This is an archive of past discussions about User:Magioladitis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not exactly. The shell takes more parameters than just 1=. For example blp= and activepol=. KingbotK will stuck or have abnormal behaviour if 1= is missing. The template accidentally works fine without the parameter. If you read the code the parameter is needed. Moreover, the expansion is done in order to help new editors to understand what the template is about. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
However, neither |blp= nor |activepol= is either present or needed in either article. The last time I checked none of those who tweaked the template into its current configuration knew why the template worked just fine without |1= but most agreed that it did. Adding the parameter does not count as a "fix" to the pointless expansion of the name of the template which was the point of the first objection. JimCubb (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What is more it is an incident that occurred 943 years ago so no BLP issues are involved. This is the second time in two weeks your bot has tagged this article as a biography and will be the second time in two weeks that I will undo the edit. Should there be a third time I will consider it vandalism and report it as such. JimCubb (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP stands for "Biographies of Living people". WPBiography is not only about BLP's. If you think that the article is not part of WikiProject Biography I have a list of false positives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
AWB bot Buckeye Community Changes (School)
Hi! I noticed that you ran the AWB on the Buckeye, Colorado page. When I went to AWB, the page says the bot is down. As a result, the paragraph starting with "In 1960," disappeared. This article is currently undergoing major expansion, and I appreciate any work you want to put in on it, but I did revert your changes as it eliminated about a third of the text. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I found what you meant! Your first message was a bit confusing. :) Please confirm that I fixed the problem. Thanks again! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed! Thanks so much. Still learning the software, saw your note about 2 columns. I assure you, mere incompetence on my part:-) Oberonfitch (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Mdst / Mdstype
Would you be so kind as to revert your deletion of this template MDST ; its deletion is detrimental to the article TruthbearerPhilogo (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to revert your deletion of this template Mdstype ; its deletion is detrimental to the article Truthbearer --Philogo (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for considering doing autoinheritance. Once caveat is that if a biography tag already exists and already has a class rating, the regex seems to add another one. It's tough to code around this being that Biography often has its banner on multiple lines, so the regex has to be singleline. Given that Yobot typically only visits a page to add a new Bio tag where none existed before, I don't think this will be a big issue. –xenotalk12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I ll try to adjust it to run your script only in pages without WPBiography. I noticed that in some cases auto=yes and auto=inherit co-exist. Is this also caused by your script? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think a solution would be to remove the "pre-cleaning" parts of the Find/replace. Yobot should already be adding a proper Bio banner that doesn't need precleansing. –xenotalk12:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... that's really difficult. I corrected them manually since Kingbtok opens bad tags in browser. There were very few and that's why I didn't bother to report them or investigate it further. I'll have some test runs probably during weekend because I need to reorganise by settings first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I found one by looking thru your contribs. It looks like it was because Rich is improperly using the auto=yes parameter [3]. –xenotalk13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I just realised, the answer to why those tools (livingparam 1 and 2) aren't on my contents page is that I designed them for me - or rather, for User:LivingBot, rather than for public consumption. I guess you're probably acting in a similar area though, so you're welcome to them :). - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]20:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it is evident that you don't read the comments section of the pages that you graffiti, would you make a point of not repeatedly messing this page up. I have read you categories of contributions and it appears that programming is not among your expertise. An assembler is almost a purely technical matter with detailed citation and direct proof by weight of code example, your repeated graffiti on this page amounts to vandalism, please ceace and desist OR at least read the comments page.
Hutch48 (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm very pleased that you're now starting to contribute to the AWB source code. However, if you update a regex I think you should make sure you add unit tests to cover the new functionality e.g. adding some more to the list for the article issues template logic. Thanks Rjwilmsi16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magioladitis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 279 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
I answered in el.wiki :P Every time you leave me a message there just drop me a short message here because mail delivery is really sloooooow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
We fixed the bug. Thanks for reporting. It will be part of the new release. We need more feedback from the Greek Wikipedia! Maybe I' ll start a discussion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)
Afghan security forces losses in other time periods
2010
In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.
January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.<ref>http://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1617428.html</ref>
January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.<ref>http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SHIG-7ZSJ7K?OpenDocument, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE60G01W.htm</ref>
January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan</ref>
Afghan private security guard losses
January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.<ref>http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx</ref><ref>Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district.
Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation.
"Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yobot user page
On the Yobot user page, it states "Use "unknown" if the information is unlikely to be found be editors." I think this should be "Use "unknown" if the information is unlikely to be found by editors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyets (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks. As xeno wrote: Be bold! I would appreciate if I get some help to make this guide more comprehensive. xeno can I use your instructions for the assessment? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Καλησπέρα! Για να δοκιμάσω το AWB στην Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια πρέπει να πάρω άδεια από εδώ ή τοπικά στην ελληνική; Δεν έβγαλα άκρη. Ευχαριστώ! --Egmontaz♤talk16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Το είχα βάλει και μου πέταξε μήνυμα ότι δεν έχω δικαίωμα να το χρησιμοποιήσω και δεν δοκίμασα κάτι άλλο για αυτό ρώτησα. Θα το δοκιμάσω τώρα αν είναι, ευχαριστώ! --Egmontaz♤talk17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw here you named a BBC news ref as "news.bbc.co.uk". This is not a useful ref name as in an article such as this there are likely to be numerous citations to articles hosted on news.bbc.co.uk. I would suggest giving such ref a more unambiguous name, such as one incorporating the file name or article title. Thanks --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
All WPBiography banners must be tagged with living. For many reasons: a) We know that we checked them. b) The blp tag will remain even if the WPBS is gone for some reason (for example other projects lose interest on the article). Articles without living parameter are located in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. WikiProject Biography has decied to add living parameter in all cases. Thus, we add living=no as well at the same time we clean nested=no and needs-image=no for example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Points A and B I understand. With regards to "Articles without living parameter are located in Category:Biography articles without living parameter," because that category is hidden (I didn't see it), and because my edit put the page in Category:Biography articles of living people, I assumed that was sufficient. My apologies. Thank you for clearing that up.--Rockfang (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I admit, categories on talk pages aren't my strongest point, but I think having it not hidden would be my suggestion. If for no other reason than it could possibly decrease any misunderstandings like this one. I do understand that having some hidden categories on non-talk article pages is good though.--Rockfang (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
[4] is an example of an edit where Yobot does nothing but change a single HTML character entity reference ö to the corresponding Unicode character ö—on an article talk page! This is both unapproved behavior and extremely undesirable, because it makes it impossible to discuss character entities versus Unicode (e.g., you can't ask, "Which of these can you see: ö, ö?" because Yobot will make them the same). Please remove this behavior and make sure that Yobot does not edit any more talk pages. Thank you. Ozob (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary on AWB edits to religious texts project
Your edit summary to the Religious Texts Project reads: "(expanding WikiProject Religious texts to make it reabale, replaced: WPRT2 → WikiProject Religious texts using AWB)" I think by "reabale" you mean readable. I doubt this is a big deal if I am correct but I wanted to give you a heads up. Supertouch (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Why have you deleted this? He is not only a self-published author but a published author both in magazine and book, current and in the past, for over TEN YEARS now. After seeing this deleted I have spent time looking through MANY other wiki entries of bands and writers who have garnered FAR less media attention then he (The Darth Side for example was featured on 2 television programmes, radio interviews and in magazines in New Zealand, Singapore and the united states and Canada with millions of readers) Is there some sort of personal issue here? I have been asked by fans numerous times why there is no wiki entry for Cheeseburger. Your statement "Self-published author. No sign of notice by the world at large except minor ones.'" is false. He is not only a self-published author, (although it is true there are more of the self-published books), and it seems to me that what you mean is no sign of notice by YOU, the world at large has noticed him a great deal through the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.102.163 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The both are redirects with quotes to articles with the same name without quotes. There is a consensus of not having this kind or redirects. In the past I sent to RfD tenths of them and started speeding them the last year without any problem. What would be the reason to have these redirects since if you use the search box with quotes the result would be the same? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to take into account WP users who navigate by methods other than the search box, such as using the Special pages utility, or using outside search engines, or typing an article title into their browser's address bar. Aren't Redirects very, very cheap? And fundamentally, those redirects do not fit the R3 policy: you maybe using it on these articles "without any problem," but as currently written the policy does not apply to these articles. On a related point, I would be interested in seeing the RfDs on some of these types of articles if you could point me to them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful, but in a quick scan of the list, it does not appear that any of those deleted redirects are actual quotations; the two I am asking about are. I think it is very reasonable for a WP user looking for an article on something that somebody said, or a phrase somebody wrote, to find it within quotation marks (via redirect). Accordingly, I am going to recreate those two, and if you wish to bring them to RfD I would be happy to see what the consensus is through that process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The second one was deleted in the past for the same reason from another administrator. Anyway, you have some point that these are phrases so they are expected to be in quotes. I'll do some more research on the subject. I won't start an RfD for these cases, at least not now. I spent a lot of time cleaning this stuff so I prefer if a strict policy was formulated. Thanks for the communication/cooperation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Non-BLPs marked unreferencedBLP
Commerce minister has repeatedly been tagged as category:Living people and later unreferencedBLP. Yobot seems to have done this first; similar tags were then added by AWB users or other bots. I think I've fixed this by removing an internal link to Faruk Khan, the (living) Commerce Minister of Bangladesh. I wonder if there are other non-BLP pages being tagged as unreferencedBLP. Cnilep (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yobot replaced BD. Check [5]. The mistake was earlier because someone thought Template:BD would give the flag of Bangladesh. Removing the flase categories (YOB missing (living people) and Living people) will fix the problem for good!. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I've got them now. YOB missing was not showing up in the Categories: box, I guess because that {BD} was placed in the middle of other text. Cnilep (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I guess you're the right person to ask on this topic. There's some confusion about two entries in the list:
2002, November 1: Two CH-47 Chinook helicopters collided in Afghanistan.One of them crashed ,another was repaired later.
2003, November 6: UH-1N Huey crashes at Kandahar air base Camp Rhino.
