User talk:Xeno

Notes: I will usually reply where original comments occurred and add notifications if thought necessary. You may email me regarding anything sensitive, private, or confidential. I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation. Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to [[wikilink]] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting! click here to leave a new message...

This user knows that we can't stop here – this is bat country.

Do not archive

Threads in this subheader shall not be archived because my botservant will be confused by this fake timestamp. –xeno^talk 04:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions from...

Transcluded from User talk:Tim1357/adoption

You seem to be getting on fairly well, so I'm going to untransclude this from my talk page. Ask me questions there if anything comes up. Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO tagging

You mentioned that it would be okay to ping you for another run through our categories by the end of August. It would be great if you could do another run through now. I am talking with AHRtbA== (talk · contribs) about whether User:YATBot might be accepting projects to sign up to do this regularly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, can do. –xeno^talk 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... but maxlag is slowing me down. Found 350 new articles in the category: WP:CHIBOTCATS/LOG. –xeno^talk 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done 413 edits. I assessed any articles in "Unassessed..." as stub if they had a stub template. –xeno^talk 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenobot Mk V has retagged Climax Blues Band with Template:ChicagoWikiProject. I recently removed a similar previous tag as it really does not make sense. The band in question was originally called The Chicago Climax Blues Band in the late 1969s, but has/had no tangible connection otherwise with Chicago itself. I know I could simply remove the tag, but I guess that it might re-appear again without intervention from your end. These tags are somewhat beyond me as to how they work, and I thought it best to bring it to your attention before it becomes a bigger issue. I hope I have done the right thing. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop a note for the WikiProject co-ordinator... Note it is appearing in Category:Chicago blues ensembles which WikiProject Chicago has identified as an area of interest at WP:CHIBOTCATS. ("Chicago blues" style of music...) –xeno^talk 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does your bot respond to {{nobots}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It will respect nobots, yes. –xeno^talk 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

auto-assess

Just summarrizing what I've read and suggested. There is a need (we are getting buried in unassesed Class and Importance articles) for auto assessing both assessment parameters when Chicago Project articles have no assessment values for either or both parameters- Class and Importance. The method for deriving the default value will be different for each one. The reporting or flagging of auto assessed values may or may not be the same. Sounds like a lot of work. Please let me know if I can help. Pknkly (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Auto-assess Importance parameter?

Using the process above, could the Importance assessment parameter be automatically assigned a Low value to articles within selected categories (e.g., all alumni related, all faculty related, all Northwestern related, all players related, etc.)? Perhaps we can assign automatic Importance levels at a higher level like High to articles with categories related to a National Register. I'm suggesting adding to the current list a space or other character delimited field holding the default Importance assessment parameter value (e.g., Category:Kellogg_School_of_Management_alumni Low; Category:Museums_in_Chicago,_Illinois Mid).Pknkly (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you guys break up WP:CHIBOTCATS into sections ordered by default importance, I can do it this way. –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT DO IMPORTANCE BY BOT It varies too much from project to project and would not be helpful. However, assessing the quality of an articl is fairly uniform across projects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of lowest Importance within the categories lists of the various projects will accurately reflect the differences between the project teams. Pknkly (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but Pknkly's suggestion to assign a default lowest importance for categories in WP:CHIBOTCATS may be worthwhile. –xeno^talk 17:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not try sifting through the list and see what you can come up with. –xeno^talk 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I completed sifting through and assigned suggested lowest values for Chicago Project related category codes back around Sept 4th. Since then the development of an Auto Assignment of Lowest Importance Assessment Value capability within the Chicago Project was put on indefinite hold. Nevertheless, I didn't want my effort to go to waist and so I placed a suggested version of a category table at User:Pknkly/TempWork01. The table can be viewed as a proof of concept for use by other projects (naturally, they would use there own categories). Please leave any comments related to the proof of concept table or its use within the Talk page of the table. I'll move it to other project's area when and if they request it. Pknkly (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for Tony to check in. Until then, I'll throw the latest CHIBOTCATS into a spreadsheet and see if the rules and examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Importance Scale can be associated with categories (e.g., any category with Alumni gets Low Importance because of the following statement: "the place where they were educated is most likely to both trigger a Chicago category tag and yet be of seeming minor significance"). Statements like that can easily be translated into a lowest default Importance value. Pknkly (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose auto-assess importance per [1].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 10,000+ (about 50%) articles that don't have an Importance value. I realize a manual assessment of each one is out of the question, unless it is on an as needed basis. That will mean an ever increasing number of "blank" Importance articles. A "blank" may indicate to readers a level of importance that means the Project team doesn't believe they are even worthy of an Importance assessment. If we don't come up with an automation solution, we would need to make a statement within the Importance Assessment page about the meaning of a "blank" Importance parameter. We can encourage editors to request an Importance assessment if they feel it is that important. Pknkly (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then make a statement in the assessment page. I am not willing to have our project be the guinea pig for auto-assessing importance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Hope another project picks up the development.Pknkly (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment re denoting automation

