edited today as we try to resolve what is going to happen with all this. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well never mind I was in a bad mood. You understand some of the problems with your bot and it's up to you to consider these things beforehand. A from L.A. (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well as far as I was aware there were set criteria for what was and what was not an Orphan. But it seems there are many disagreements now over what I presumed to be written "in stone". ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 17:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case with Ardian and some other articles, your bot was not faulty, it's a case of a criteria not being widely known and in my opinion not really suited to reality :Wikipedia:ORPHAN#You_can_help.21. However your bot is "faulty, and very much so", as shown by the cases being linked below, so I was right :) A from L.A. (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will ever be bug, At least I can fix bugs, unfortunatly I cant fix peoples opinions :P ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BotMalfunction

See this diff, your bot deleted virtually the entire contents of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reports, the last artie you reported will be an easy fix, It is simply the bot read the article from the list and by time it had got around to editing it the article had been deleted.
The other two links I will try to locate to problem and fix it. Thanks for the report. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why this article was labeled as orphaned. The article has plenty of references. Also, please check the name on Google books. In addition, below, are the APA Style references and some additional ones: If you would like please include them into the article if this does not meet the Wikipedia's standards. Thank you! David122

References:

1. Nicoleta, Vieru. (2006, December 12). Iassy’s dissidents, the pylons of Romanian dissidence. Ziarul de Iasi.

2. Open Society Archives (1988, April 6). Weekly Record of Events in Estern Europe. Daily Liberation.


3. United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations. (1990). Pace of democratic reforms and status of human rights in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. The Supt. of Docs: Congressional Sales Office, U.S. G.P.O.

4. Tismaneanu, V. (2006). Statement of the President of Romania Mr. Traian Basescu, at the Romanian Parliament. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from Romanian Presidential Webpage Web site: http://www.presidency.ro/index.php?_RID=det&tb=date&id=8288&_PRID=search

5. Lucian Gheorghiu, Alina Mihai. (2006, December 19). Commnunism’s phantom fights until the last moment. Cotidianul.


6. Craig Smith, S. (2006, December 19). Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule. The New York Times

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Addshore&oldid=271196493"