The only known source for these crashes is a Russian list compiled by some A. Bukov. I'm not sure this list is a reliable source. For example, it claims that there were 10 people killed in the Chinook crash on 28 Jan 2002. By the way, Camp Rhino isn't used since 2002. What do you think about it? Creo11 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless you consider all articles about newspapers to be biographical but not biographies of living people, you may want to add this page to your list of false positives. I removed the banner. JimCubb (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not a false positive. The problem was the xxxx births category that was present to the article. The problem was occurred by another editor's mistake that used birth age template in a newspaper infobox. Check my fix to both. This means Yobot won't touch the article in the future. JimCubb, you can help fixing these mistakes by replacing/removing the wrong categories of the articles when you find them. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
AWB use on talk pages
Good day to you, I have been playing with using AWB to review and correct some issues with talk pages, specifically regarding medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed that it is very very slow. Currently it takes between 30 seconds and a minute to update a talk page once I hit save but I was wondering if there was anything that can be done to speed this up. I am not even using any of the plugins yet (still need to figure them out). --Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This is the response. "It's not AWB, simple ?action=purge on one of those pages gives 'Served by srv163 in 18.066 secs'. It's those perverted templates used for wikiproject tagging cruft." -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, So is there something we can do to the templates or the pages themselves to allow AWB to edit them faster?--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
When working with talkpages, I disactivate everything that is necessary. For example, I never use section edit summaries, etc. This improves speed a bit. Unfortunately I don't have any better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
AWB
Hello Magioladitis. I wanted to mention some of your edits using AWB. Especially to the articles Jumbles Reservoir, Queen's Park, Bolton, Seven Acres Country Park, Bolton, Victoria Park, Swinton, and Jumbles Country Park. I used the command <b>text</b> to put the place names in bold in the UK place infobox. AWB changed that to three apostrophes; which made the place name appear in italics with a single apostrophe on either side. You first made this change to the Queen's Park article. I undid that change with a note in the edit summary explaining why, but you redid the change, so I've re-undone it.[6] Please don't change it again: it doesn't look right. Also some changes you made to the Victoria Park article broke the infobox and it was returning a red link. I've fixed that too. Please try and look at the page after you have edited it. You would have seen the misplaced apostrophes and the broken infobox. Thanks a lot. -- Fly by Night (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just remembered why I used the command <b>text</b>. I wanted the place name on the map itself to be in bold, and not just the name at the top of the infobox. The place name is hard to read with all of the borough division lines. -- Fly by Night (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
KINDLY REVISE THE STATUS OF THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS TAGGED WITH 'ORPHAN ARTICLE'. I HAVE UPDATED THE ARTICLE WITH SUITABLE LINKS. PLZ DO CLEARLY MENTION ANY FURTHER CHANGES REQUIRED IN ARTICLE. THANKS.
Amit Yadav 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"Orphan" status has to do not with links on the articles but links to other articles targeting the article. Please find articles related to Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Disease and link them there. If you need more help with that please leave me a message. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I read somewhere that it was better to use {{WPBS}} instead of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}... and, I replaced many templates WikiProjectBannerShell with WPBSs /o\ (I thought WPBS was a new enhanced version of the WikiProjectBannerShell and not a redirect.) It was my mistake... I'm really sorry... and you are totally right. Please, forgive me. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected many of the talk pages I edited before by replacing "talkheader" with "Talk header" and WPBS with WikiProjectBannerShell. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
On Orphaned article
Geia sou file, efxaristw gia ti symvoli sou sto arthro Blackthorn (comics). Wstoso, tha vgalw to "Orphaned" tag, efoson yparxei toulaxiston ena link pou odigei sto arthro kai stis epomenes meres kai efoson prosthesw kai allous xaraktires tis en logw seiras, tha prostethoun perissotera. Xanthi22 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have recently encountered a couple of things with AWB while working with talk pages and I wanted to ask what logic, if any, AWB has in place for talk page edits. For example here are a few things that I have noticed:
It seems to be changing Talk header to a redirect of talkheader.
It seems to be moving the talk header template to the top of the page, above the skip to talk template which goes against Wikipedia:Talk page layout.
if I use the talk page plugin it also adds things to banners such as task forces but most of them are based on redirects and in my opinion, if its being added it should go to the page rather than a redirect.
I was also wondering what the possibility would be of adding some logic to AWB while woriking with talk pages. For example some think I think would be useful or helpful would be:
Add logic to ensure that the templates on the talk page follow the correct order per Wikipedia:Talk page layout
add the WPbiography banner for biographical articles that don't have it already.
add/fix talk page banners based on items on the corresponding article page. For example if a category states they are a union soldier and they do not have the ACW task force then it could add it.
Let's start with the first bunch of stuff. Which version/svn do you have at the moment? (you can check in your Help->About window for that.) Do you have a diff to show me? By talk page plugin you mean the KingbotK plugin?
Thanks for the help. Yes your right its the KingbotK plugin, the SVN is the most recent one, I just loaded it this morning, SVN6179. I will take a look for a page diff but I didn't make the AWB suggested change. I just skipped to the next one. I shut down AWB restarted my computer and reloaded the most recent SVN and know it seems to have stopped changing the talkheader and it seems to be movig the talk header and skip to talk templates to the right places now. Maybe when I loaded it the first time something wasn't right..not quite sure. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. It seems it's a bug we fixed at some point and you were running an older snapshot. Next time if you find a bug like that first save and then revert your edit.
Thanks for the help. I did have one thing that came up and that was AWB changed the cadency for an article from IV to Iv. I saved and reverted it as you suggested and here is the link to that one.--Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I already knew about that. Read WP:AWB/FR. More editors asked for the same thing. Better write this stuff as bugs or feature requests so we can put them in an order and implement a lot of them. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
--> Article was created by User:Lopez Negrete Communications in 100% html code. Another editor without any edits, User:Cgiambi, removed all tags. I thin k the article is self-published and Wikipedia is not the place of self-promotion. Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC) <--
I'm a third-party consultant outside of the company that contacted me to help them - as a favor - with legitimizing their entry. I have no ties to the company other than that. According to what I've read in the Wikipedia manual on Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) this entry follows all those guidelines. Everything in there is factual and cannot be negated - there are articles referenced there which prove that. The edits were made by myself and by my colleague MVelez (where you saw the 100%HTML code - there's no rule that says we cannot program the entry in HTML).
This entry was NOT created for self-promotion - I wouldn't have done anything to do with it if it did. The company contacted me and MVelez to legitimize their web presence. This is no different than the entries for Walmart or Bank of America which are referenced in our entry.
So, what can I do to keep you from deleting this? Help me with this please.
Hi Magioladitis! I run a bot using the kingbotk plugin on AWB, but it doesn't seem to be working with the newer AWB versions. Do you know of any work-arounds for this exception? Thanks a lot and cheers! Arbitrarily0(talk)13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Leacking a discussion with Reedy about the plugin:
<Reedy> Magioladitis, need to have a think. How much of a future does the plugin have? Is it worth me rebuilding from the ground up in C# later this year?
<Magioladitis> I think the first direction of this template was to do genfixes in talk pages too. Now are moving in adding these genfixes in the main code so it won't get expanded anymore. It's only use is to tag and assess. People will never stop doing that as long as projects exist.
<Reedy> Indeed. The idea at some point was to rebuild it to make it much more generic and reusable
<Magioladitis> we need to move all genfixes to the main code if any left
<Reedy> sure. Probably quite a lot. Maybe start an action plan for it
Very much so, thanks! The reason I've been pestering you is that I have a couple of pending WikiProject tagging requests to run through Arbitrarily0Bot. No rush though, just feel free to drop me a note when things get cleared up. Thanks so much for your help, Arbitrarily0(talk)22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
We are releasing a new version right now but we didn't fix the bug yet. Running in bot mode won't catch any bug. You can run it without any fear. The bug occurs only by pressing Start twice of something similar. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've tried it out and everything works again! I've only one thing left to say: exceptional work!:) Thanks greatly for your time, take excellent care! Arbitrarily0(talk)03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A month ago you wrote on Yobot's talk page that all the tagging of musical works had been stopped and that all the tags had been reverted. This article was tagged yesterday. I found it because the banner lacked a |listas= and deleted the banner. JimCubb (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You should have noticed that this article had birth-death categories in it! I just removed them. The last time was because a category was wrongly subcategorised. In fact, we sti have to remove the infobox person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is gone. This is an example of the danger of automated edits. An editor puts a template where it does not belong. A bot comes along more than a year later, perpetuates the error and, in some cases, makes it worse. JimCubb (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
...or helps us discover the error and fix it. :) An unnecessary banner in the talk page is not a big deal comparing to a messed up article. WPBiography has over than 600,000 banners. We of course would like to have them all perfect but I still discover banners incorrectly placed for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this edit where Yobot added an orphan tag. But the article has 2 good incoming links (and that is all I would expect). Shouldn't the orphan tag be manually checked so errors like this don't happen?--Commander Keane (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
An article is not orphan if it at least 3 incoming links according to the official definition. There is a discussion to informelly reduce this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) If you are quoting Wikipedia:Orphan, the rest of paragraph is "only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles". The bot should not be adding the orphan tag, do you agree it was an error in this case?--Commander Keane (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If AWB's autotagging is to blame then maybe I should take it up with that person instead, I don't want Wikipedia articles sullied by stray orphan tags.
I am quoting Orphan, yes. It's true that "Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all" but this doesn#t mean that articles with 2 incoming links are not orphans! I agree that I souldn't add this tag but for the reasons above. It's also true that no mass orphan tagging should be made to articles having 1 or 2 incoming links to help people fix the rest. I recently got approval to put my bot help reducing the number of orphan tags. Big mess was caused in the past from a WP:AWB`s bug which we fixed. --Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
HTML comments
You left a message on my talk page that mentions a Unicodify issue with AWB, but my bug report was about HTML comments. I just tested using rev 6237 and the problem was not fixed. I left a note on the AWB page. In case there was a relationship between the two issues, I tested twice: once with Unicodify whole page on, and once with it off. No difference. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magioladitis. I noticed that you modified that tags on some articles about Egyptian football clubs from unreferenced or unsourced to BLPunreferenced and BLP unsourced (e.g., Al-Hammam). Since these articles are about organizations, not persons, I have changed them back, but please check and see if I missed any. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been using this page off and on as a Wikignome and noticed you were editing this page after completing sections - should I be doing that when I clean up a page here and there or only if I wipe out an entire section. If I should be editing it, do I need to worry about deleting section headers and messing up the new daily data? Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I am still learning about talk page edits so I hope you don't mind me asking this questions but I have seen a few categories on talk pages that I think should not be there. One example is birth and death categoies like Talk:Aaron B. Tompkins. Do you know if there is anywhere that tells if this is right or wrong? --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Ops, I'm very sorry because of the error. I enabled cosmetic changes for all wikis where my bot edits and I didn't realize that I have added more cosmetic changes to the ones in the original file. Now I have disabled cosmetic changes. Muro de Aguas(write me)17:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No: in my cosmetic changes file I only have DEFAULTSORT→ORDENAR, thumb|right→thumb and other minor fixes. On eswiki there are no stub templates (all of them were removed), so I don't know why my bot did that. Muro de Aguas(write me)17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Removing <noinclude>
Hi, in this edit you removed <noinclude> / </noinclude>. I've never seen AWB do this for me, so I'm wondering if it may be something in your personalized settings or a plugin which you may be using. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM18:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I did this manually. It's hard to tell where this noinclude came from. Sometimes some editors substs templates, sometimes they just copy the, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That page is transcluded by 2009 ATP World Tour Finals, so the <noinclude> is supposed to be there. Personally, I think it's often a bad idea to transclude pages other than those in Template space, but it's done a lot, so we unfortunately just have to deal with it.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just checking your test edits. I had no idea. Maybe we need to add a hidden comment then. I don't like the idea of transcluing pages. I noticed that in an episode list of a tv series and the result was a mess of references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There isn't much we can do since adding a space at this position is considered as adding small within the <b></b> tag used to highlight the bracket.
There is a bot, called FrescoBot, fixing all the cases like he one you described. So bracket and character with no space will become really rare in the short future.
Feel free to leave a message to Rjwilmsi and/or Reedy directly and ask if they can do something about it.
No problem. Unfortunately they are about 400 articles to which I didn't manage to add the reference because they didn't fit the pattern. Do you want this list? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, at WT:AWB/B#Human DEFAULTSORT (The Mc case), you accidentally said that the DEFAULTSORT should be "George Macfarland" when, of course, it should be "Macfarland, George". (And I should know. I've probably fixed and/or added well over ten thousand Mc/Mac sort keys.) I don't edit talk page comments of other users, so I left it for you to correct yourself. Oh, and you also forgot to sign it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting. I just asked to be sure because I though it may be a mistake. I read your message more carefully after xeno's comment. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
unit tests for LinkFGAsItalian – refer to wrong regex
how can i write some instructions in a word's talk page or the words of a category by AWB.
Is it possible to use AWB in UBUNDU (9.10).If possible, please give the details. thanks in advance.தகவலுழவன் (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)(ta.wiktionarian)
Tagging
Resolved
I do not understand why Yobot has attached the {WP biography} tag to, for example, the Eddie "Guitar" Burns article page that I created on 24 February 2010 (which is fine), but has not for the following:-
It really is not meant to be a criticism, but it baffles me a little bit. I am not particularly Wiki technically minded, so possibly the explanation may be beyond me. Perhaps what I am really saying is, can the necessary be done for these articles ? Of course, I have a COI in that I almost exclusively created these particular articles.
The first article is about a person that is alive. Another bot located newly created articles about alive persons and I tag them for WPBiography. The other articles are abut person who are dead. I am giving priority to alive persons in order to add a BLP tag. Yobot runs either in listas created by other bots like the one I described above or in categories that guarantee that all the persons insides are either dead or alive. For example 2001 deaths. In User:Yobot#Logs you can see which categories I choose every day. Conclusion, the articles you showed me are in categories I haven't ran Yobot in the last 2 months. I ll try to tag them soon but keep in mind that Yobot won't be running for the next 2 weeks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Magioladitis:
I wanted to thank you for placing the orphan tag on the "John Whitfield Bunn and Jacob Bunn" article a while back. I followed your advice and was able to connect the Bunn Brothers article to at least twenty different existing Wikipedia articles whose contents were relevant in some way to the lives and careers of the Bunn Brothers. If you see any other articles that might connect to the Bunn article in some way, then please let me know, or feel free to establish a link. Thank you again for your suggestion. Your suggestion has helped to bring the Bunn Brothers article into far greater contextual nexus with other Wikipedia articles. --Sincerely, biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphan Tag on Bunn Brothers Article
Dear Magioladitis:
I apologize for the duplicate message, but I was afraid the first message did
not format correctly for your talk page. So, here it is again. . .
I wanted to thank you for placing the orphan tag on the "John Whitfield Bunn
and Jacob Bunn" article a while back. I followed your advice and was able to
connect the Bunn Brothers article to at least twenty different existing Wikipedia
articles whose contents were relevant in some way to the lives and careers of the
Bunn Brothers. If you see any other articles that might connect to the Bunn article
in some way, then please let me know, or feel free to establish a link. Thank
you again for your suggestion. Your suggestion has helped to bring the Bunn Brothers
article into far greater contextual nexus with other Wikipedia articles.
--Sincerely, biogcontrib109 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biogcontrib109 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the inappropriate relisting. Fresh consensus is to retain the redirect, and the correct forum in which to dispute this is WP:DRV. —David Levy18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, I wanted to let you know that I have left comments for the article you nominated for an A-class review here. Please feel free to read and respond to any of them!
Any image which is licensed under an attribution-required license (such as GFDL, LPGL, cc-by-sa, etc.) requires attribution. This is typically provided in the form of a link to an image description page - so delinking such images (e.g.) is a violation of their license. For future reference. Cheers, –xenotalk17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Re:titles
My name is Ichiro Kikuchi and please help. "Matsugaoka Hoyoen Sanatorium" should be "Matsuoka Hoyoen Sanatorium" and can I change ?
Likewise," Kumamoto, Kumamoto" should be "Kumamoto". I don't know why this mistake has remained so long. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
WPBiography parameter
Hi. When I started adding {{WPBiography}} to talk pages a long time ago, I used Yobot's edits as a guide for which parameters to include (plus I always add "listas"). But, checking the template's documentation, it appears that "priority" is not currently a valid parameter. Yobot still adds this, and I'm wondering, is this there any reason that this parameter should be used? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that you run at least one bot so I was hoping to ask you a question. I have been working with talk pages recently and have been trying to cleanup the talk pages for the Medal of Honor recipients (and I may move onto others as I get more comfortable) and I have noticed some things that I think could be botable. Here are a few that I have found.
If priority, military priority or importance is missing set them as low.
If the B class checklist is in place for articles assessed as other than start or B then remove it (there seems to be quite a lot of stubs with the b class template and missing the assessment).
If an edit is already being made then replace the old and long milhist assessment description "B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations." with the new shorter one "Referencing and citations". Again this would only be done if other edits are happening at the same time.
The normal AWB talk page edits could also be done at the same time such as adding the section of Unknown to the first comment if its missing a section or separating talkheader into Talk header.
some list as are showing first name last name format and should be changed to Last name, first name
adding taskforces or criteria to the biography or milhist banners such as US if its a US person or biography if its a biography.
replacing Class=C with Class=Start for milhist articles since the milhist project doesn't use C class.
Any others that might be needed that I haven't thought of yet.
Also is there a way to make a change to the article or the talk page by looking at the other. For example, adding the persondata or infobox needed flags to the talk page if the article is missing them or removing them if the infobox or persondata has been added. Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
KINGBOYK plugin
With all of the problems currently identified with this plugin and the low priority that the AWB developement team has put on them (as preceived by various comments made on the AWB project pages) I am going to stop using this plugin. I am finding that I have to closely scrutinize every change this thing makes and having only recently started trying to use it, have completely lost confidence in its ability to find and fix problems. I would honestly recommend that unless the plugin can be fixed it should be restricted from use because there is a huge potential for it to do more harm than good. --Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I ll try to answer to both your messages: This plugin has to be rewritten but this won't happen before summer. Th original creators stopped supporting the plugin and we are trying to patch it and make it workable. The 2 ideas I worked with were: Remove any old, unnecessary suff and move some stuff to general fixes for talk pages. In this way the code is simplified and easier to be rewritten. I think we can fix some parts soon in a way the bot you are suggesting above to run. Did you try to make any test edits with your account? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I sounded a bit snippy, that wasn't my intention and that certainly makes sense from the programming aspect. I have been making some changes but I was trying to use the plugin to see what logic it had but seems as though its too difficult to overcome its limitations at this time and I am going to need to do them all manually. With that said I could start my own bot but I also don't think its in the best interest of the project if we have multiple bots all doing like things on the same articles so if there is a bot that currently exists that does changes to talk pages already it would be better to add the changes I have proposed to it. IMO. I know that your bot does some changes but there are also other bots that do some as well so unless there is a reason you can think of that I should create yet another bot to do them I would recommend adding them to one thats already running. Some might argue otherwise but I don't feel compelled to create a bot simply for the sake of saying I have one. I also need to rewrite some of my changes into regex to be more efficient (mostly just manual find and replace currently till I get the flow of things). --Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You can always join the AWB IRC channel and we can discuss what it has to be done. My bot can run in Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor but I'll need some help to create the settings file. From you list: 4 is automatic, 1,6 and 7 are no problem. 3 too but I could be easier just to do it for any case. 2 it should be a big problem but I ll need someone to know Regex better than myself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
you're bot removed expand (section) links on Pwn2Own. Why? I don't think that this behavior is correct! or should it really? mabdul23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In this article exactly? The one above is a red link. General rule: By instructions if an article is a STUB, we don't add expand on it. If the article is a stub then this automatically means it has to be expanded. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the article you meant and I fixed your comment. It seems you are right. [8], if we remove stub then we should not remove expand. I think I can fix this. Very nice catch! Thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it appears to be every article containing the word "Spider", including but not limited to all the Spider-Man articles and a large chunk of Marvel Comics articles. Once again, the edits are nevertheless constructive but probably something you should fix before getting Yobot to do anything more substantial. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)·
Hm... I am running in the subcategories of Cat:Insects. It must be some crazy path that leads to... Spiderman. I hate when this happens. The problem is only in the edit summary. The "Tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects" was added my me. Yobot won't affect articles that don't have WikiProject Insects templates. It will only do some genfixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As you see the page itslef wasn't affected. Some crazy path in the categories structure lead to this. I loaded Cat:Insects and all its subcategories. I took some measures to make the problem not visible, now Yobot skips pages if the old templates didn't found. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Found! Insects -> Insect products -> Silk -> Silk Road -> Cities along the Silk Road -> Constantinople (as a category, which is wrong). From this point every possible article could occur! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk page header
Thanks for the comments, I am still new to working with talk pages so I am sure to make a few mistakes and comments like this wil help me learn from them. The nesting thing was an accident I usually remove it but when I copied that from another article I must have missed that one. I will also watch the other edits. After reviewing the rules for the MILHIST banner it appears that to priority is needed, but that seems impossible. I also do not agree with the Talk header issue. Most importantly, In my opinion it is helpful for inexperienced editors to have that information on hand and, in my opinion, adding it after problems have arisen on the talk page is the wrong way to deal with them. We are reacting to a problem instead of preventing it. Plus it causes the pages to lack uniformity which can also cause confusion. But, since the rules state that it should be used sparingly, then I guess I will have to live with that. Its not the first time I have been confronted with something on WP I didn't agree with and there are simply to many other edits to be made still to fuss over little details like this one. Thanks again--Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Tom Norris article
Hi, I was planning an article about musician/violinist Tom Norris, but I notice an article with that title was deleted from the system and you were referenced. Can you give me some background on what this was about? Was the article about the same Tom Norris? Why it was deleted, etc.? I don't want repeat previous errors. Pkeets (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You can see when and why it was deleted by just reading the red box that appears when you press at Tom Norris. The article was 1 line claiming to be about "the former keyboard player of Allstar Weekend". -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Insignificant edits
I wouldn't really call it "resolved" when your bot continued making pointless edits like this. This is really not hard to avoid. Simply either 1) ensure your list contains only articles that substantive work will be done on (i.e. by using Special:Export and the database scanner) and 2) ensure the skip criteria are set properly (conceding that we're awaiting a new snapshot - perhaps your task could have been delayed until you obtained one). As an AWB developer and administrator, you should not be making insignificant edits contrary to WP:AWB#Rules of use. Neither should you have to be continually reminded of this: the bot's talk page (and to some extent, yours) is filled with people complaining about insignificant edits from this bot. Please take steps to ensure that the bot complies with applicable policies and guidelines in the future. –xenotalk17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO, you are right but see please a part of my point of view. A simple task "changing from one project to another" revealed 2-3 bugs and improvements that could be done to AWB's code. During this process we improved AWB to avoid insignificant edits in the future and better handle talk pages. In to my eyes this is a success. I really think the small ratio of insignificant edits really worth it that. Anyway, the list is almost over (less than 200 items from tenths of thousands). A new snapshot will be released really soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll save yourself a lot of time (and lighten the load on the servers) by using Special:Export and the database scanner to identify the articles that substantive work will be done on. This is something that Reedy clued me into and it has made my life world's easier. Let me know if I can be of any assistance with this. –xenotalk17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I never used this before. I 'll check it. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk)
Well, the latest change to {{Flag-article}} now assumes the default value, and no longer recognizes a Guideline, like "Movies" ... BTW, this is the stencil I use for testing on User:71.166.147.78/sandbox:
SmackBot started the work, but has made no such edits for some months; repeated requests for it to restart have been to no avail. The original request was made in August 2008! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits16:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the last answer. I haven't noticed you wrote in my talk page again! I checked it but I am not sure if I know how to do it. I don't know how to cut a string into pieces and convert it to a teplate. If someone makes the code for AWB I would be happy to run it with Yobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If I find the code I can run it... Thing is I believe that this is not the best way to approach this task. We have better date handling facilities now, and people make mistakes with these templates (I just corrected one, as it happens 7 for September - a mistake I make myself from time to time). The better place to make the change is in the Infobox template, rather than the articles. First it is a once-for-all change. Secondly it removes the workload and clutter from the normal editor - including double entry of the birth date. Thirdly we can do more at the infobox level, we can change a whole class of articles' behaviour if we think necessary, we can intelligently error trap. RichFarmbrough, 11:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC).
You may be right; but thee is no evidence that anyone is willing to make the necessary changes to hundreds of infoboxes; and no measure of how long it would take to do so if they were. The requested change can be implemented now; and indeed - having bot approval since August 2008 - should have been completed some time ago. It does not preclude the changes you propose from being made at some point in the future. While mistakes may be made with {{Start date}} et al, they're very rare; and should be zero if implemented by a bot as requested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits11:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I just looked at your contribs – template:otheruses4 is on RFD and should not be replaced en masse while it is under discussion. A bot will orphan it if it is deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, great. I noticed originally because it showed up on my watchlist, and when I looked at the diff the edit was only general fixes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't start any 4,000+ page AWB jobs without putting in a bot request. Rearranging DABlinks sounds exactly like the sort of "inconsequential" edit that the AWB rules warn against. And any job of that size clearly has some potential of being controversial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In contrary to moving a stub tag that doesn't affect how the article appears, moving HATNOTES on the top affects the article's appereance and helps accessibility. Doing this using a bot is a good idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A BRFA would be good, targeting all the pages where the hatnotes are in the wrong place. This could be an ongoing job, I would think, although detecting the pages that have the problem may take a database dump. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What criterion is Yobot using when adding {{stub}}? I guess that dab pages are excluded, even if short: perhaps pages in Category:Lists of lists should also be excluded? An example is Lists of Australian rules football leagues - a pointless page, but not a stub. Not an incomplete list either, as its two items are complementary and there is no scope for any other item in the list. PamD (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
@xeno: I applied for "tagging and untagging". As I said main priority is to untag Orphans but not only that.
@PamD. We could exclude List of lists. Is there any template for them? As I checked they are 204 pages in this category at the moment, making the problem really rare. Some of them had a stub tag which Yobot removed since they were not stubs. I'll check the subject in more detail. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see from the manual we don't have a clear line between stub and not stub. We have a huge gap of "unknown". Size of the article is only a parameter of stubs and we only use this ("Stubs have very little text"). We don't look what happens between 300 characters and 500 words. Plus, we follow one of the rules. We tag only in mainspace. Moreover, we count INCLUDING images, infoboxes, navigation templates, lists of examples, external links which this essay above suggests that we have to exclude! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't answer one of your questions: I applied for this task on Jan 16. I updated the manual on Jan 17. I ran through the code to understand what we had inside. That's the reason of forgetting to mention "add stub" Of course, I expect feedback for improvements! -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as you are double checking that stub tag didn't get added to disambig-type pages, I have no concerns. (Other than WP:EDITH concerns, but that's minor). –xenotalk22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Might be good to move the discussion or mark it in some way. Otherwise, I imagine it'll be closed after the standard seven days without much more consideration. I don't really care how many categories we have, I just want to see all of them to be in one place (on the article, not the talk page). It might be best to move all of them and standardize the categories (and instructions) and then figure out whether some of them are needed or not in the future. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the placement of stubs...
Hi, Magioladitis- thank you for relaying the info to me about where stubs should be coded into a document. I have started doing so. However, I have noticed no difference in where they're rendered; I am placing the stub notation at the very end, under Categories and all else, and yet they're still showing up above the category box. It's the best I can do. The stub is, though, more obvious in a position above the categories, whatever the wikicode decides to do with it. Thanks again :) John Cesium 133 (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw you have contributed to the improvement of the Rosita Sokou article here in the English version. I wanted to let you know that although I had published a Greek version a few years ago, it was deleted without explanation. Now I've put it there again. Could you be so kind as to have a look whenever you got a free moment and see if there is something potentially unacceptable, as to avoid another deletion? I don't see why Greek Wikipedia should lack a Sokou entry when the English one has it, isn't it absurd? People keep calling her and expressing their surprise.
I know there are not many references, but hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles and interviews that I have consulted in her archive are difficult to cite. You want me to do this?
Thanks for your work!
Shantimar (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, I noticed you had done some housekeeping on the article Longships – specifically here [15]. Good work but I have one question. You have replaced the HTML entity & p o u n d ; with the keyboard £ symbol. I used the former (the entity) because it is more universally supported and not reliant on the charset of the end-user's host machine – is that not so and, if not, what is the advantage of the keyboard symbol over the entity? Best wishes Andy F (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It looks to me as if one of the changes you're doing with AWB is to put named refs in alphabetical order when more than one is used at the same location, is that correct? If so, then I'm not sure this is necessarily a good thing. In some cases, and I know this is true for myself, an editor may have put the refs in descending order of their importance or relevance to the statement being supported, so putting them in alphabetical order (if that is indeed what's happening) is not only unnecessary but actually (in some very small way) hurts the article. Since this housekeeping task seems relatively unimportant, perhaps you could reconsider doing it? Or, do I have what you're doing all wrong? Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I did the changes semi-automatically. I didn't notice anything that indicates the references should be in a specific order or another. Thus, I preferred the one that looks better in printing i.e. the ordered references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
But there's nothing that would tell you that one order was preferred over another without reading the references and weighing their importance to the statement being supported, which is why I don't think taht it's the kind of change that should be made semi-automaticallty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, you're an editor too, but looking at your contributions, in these cases you are an editor doing cleanup on a number of articles in a fairly quick way, which is good work and needs to be done, but your relationship with the material is not liekly to be as deep as that of the editors who provided the references, but despite this you're putting your (quick) judgment call over theirs. In many -- perhaps even most -- cases it doesn't make any differences, but it seems likely that there will be cases where your reconfiguration of the refs does a disservice to the article. All I'm suggesting is that you might want to consider not making thar particular kind of change in that particular way. If you want to delve into the article, read the sources, and then make a judgment, that's fine, but reordering the refs in a semi-automatic way isn't quite the same as changing "Image" to "File" (which, incidentally, is a totally unnecessary change, as to the system "File" and "Image" are the same thing.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an ongoing AWB problem. Per WP:CITE, the established stile should be kept, and references should not be rearranged or reformatted in any large-scale way. Changing reference order without actually reading the references would be an example of what not to do. Beyond my Ken, you should keep in mind that you can undo any AWB changes that seem less than ideal to you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
@Carl: Oh sure, I'm aware of that, and, in fact, in the instance where Magioladitis' edits came to my attention, there was nothing untoward in the reference re-ordering; it simply occured to me that doing it semi-automatically wasn't the best idea. I'm satisfied from this conversation that Magioladitis is committed to giving due diligence when he or she re-orders refs, so I'm good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The time I spend on an article when I make a non-trivial change is more than the ones I see only trivial changes. Check my last bunch of edits. I did like 300 moves of DAB links. How many references reorders do you see? I spend time myself in improving references. It may seems that I work fast but I think it's because I am used working with AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not so much with small-scale manual edits, but with things that are "automatic" and get done by AWB on its own. The actual rate of rearranging that I saw from SmackBot was very low, but nevertheless it kept rearranging refs automatically until the "feature" was disabled. I left a note in the Yobot BRFA about the need for that disabling. Limited-scale manual edits are not as bad, if done very carefully on a case by case basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that when you were replacing {{otheruses4}} when {{otheruses}} also appeared, you left {{otheruses}} alone. It is preferable to use {{tl|about|asdfsdf|spaces in the sky|slidfd||sdflslkj}} which results in:
This article is about asdfsdf. For spaces in the sky, see slidfd. For other uses, see sdflslkj.
Yobot tagged a couple of geographical/historical articles as bios a year ago [17][18] that were fixed by humans today. I guess the cause was that both articles were (are) in Category:Trojans which, rightly or wrongly, is a sub-category of Category:Ancient people. I mention it only for your information, as the banners were merely an inconvenience. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. On this date I ran in Category:4th-31st century BC people. So there was some problem in categorisation. I have lmited myself to subcategories of depth 1 to avoid these problems in the future. Very good report though (diff, in my talk page, suggestion of what the problem could be about). Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey there I need some help to think about and if possible and appropriate do create the Monty pyhton soccer match sketch page in German
wikipedia to attract perhaps some German philosophers and certainly some Beckenbauers for the match of May 9th as visitors.
Could you help me with this? I am new to the policies and the polis of wikipedia and used to follow policies and guidelines
as I grew up near the Rhine river but right next to the French border....
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1717:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I am busy at real life lately and I am coming on irc more seldom. Try to reach me but I think it will be difficult. I see that you are using some guidelines to your latest entries. That's very good. Keep in mind that anonymous IPs, even when they are used by a single person, receive a lot of messages in their talk pages. Be prepared to discuss with other editors about your edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned on the Yobot 14 BRFA that you might be able to disable reference re-ordering in AWB, at least in bot mode. Has that moved forward any? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I ll hack the code and disactivate it myself and recompile. Still think we need a central discussion on the matter. I never heard of references ordered by importance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The overall issue with ordering is that the Wikipedia "footnotes" are not really footnotes. Normally, a paper using footnotes never refers to the same footnote number more than once; they use a new number and "ibid." to repeat a reference. They also have a separate bibliography to list the sources that were cited. Footnotes here are guaranteed to be in numerical order, because they are true footnotes. Moreover, the footnotes cite specific pages in the work, while the bibliography lists the works themselves.
There is a different style where the references are numbered in alphabetical order at the end of the work (1,2, 3, ...) and then in-text numbers are used to refer to them. For example, the text could have a sentence like "Jones [4] argues that Bartle [2] is incorrect". Another version of this uses non-numeric identifiers: "Jones [J2004] argues that Bartle [B2001] is incorrect." In this type of citation, it is not as obvious what order to put multiple citations in. Some journals number them numerically ("See [3, 5, 7]") while others allow authors to order them by importance ("See [5, 3, 7]").
On Wikipedia, many of our articles do not have a separate bibliography, and so the list of "notes" serves both as footnotes and as a bibliography. In particular, our footnotes often refer to entire works (as in the "different style") rather than to specific pages. In that setting, authors who are used to the "different" system may arrange references either numerically or by importance. For an example, see this revision at the very end, where it has [34][20]. Reference 34 is a specific note unique to that paragraph and appear carefully chosen. Reference 20, which is very vague, is used in many places. It's natural in a setting like that to put the specific citation first and the general one second. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the long comment. There is a way to disactivate the specific procedure for Yobot. I had some problems compiling the code on Windows 7 but I ll think of a solution to that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Listas bot
Regarding this, having a note that adding comments stops the bot right on the talk page would probably be a great deal more useful than having it posted on the bot's userpage. I don't think many users will check the userpage prior to posting (and not all of those who will are going to read it in its entirety). What's more, why is this note not included in big red letters within the big red box which pops up when someone clicks "Edit" on the bot's talk page? There's all kinds of high-handed stuff there, but not this? Just a thought.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)
Mikaey must update the bot's talk page notice. You are right. I thought it was written with big red letters but I was mistaken. Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have hidden the tag, so there's no urgency removing it. I take it the stubs are all done. Of the remaining uses less than 18000 are for the whole article, so I am thinking of DRVing the deletion. RichFarmbrough, 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC).
I can wait until DRV closes. The only things I could extra do is
change expand with expand-section when the tag is in a section and
replace it with empty-section if the section is empty.
That should be done anyway - see SmackBot task XXIV. I have left a note with the closing admin. It is a shame that my comments on the TfD got swamped, I don't think my points there got through, an opposed change like that could do with more discussion - for example moving the tag to the talk page wasn't even raised, and hiding it wasn't discussed (only raised by me). Nor was any information gathered to inform the case. Unfortunately I only keep a couple of dumps, and the on-wiki situation is changed radically I think. RichFarmbrough, 09:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC).
Caps problem with converting tags into Multiple Issues tag
Hi there, this edit by Yobot actually dropped the page out of the UnreferencedBLP cat, as the multiple issues template doesn't seem to recognise UnreferencedBLP, but only unreferencedBLP (lowercase). Should Yobot auto switch the tag to lower case if it's moving a standalone tag into a multiple issues container, or should the Multiple issues template take into account all of the [20] redirects (38 with lower and upper case!) to the {{BLP unsourced}} template? Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I copied the following discussion from Yobot's talk page so as not to unnecessarily stop the bot:
The bot is inserting improper line feeds into the name attribute of ref elements, as illustrated by this edit. The same edit illustrates undocumented changes to accessdate formats. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
On the accessdate: Per {{cite web}}'s documentation accessdate must be in one of the following formats: Day Month Year, Month Day, Year, YYYY-MM-DD. The ones Yobot fixed were in non of them. The rest were in YYYY-MM-DD format and Yobot aligned the YYYY-Month-DD format to them.
"Per {{cite web}}'s documentation accessdate must be in one of the following formats: Day Month Year, Month Day, Year, YYYY-MM-DD." The documentation says no such thing. It gives examples in the stated formats, but does not say those are the only allowable ones. While it would not have been appropriate for the article in question, cite web is derived from the APA style, which uses the Year, Month Day format in references. This format would be allowed if the article was using APA style.
As for the linefeeds, Wikipedia markup allows a single linefeed at the end of any word or other token. It is wrong to separate a word from enclosing quotes. Thus placing the quote after the linefeed was wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't they are that useless. They make things easier to read. Anyway, I just finishes moving from AlienProject to WikiProject Aliens. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardly. Please see WP:AWB#Rules of use and WP:R2D. I am going to simply start issuing blocks on either your main account or your bot account for pointless edits like this. I shouldn't have to tell you every time - you should know better. –xenotalk16:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If calling MergeDablinks you can't now just call it directly as the comments hiding is done by the genfixes logic. Therefore you'd need to use a custom genfixes module per the custom modules examples page. Rjwilmsi17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is Yobot moving the hatnotes above the protection template? This not only seems a pointless edit (it makes no visible difference to the page) but is also illogical. In the majority of cases the small parameter is set in the protection template which produces an icon on the title line. This will be above the hatnotes regardless of the order of the templates. Surely it makes sense that the edit view should have the data in the same order that it appears on page? Even if a protection banner is used, it still makes sense to have it above the hatnotes else you are giving the untrue impression that the hatnotes are not protected. Also protection is usually temporary, it is helpful to have it at the top where it easily found rather than buried under the hatnotes when it is being removed or modified.
WP:PP requires the protection template to be placed at the top. True, WP:DAB and WP:HNP also requires the hatnotes at the top, but besides the reasons given above, I would have thought that a policy page trumps guidelines. WP:HNP is talking about what the reader sees, they will not see the protection template with small=yes set. SpinningSpark10:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I can ask for a small modification of AWB's code to prevent this move. I think the best is to start a discussion in WP:LAYOUT so that we form a solid strategy on that and take more opinions on the subject. In my understanding the DABlinks refer to pages outside the article and the protection refers to article itself so DABlinks should be on top of the protection template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"Policy trumps guidelines" maybe, but the reason for hatnotes at the top is compelling, while PP merely says the templates "may be added at the very top". RichFarmbrough, 11:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC).
My school's page, Sir Thomas Picton School, is constantly being vandalised from inside the school network, which used a shared IP address. I'm constantly going on there and undoing stupid edits by people who really have no respect for the page. I propose that you block this IP address: 195.195.223.177. If you look at the history you will see what I mean. It was blocked until recently, but it has obviously been lifted.
Hi, Yobot added an incorrect DEFAULTSORT. It's puzzling as to why it didn't recognize the article as being about a person. Among other clues, it included birth and death dates at the top, as well as a {{BD}} (which Yobot substituted to additionally include the correct DEFAULTSORT). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
When substituting BD I have all general fixes disactivated. Yobot only substed BD ignoring that there was an additional DEFAULTSORT in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No, there was originally no explicit DEFAULTSORT. Yobot added both DEFAULTSORTs: the correct one from the {{BD}} and the additional, incorrect one. Maybe you don't have the "Restrict DEFAULTSORT" option selected. But still, AWB should have recognized it as a bio and provided the correct sort key accordingly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM09:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm... it probably has to do with the order the things happen. It activated genfixes but it didn't see the categories since there were hidden. Btw, I have restrict DEFAULTSORT activated. I am 100% sure for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Something similar happened today, except in this case, the DEFAULTSORT added by subst'ing the {{BD}} was incorrect, and the second one which Yobot added was correct. In this instance, it was actually a good thing that this happened, as I discovered the page in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts, and I removed the incorrect sort key which had been in the BD, but in general I don't think bots should be adding two DEFAULTSORTs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting me!
Thanks for fixing this. I knew I needed to revisit that to be sure I hadn't gotten it wrong, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd draw your attention to this edit where Yobot put a category link into {{about}} without prefixing it with colon. (The problem is now fixed, for that edit, but it's a bug in Yobot's operation.) -- Dr Greg talk 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Bay of Pigs
Hi, Yobot has amended the About template at Bay of Pigs. IMHO it looks less tidy than before, and the 'geographical' statement is surely now in the wrong place. I have previously reversed a similar unsightly integration of two About templates. Please consider reversing this latest, MTIA.PeterWD (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this into my attention. I did this. Probably is much better. I have noticed that the first time I ran the move but I couldn't think of a good solution. I think my last edit is a good one. Please check and tell me your opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention and action. However, I remain convinced that the previous presentation is much more user-friendly and tidy. Perhaps you might look into ways of achieving better presentation for multiple 'abouts'; I tried variations with embedded line breaks, but they didn't achieve a neat result.PeterWD (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is something more. It's better using standarised templates to help us locate articles with dablinks. If I think of something better I ll try it! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I need some help on English to Greek translation. For english words "Bishop of Rome", which words are more suitable "Επίσκοπο της Ρώμης" or "Επίσκοπος Ρώμης". If you think none of these is right, feel free to suggest your own words. Thank you. Amit6 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I am just working with ancient Christianity (more specifically Pentarchy). I dont know Greek and I am not satisfied with Google Translator, so I asked you. Amit6 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. skipping all with <small> for now. Annoying because I only upgraded, as my special "CBM" compliant version was out of date and I had to make a new one - my normal AWB was working fine. RichFarmbrough, 00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC).
Strictly that is 18,300 mainspace pages with one or more unclosed small tags as of March. Happily User:Plastikspork will be fixing a fair number of them with his French commune {{demography}} tidy up work. Rjwilmsi16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yobot Source Code
Hello, I noticed that you said that source code for Yobot was available on request, and I was wondering if you could show me the configuration you used to automatically assess the class of articles (BRFA 9) based on other WikiProjects, as I think it would be useful for a bot I am working on. Thank you very much. - EdoDodotalk13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As far as I know Yobot doesn't yet do this, but I think I sent Mag a copy of Xenobot's codebase a while back. I can send you the latest version (email me), please just make a note somewhere on the bot's page that the inheritance code was borrowed from user:Xenobot Mk V. –xenotalk13:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It's cool to have someone answer for you :P I confirm what xeno just wrote. xeno sent me a copy of the code and I was supposed to modify it but I am waiting for a working version of Wikipedia:Plugin++. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
.oOo.? Working version? It works, but it's got to be kicked and prodded into doing what you want! –xenotalk14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
CheckWiki errors
FYI (a change I made) -- feel free to revert if you disapprove.
Do you know how the severity of these errors was determined? There are some I think should be changed, such as:
80 (External link with line break), from medium to high because it not only looks bad, it doesn't allow clicking on the link
86 (External link with two brackets), from high to medium because, although it looks funny, you can still click on the link.
I 've no idea how and who defined the priority of the errors. Batter contact de:Benutzer:Stefan Kühn/Check Wikipedia too. I agree with 80. I would keep 86 in high level just because I hate seeing it in printed pages.
I've also seen AWB not catch one when there is a line break in the middle of the title= value in a cite web template. Somewhere in the process of translating that for display, it ends up as a line break in an external link.
I thought we were looking only for external links outside templates... Probably we never thought of this case. I inform Rjw and Reedy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards the at least one core issue with the categories currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 9#Category:Date of birth unknown I propose that we device a common decision-making assistant in a green box for all of these categories in the form of a flow-chart, so that by answering simple questions about the status of vital data of the person in question, one unambiguously ends up with the correct maintenance category to use. If we do this well enough the miscategorization problem ought to go down considerably. __meco (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yobot&oldid=366182886#Before_contacting I had a table based on the previous consensus with a lot of information. If you create the form you want I can help in adding the text. I am not good in making nice looking boxes. The thing is that "... missing" categories are maintenance cats but "...unknown" are not. If the year/date is unknown there is nothing to add. Into my experience I haven't seen one single article to prove that the dates are unknown and really need the category. "People missing", "Year of death uncertain" do better job. But... if you still believe in these categories I can help. I wish this job was coordinated by someone expert in History. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Check edit history. My main change wasn't marked as minor. I marked as minor the fix edit following it. I wasn't planning to make an official box afterall. It's something I created to my bot's page to link when leaving messages to editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Right As you might have seen, I responded there--but I am not watching that page, so I won't see any other responses, unless they are on my talk. If someone wants to make a bot like that, I am fine with it--in fact, it's probably a good idea, so as to keep the usage of the template up-to-date--but there are only 1,052 out of over 9,000 good articles left, so I could easily have them polished off in a matter of days. Again, if you need me, please post to my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up on to my commons cat multi question on the AWB FR page
As you know I recently suggested adding logic to AWB to consolidate some of the articles with more than one occasion of common cat into common cat multi. Upon doing a little research I also discovered that as with many things in WP, there seems to be more than one seemingly redundant template. For example there is template:commons, commons cat, commons cat multi, sister projects, and probably others. My question is do you know what the difference is between these different templates, if anything? --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Commons cat multi should either spell out category or merge with (redirect to) Commons category anyway.
Most of the Wiki.. series (Wikitravel etc.) have a wiki...par version which is now, or should be a redirect.
All the Wiki.... series should (in an ideal world) accept multiple destinations, but some have parameter 2 as a label. With Wiktionary there were so few uses (four or something like that) that I moved them to a new template, and moved an improved version of Wiktionarypar over Wiktionary.
Links should generally be in External links, but Wiktionary can be at or near the top, especially on short articles or disambiguation pages.
That's what I can call to mind - and if we moved all sister links apart from Wikitionary ones (and even those from other standard appendices) to External links and consolidated them into one box if there were many it would be good. However merging, say, Wikitravel to Sister links, in a way that deprecates Wikitravel, would not be a good idea, as it is less intuitive to use and would require fiddly parameters.
Thanks Rich and sorry to keep expanding on this dilemna but here is a little writeup of what I have found so far. There appears to be a staggering number of templates available on WP that allow users to link to other Wikis such as Wikispecies, Wikisource, Commons, etc. In addition to the ones I have listed below there are also multiple templates each to link the articles in Wikipedia to each wiki individually sich as template:Wikinews, template:Wiktionary, etc. Additionally they all seem to have variations of the same logic. I think this is not only confusing but from a maintenance standpoint its hard to manage. I recommend we start by ensure that the logic for Template:Commons can handle this logic which for the most part it or one of the Commons templates can. For example, it should be able to accept multiple Sisterprojects, multiple categories and align left. All of which can be done with one of the first 5 commons templates. Once this has been completed then we can start phasing out some of the other templates one by one utilizing a bot. Then once no more articles link to them we can recommend them for deletion. As mentioned above the bottomline to this is that I think to have this many templates doing same or similar things is confusing and disorganized. Additionally it makes it exremely hard to determine which articles has this type of logic or link. But again this is just my opinion based on my rather limited understanding of how these templates work.
Template:Commons
Template:Commons category = Incorporate logic into template:Commons
Template:Commons category-inline = Incorporate logic into template:Commons
Template:Commons cat multi
Template:Commons cat left = Logic already capable in the Commons and Commons category templates. Recommend for delation
Template:Commons category-inline = Logic already capable in the Commons and Commons category templates. Recommend for delation
Template:Commons+cat = Not sure how this differs but it seems redundant
Template:Commons-inline = Not sure how this differs but it seems redundant
Template:Sister = Seems like a more robust way to link to other wikis.
Commons should not support other sister projects, although the various projects could share a core template. This is how I see the structure that should be created, at the moment:
Only the sister subfamily would explicitly support more than one project. Of course if things ended up so that you could write {Wiktionary| travel = "San Antonio"} and it worked, that would not be harmful.
If I understand how this works, isnt commons itself a "Sister project" so thereby if we used the template for Sister projects as the main "core" then commons, wiktionary, etc could be linked together into one box. If, we could make this work fro all the others and due to its design wikitravel is the exception then I can live with that. Unfortunately, I am not a template design expert and probably not the best choice to reverse and re-engineer these but I would be willing to give it a crack if everyone else is busy. --Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Bad bot behavior
I have been creating articles on World War I flying aces; in the process, I have been leaving the death dates vacant when unknown because that is what I had been advised. Now your bot insists there is a cohort of creaky old geezers creaking about in their 120s. I am manually correcting the problem, and burying them all. I have also decided to ignore prior advice, and add "unknown" under death date. It's going to be a long haul; I probably have a couple hundred articles out there where death date is unknown.
If you have an estimate for the death: century, decade, etc. please add the most applicable. After a discussion we had in WPBiogaphy, Yobot will add Living people to all people under 123 years old that evidence of death is missing. The reason is that we want to be at the safe side in protecting WP:BLP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I answered in my talk page where you left a message. Let me summarise:
My bot ran this task 3 days ago so nothing changed between your first and second message.
If the Year of death is unknown to you (but not verifiable unknown) please add Category:Year of death missing to the article.
If you have more info on the death, for example you know the century of the decade please add a more accurate category like Category:20th-century deaths etc.
Per consensus, every person that was born in the last 123 years that we don't have any evidence of death is marked as alive. The reason is to be sure that we are protecting the person's rights. Wikipedia take biographies of living people really seriously. Check WP:BLP for more.
I have some info on the tagging on User:Yobot. I don't know if they are enough.
RE: NullReferenceException in DelinkerAWBPlugin.ProcessArticle
I don't know, one sec... let me check..... It seems to have been a random error, after I restarted the programs it has been working fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cit helper (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Question
Thank you kindly for the help with the asteroids. When you get a chance, could you also set the bot loose on Category:Tachinidae stubs, so as to add Category:Tachinidae to any article that doesn't already have it? It's a ~2,400-article job. There will probably be other patterns that I can identify as I continue to go through the list, so I'll let you know if and when I come across another batch that can be safely handed off to a bot. Thanks again. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
About halfway down this edit [21], AWB removed an opening brace inside nowiki tags. Do you know if this is an AWB issue, or the editor's configuration? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
AWB didn't do the "edit" That was a manual edit on my part but it was because AWB saw it as an unbalanced bracket. --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit : Those "For" templates were intentionally commented out. They still don't lead anywhere interesting - one is a redirect, the other is to an article that should arguably be deleted as unnotable and regardless doesn't explain why it has anything to do with "Le Monde." If templates have been commented out, it's probably best for the bot to just ignore them. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Yobot left stray '\r\n\r\n' characters in a recent edit to the Emasithandane article. If it were written in perl or php I'd suspect that a single quoted string was used where a double quoted string was intended (or something like that). 24.44.14.186 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found a bunch in the bot's contributions that I've fixed so far. I'm going to sift through the bot's contribs to find all of them if that's fine with you. The Thing // Talk // Contribs13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was able to enter the text \r\n\r\n into the search textbox and find many articles with the lingering problem. The task of correcting these articles is quite large for a human and might more easily be accomplished by a program. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to help but after Monday. Right now I am busy at real life. The good thing is that the bug is limited to this single day. Sorry for the mistake and thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Rich Farmbrough and Magioladitis. I think I saw articles that Yobot had modified from 10 April 2010 and 11 April 2010 (UTC). Another potential false positive article would be Hölder's inequality (which does not need \r\n\r\n removed as far as I can tell). I have by the way, come across some article with \r\n\r\n in them that were apparently modified by User:Colonies Chris who was using AWB to browse and edit. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit you do did on a talk page and it looks like it broke the template [22]. It appears to me that the template was already broken but I wanted to let you know in case you can prgram logic to catch this sort of thing as well. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry its pick on Yobot day but I noticed a couple of things the other day that I forgot to mention so here are those 2 things as well. Yobot seems to be placing the collapsed parameter on talk page banners and I was under the impression that this parameter is deprecated and the logic built into the banners so that they would collapse by default. Also, in some edits it is placing the collapsed parameter on banners with an incorrect collapse parameter and I think that if it continues to place this parameter then it should replace collapse rather than add to the banner. Here is a recent example. [23]. Also, I noticed in this edit [24] it added the collapsed=yes parameter when the collapsed parameter was already there stating no and I think it should not do that either. --Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed is not deprecated. Nested is. Check instructions. WPB is equal to WPBS|collapsed=yes.
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Reverting AWB
I think we may have to agree to disagree about reverting AWB edits. It seems unbalanced to me to say that if an editor uses e.g. an inappropriate custom search-and-replace on AWB along with general fixes, the administrators who respond have to manually edit all the pages to remove the bad substitution while leaving the general fixes. That's very asymmetric, because the AWB editor only had to click "OK" while the admins have to do the fixing by hand. Of course I could just write a script to undo the substitutions, but most administrators are limited to the tools in the HTML interface. On the other hand, it would be easy enough to re-run AWB general fixes on the articles – much easier than manually undoing substitutions.
Really this is just a deeper reason why editors should avoid doing anything at all controversial with AWB, because cleanup of large-scale runs is always going to be difficult. Maybe there should be a list of things not to do with AWB, like the list of perennially-denied bot requests. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you are right on reverting in this case. I 'll read the discussion in more detail. I thought it was the same case as th last time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know in this case if the editor did the changes with an automated search and replace, or by manually editing the page in AWB (common sense would say you should do it automatically if you're going to do it at all, but maybe he is not a programmer).
I did, however, scan through all the edits and only selected the ones that were problematic, which is different than other times in the past. I left almost all of this user's AWB edits because I had no objection to them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The odd "1=" at the start of the line might get removed by the less-knowledgeable, considering it "vandalism". Having it at the end of the previous line, I think would be less likely to be seen as a spurious pair of characters which a vandal might insert. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, placing it on the line before is a lot more standard (from what I see), and also makes it easier for bots to find the project banners if they are on their own line. - EdoDodotalk15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a triviality to me, but rev 6787: when adding "1=" parameter, insert before any whitespace at start of parameter value. Rjwilmsi11:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep. To a computer programmer, like me, whitespace includes soft line breaks. Therefore, since the first banner is preceded by a soft line break, the 1= should go immediately after the pipe "|" which occurs at the end of the previous line. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Banners
Why are you doing this? The alternate shell was specifically designed for talk pages that do not want all that crap showing, and it survived many merge discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a ton for your replies and fixes, didn't realize you also worked on the AWB project. For reference, I'm a pretty old editor and used to be an admin (resigned because I was going on a long wikibreak, indeed it lasted about 3 years ;p). Used to have poorly programmed AWB bots running wild ruining articles back then.... but enough with the nostalgia :).
Anyway, since you mentioned it :) - one more little bug with AWB in articles, it seems to be sorting inline reference alphabetically (or something), but it unfortunately does this at the end of a paragraph. The problem with this is that one generally accepted way to keep inline referencing down, instead of simply using the same reference every sentence, is to have it at the end of a paragraph after all the other sources. As you can probably guess by now, if there is an inline reference for just the last sentence and also a general one for the paragraph it can sort the inline references to where it looks like the reference for the last sentence is a general one for the whole paragraph and the source for the last sentence looking like it's the general paragraph source. If it isn't too memory intensive (or whatever), Instead of simply disabling inline sorting at the end of a paragraph, I think you could simply keep track to see if the cite was used in the paragraph if you see some at the end, and simply not sort those particular cites (or rather, sort them while still keeping them at the end).
Thanks for contacting me! Feedback from people like you it's very important. Can you please give me an example, a diff, of what AWB does and what it should be doing? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. here's one example (line 72 change is one). Basically, it should have just left the "10-K" reference where it was. It generally only applies to end-of-paragraph inline cites like I mentioned, and is a somewhat rare wikipedia convention used for certain articles highly dependant on inlines. It does break the harvard convention a bit. RN18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the way a fair amount of articles do it. That said after futher thought/research you can forget about that, as harvard style probably should be the norm anyway, regardless of how much it might annoy reviewers in FA(R)C and such. Sorry for wasting your time on this one. RN14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Film banner cleanup
Hey Magioladitis, since Yobot is cleaning up talk pages, do you think you could get Yobot to cleanup deprecated parameters in the {{Film}} (WikiProject Films' banner) at the same time? There's a list of deprecated parameters here. This is of low priority, so maybe you could get Yobot to do it only if it has something else more important to do at the same time, or whatever you think is best. Thanks.- Kollision (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yobot is apparently removing the importance parameter from other Project banners as well.[25][26] Is this a fluke on this one article or is it happening elsewhere too? (Guyinblack25talk17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
I 'll check it in some hours. The job finished anyway. This shouldn't be happening since I am using AWB with Advanced F&R and replacing only inside templates that contain Film. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It's probably a small mistake which I fixed while editing. I was updating the setting file on the fly. I have to leave house right now. I 'll check more thoroughly later. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
16:44:[27] The other template is not affected. One edit before Lara Croft: [28] No problems again. Two minutes after a page with importance high is not affected [29]. So, it was a temporary problem and fixed on the fly. Thanks for reporting. If you find any other similar errors please report me immediately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Check discussions above. I am making tests and improvements to AWB's code. I 'll probably finishing soon, more likely today. Notice that the revision of AWB changes every time its code it's updated. (The number next to AWB). -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Moving WikiProject banners
Please, when you move a banner template (e.g. Template:WikiProject Numismatics), can you update the |BANNER_NAME= parameter? In fact if you are moving the template to Template:WikiProject <PROJECT> then you can just remove the BANNER_NAME entirely. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In all other cases I updated the entry in BANNER_NAME. I checked my move log. It's probably the only case I forgot to do it. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Re [34], I must've been looking at the wrong one. That being said, redirects are cheap, is there a particular reason you're deleting them? –xenotalk16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
They are in template TALK space. I am not deleting the template itself. Better keep talk pages of redirects in order to help editors to edit them if they want to discuss on the redirect. I think this was common practice. We don't keep talk pages that redirect to other talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's no big deal (though seems like unnecessary busywork) - just be sure to check the incoming links (or bypass them) before deleting. –xenotalk16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirect containing only banners
Hello. Apparently you are deleting redirects talk pages with banners (only). I am not sure this is appropriate. The banners tell the related WikiProject that the redirect is part of that project. The redirect may be viewed, in a sense, as part of the target page. In any I case I believe that redirect talk pages are supposed to have related WikiProject banners. What is your view on this matter? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Most (or all) of the WikiProjects don't tag redirects. I am involved in WPBiography and WikiProject Greece and they both don't tag redirects. The banners are used in order to improve the article. They are not many ways to improve a redirect. Moreover, there are millions of redirects for many reasons like variations of a name, different spellings, etc. Redirects that worth usually are those that were created by merging. You can ask the WikiProjects directly on that and inform me if I am wrong but I 've been to some discussions on the matter and nobody strognly supported the idea of |class=redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I didn't realize there would not be support for |class=redirect. That is very interesting. I guess I can query the Wikiprojects that have redirects in areas where I edit articles, and see what their opinion is on this matter. Even if their opinion differs from yours, it doesn't mean that you are incorrect. I can just see if particular Wikiprojects want tags on redirects and inform you of any that strongly support this, for whatever reason. In addition, you are correct that banners are used to improve the article in the first place, and banners on redirects don't make sense from that viewpoint. I never thought of this before. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I amended my comment because some of them might've been ok deletions (like maybe it was an article before but no longer, or somesuch). –xenotalk23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Many of the categories on the list you gave are empty. Is it maybe because the categories were automatically created and the project doesn't really care on redirects? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, my only point was that some projects do tag redirects, so you should probably not delete redirects that are banner-tagged unless you're part of the project and you know they shouldn't be. –xenotalk23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you closed the one duplicate task force issue for AWB. I wanted to let you know that I just tried the plugin again with the latest SVN of AWB (SVN 6839) and I am still getting the InvalidOperationException in TraceManager.ProcessingArticle error when I try and run the plugin so I still cannot get back in to duplicate the issue. Once I can use the plugin I will try and see if I am still having the problem and let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We 'll try to fix everything soon. Regex bugs won't be a big issue. We are focusing in these exceptions now. I'll try to do my best to fix these issues. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and its no problem I saw you all have done a lot of work lately (given that even SVN version have 40 - 50+ changes in them lately. I just wanted to let you know why I hadn't followed up on the problem. --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yobot removing talkheader parameters
This is very undesirable. The ability to easily search specific archives is essential, and this parameter would be a mandatory addition if I had my way.
I do realize that was an old edit.. has this been corrected already?
I had to restore the search parameter manually.. Any chance you could program the bot to add the |search=yes parameter to talkheader and/or archivebox templates of talk pages with large archives? or at least undo Yobot's prior removals?
This is a very old edit. As far as I remember there were done only a few edits and I noticed the bug myself and it's already fixed. According to the edit log, Yobot wasn't touching any talk header before January 9, 2010. In January 13 the bug was already fixed according to rev 6020. I think there should be less than 10 articles that may have a problem. There are other bots that bot archiving, so I don't know how to help further. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
AWB Alerts for talk pages
I was wondering if you could tell me what alerts are currently active for talk page edits. I have been doing a lot of work on the talk pages for the medal of Honor recipients articles and have noticed very few alerts. Before I ask for some to be added I thought I would ask what we had first. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the alerts and there are only a couple that could apply to talk pages. Since I know that you are adding a lot of logic for talk pages and you already have a list of things somewhere here are some potential additions. Rather than add it to the AWB Feature request page (unless you want me too) I will leave my suggestion list here and you can pick through and do the ones you think have merit or havent already been identified as future changes. Some alerts may be doable as logic and some of the logic suggestions may be more appropruate for alerts but Ill leave that in your capable hands to decide. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Possible alerts for Talk pages
General
No "Wikiproject banners found" - If the article does not contain a wikiproject banner
Multiple duplicate banners (I.e. contains 2 banners for the same wikiproject, such as WP Biography)
Needs assessment
Needs priority placement
Contains Disambiguous links
Missing/Incomplete B-Class assessment (for start or B class class articles with an empty or missing bclass assessment)
WP Biography specific related
Biographical article without WP Biography banner It's impossible to determine that a talk page belongs to a bio article without checking the page itself. This is very slow.
Perhaps this could be done as a partial then? Maybe if it contains certain categories without the WP Biography banner? For example starting with Category:Military biography or Biography (military)? Or maybe if the Biography parameter for certain Wikiprojects (like aviation or MILHIST) is set to Y, y, Yes or yes? --Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
In regards to alerts again. Does AWB look at a certain page to determine what an invalid citation parameter or Unknown WP banner parameter is? I was just wondering if the Help manual could point to it or something so that everyone is clear cause I for one dont know were to find all the possible parameters fort the citations or WP banners so Im wondering how AWB knows what they are. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Bypassing the redirects is much faster with F&R than using the Plugin++ Still this job is not appropriate for general fixes. Most people consider these changes trivial and shouldn't done alone. Most of the talk pages don't have many issues. In the case we want these changes we certinly have to take this job from the Pluggin++ (recent profiling shows 240-400 ms comparing to 2-6 ms for normal F&S!) -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bypassing redirects shouldn't be done alone. General fixes shouldn't be done alone. So why can't bypassing redirects be put into general fixes? –xenotalk13:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let's see some methods and then we discuss if it is possible to implement:
Plugin++ loads redirects if the template is it asked to fix and then bypasses the redirects. First part is fairly fast. Second part is slow, probably because of bad-written code. We are working on rewriting the second part.
My method till now: Normal F&R for about 20-30 templates. It's very fast but we have 900+ WikiProject templates, many of them with very few transclusions. If we want to implement it for all it will be slow.
Another idea: Find templates in page and bypass them. I am not sure but I suspect it will be slow but faster than the previous method.
Before adding WikiProjectBannerShell in talk page GFs,we had only fixing headers, moving talk header, etc. GFS were really fast (less than 0.5 s). WPBS function added 1.5 with 2 seconds to the whole procedure! (Of course, in the case that WPBS is present in the talk page). Bypassing redirects it may got us completely off-the-track.
Yes, I have noticed a bit of a slow-down in processing. In terms of bypassing redirects: couldn't it be done with kindof like the AWB/TYPO page where we add well-used redirects and remove them as they disappear? P.S. I've got a bunch of redirect-bypasses too [35], want to compare notes? –xenotalk14:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you did them with AWB's latest snapshot, you should have a file called "profiling.txt". We need the numbers next to Plugins, F&R, Talk Genfixes and Universal Genfixes. I 'll post my settings file too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
On that note, AWB always has an issue accessing profiling.txt if I don't run it "As administrator". Can that be addressed? ( Vista only; AWB lives in /$USER/AWB ) My profiling.txt on this PC is 1.4mb, should I email it somewhere? –xenotalk14:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any problem and I am on Vista too (since two months ago!). I had only problems when tried to run 2 AWB sessions. I 'll ask Reedy. PS You are the person I had the most edit conflicts ever :) -- Magioladitis (talk)
Yes, sorry, I'm an unrepetend tweaker. =) Where does your AWB live? Maybe it's because I've got mine in a user dir, or maybe it's because I sometimes run multiple instances. –xenotalk14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You should have decent rights in your user dir. IF it is from running 2 versions, due to the debug build being used now, I need to look at that. Does the profiling.txt appear in the same location as AWB? —Reedy15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Will have to tell you when I get to my Vista PC. I have a vague recollection that it's reported as being in some system dir, but I could be misremembering. –xenotalk15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
[37] and MANY others on your main non-bot account. I realize you may trying to test something, but you seem to be really upsetting users. Again, I'm aware of the rationale, but you're still using the same misleading edit summaries at the very least and aren't giving any justification in the summary about not using collapsed=yes. (You may risk blocking on your main account and/or loss of bot privs if keep doing this :(, not by me ATM, just a note). RN19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's just frustrating. He's making the same mass edits his bot did that got it blocked and complained about a massive amount of times. PLEASE at least change your edit summary so users know what you are doing (more then "testing AWB" too!). RN20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thank you. In the future please use better edit summaries though, you'll likely avoid a lot of the discontent. Thanks for your work on AWB again, a tool I've used for years :). RN07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Check this edit for example. I fixed the misplaced |1=. Then I asked Rjw to update AWB's code to handle these cases. Check rev 6857. I use a mixture of automatic and manual edit to check various cases and test performance. Our function at the moment is slow comparing to the rest talkpage general fixes. thanks for the advice and the continuous feedback. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
With my current statistics it takes 1-1.5 seconds to perform Talk Genfixes if WikiProjectBannerShell function is called. Notes to myself: Maybe we need more detailed profiling. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
How do you get to this figure of 1.5 seconds for talk page general fixes? I ran for pages transcluding Template:WPBS for articles starting with B and C. I gave up after about 80 pages because the profiling time was always in the 110–150 ms range. Rjwilmsi10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered joining WikiProject Cryptozoology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's coverage on cryptozoology. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! ~~~~
Some people asked for it. I am not sure yet. I don't want AWB to become very slow. We have to start a discussion on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It should not be slow, it will only apply to talk: pages, a cunningly crafted regex can ignore pages who's projects are all of the normal form, before doing the complicated bit: only applying any "WikiProject foo" => "WikiProject bar" changes to those pages. RichFarmbrough, 17:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC).
Re: Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in talk pages
No, neither have I seen any discussion about this, nor do I know for how long is this done. The truth is - as my contributions here are rather sporadical - I have "copied" that trend from User:MisterBee1966, as a number of articles use it, and I guess this tricked me. Still, if it causes problems (ie in bot functioning) then I can't say there is a reason to keep it. Regards, --Jake V (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yobot added a number of {{Empty section}} templates to ATC code lists (e. g. here). The empty sections are intentional, since these subgroups actually are empty. At first I wanted to add {{Bots|deny=Yobot}}, but I'm not sure whether the template additions come from Yobot or AWB, so other bots or humans using AWB would probably re-add these templates anyway. What would you suggest? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This is done automatically by AWB's auto-tagger. I don't quite understand why we have empty sections. Give me some time to check it and I 'll come up with a suggestion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the best is if you add: "None" or something similar in the section. To show that someone has maintained it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be great! I can't get AWB to run under Win7, for whatever reason. The lists are in Category:ATC codes (excluding its subcats). If you could replace occurrences of
Is there any way to insert either {{Reflist}} or <references/> when an empty references section is discovered by your bot. Example Regards Themeparkgc22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
AWB will add {{Reflist}} everytime there are references in the page, otherwise it is a bit misleaading. But maybe you could ask in template's talk page if other editors find the idea good and then we could implement it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Another empty section problem with Yobot...
See this diff. List of Freemasons uses an alphabetical listing (with TOC), and (not surprisingly) we have no one under "X". Yobot tagged "X" as an empty section, which it is, but marking alpha TOC articles and lists with empty section templates doesn't really do anything useful - generally there's nothing in there because there's nothing available to go in there, especially with names. Can you turn that particular function off? MSJapan (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Let's see and what Rjw thinks on the matter. I removed all the "List of..." pages from the edit list until we come to a nice solution and implement it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I was actually using search and replace to remove them in single letter sections, to counteract GFs, so now I can take that out. RichFarmbrough, 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC).
One more bug reported on Yobot's page: "Your bot has been adding empty section tags to sections that have content. What I figure is causing it to think its empty is that the content is encased in <pre> tags. -DJSasso (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)" -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Magioladitis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 279 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Done Thanks. As xeno wrote: Be bold! I would appreciate if I get some help to make this guide more comprehensive. xeno can I use your instructions for the assessment? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than 
Hunter Kahn (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to 
Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Resolved
Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), 
Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), 
Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and 
Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Fixed [9], [10] respectively. –xenotalk 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to 
ThinkBlue (submissions) and 
Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Stone (submissions) and 
White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and 
Theleftorium (submissions) and 
Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to 
Doing... Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ian Rose (submissions) (A), 
Casliber (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