Just adding auto=yes may not be best if you are automatically assessing other classes, e.g. GA-Class, as the default message will say it has been rated as a stub. You might want to disable the default note and add a custom one. You could change its message depending on what class it has been rated, e.g. auto=GA --> This article has automatically been rated as GA-Class by a bot because the currentstatus parameter of {{ArticleHistory}} is set to GA. Or something like that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I could certainly do that, but: is there a reason "auto=yes" can't (or shouldn't) be modified to pull from the class parameter and modify the output accordingly? The only reason I can think of is because if someone re-rates it but doesn't remove the auto= param, it will make an inaccurate statement... I suppose with your way, the auto=XX could nullify itself if the auto= and class= didn't agree... –xeno^talk 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise if someone rerates a GA-Class as Stub-Class, say, then it would say it has been automatically rated Stub-Class, which would be wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be solved by updating the auto parameter to be smarter, though. –xeno^talk 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it could, but as it's only this project which is doing this yet, it would be easier to implement locally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. For some reason I thought they weren't using WPBannerMeta... –xeno^talk 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So Tony, or Pknkly, you'll have to sort out how to want the bot to set the parameters and update your banner accordingly. –xeno^talk 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorting out comments given in the "auto-assess Class parameter" and "ready to go" sections. Pknkly (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All bases covered - good to go by me. Pknkly (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• After giving it some thought, I think the best way to handle this is as Martin suggested above, and tell the bot to put "Auto=XX" where XX is the rating. Auto=yes would be for stubs only and display the text it does now (wrt the stub template). Auto=XXX (anything else - including stub - because a stub rating could be inherited rather than put there because of an existing stub template) would display the note about inheritance. –xeno^talk 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Auto=XXX is a good idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

auto-assess Class parameter

• You mentioned you were looking for something that could assess based on other project categories . . . what kind of confidence level would you be looking for? i.e. would you like at least 2 or 3 wikiProjects to agree on a class before assessing as such? –xeno^talk 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as FA, FL and GA go, which are the most important ones, as long as any project uses one of these, it would be good to add that class to our article. For C, B, start, stub if it is possible to go by majority that would be best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • FA/FL and GA can be easily found from the templates they're using. I will probably not be able to easily program something complicated that will take the majority, but what I can do is determine how many times that class is used (e.g. "is class C used at least twice?" -yes?-> tag as C). Would a single tag be enough or should I look for at least two? –xeno^talk 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I would guess a single tag would be O.K., but I have not seen it operationally. You may want to talk with Pknkly (talk · contribs) about autotagging beyond FA, GA and FL for our project. He does a lot of the tagging.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the plan include using a method for indicating to the editors that the Class parameter was derived by a bot? Suggest using the "auto=" parameter in conjunction with the {{Stubclass}} "category=" parameter. Two categories will be needed - one for each assessment parameter (Class and Importance). The categories could be "Category:Bot Class parameter set for Chicago Project article" for Class parameter auto valuations and "Category:Bot Importance parameter set for Chicago Project article" for Importance parameter auto valuations (see below for Importance auto valuations). Seems the bot will need to have the capability to set both auto valuations for articles that don't have either parameters set. Pknkly (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on setting auto=yes. Why not just modify the template so they go into Category:Automatically assessed Chicago articles and update the built-in auto display to work for other-than-stub? (I'm not sure how importance would be auto-assessed...) –xeno^talk 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A single auto assessed category would not work because there are two assessment parameters involved with an assessment. One is for Class and the other is for Importance. Pknkly (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Automatically evaluated Chicago articles" for importance  ? –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please see the next subsection.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use project "scope points". An option by which another project's Class evaluation would be used as the default would be to use the Class valuation given by the project with the highest "scope points". The process (described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot#WikiProject scope points ) used by the WP 1.o team may include a list of projects with their "project scope points". I'm suggesting using a list, if it exists, with all the project's "scope points" and use the project with the highest scope points, within the article needing an automatic Class valuation, as the one whose Class valuation is automatically used for the Chicago Project Class parameter. Pknkly (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were such a list, this would be a very complicated task, one that I don't have the time (or technical prowess) to tackle.

Understood and thanks for giving it some thought.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What I could do is apply a class which exists in "X" number of projects, where "X" is a number of the WikiProject's choosing.

That would be fine.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• For example, if there is only one other WikiProject template on the page, are you willing to take the class from that project?

I think that sticking to a threshold (the "x" factor above) would be good since "blank" Class would mean it needs the attention of a Chicgo Project member because the threshold was not met. (I and the bot missed my signature - I think it was 2 September 2009 around 00:10 Pknkly (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) )

• If there are two other templates and they disagree, should I err on the lower side? Or not class?

I prefer not Class. Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If there are three other templates and two agree, should I use that class?

That sounds real good. Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Will this strategy work for you guys? –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

one	two	three	four	five	six or more
N do not tag	Y if they agree	if 2+ agree	3+	3+	4+

Does this matrix work then? –xeno^talk 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. The table summarizes what you were driving at in the text. Pknkly (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of no project auto-assessing importance. We should not be the first in this regard. I am strongly against auto-assessing importance. I am very much in favor of auto-assessing quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't quite be auto-assessing as much as assignment a lowest possible importance but if you don't like the idea, fine by me (makes it easier =). I'll run with trying to get inheriting the class to work, can you comment on how you want the bot to indicate it has inherited the class parameter? –xeno^talk 01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no real need to make any statement. It is very common for projects to change class for other projects based on their own assessment as an article's quality changes. If any statement is made it definitely is unnecessary for GA, FA and FL. Of course, I am open to suggestions, but don't have a strong feeling about the need.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think the bot should set a parameter, even if it just results in a hidden category for tracking. What about "inherited=yes" [2] ? –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot has already combed your unassessed pages for stub templates and auto-tagged as stub when they existed. Some of these articles have WikiProjects claiming they are stubs, I assume you want me to skip this, or should I tag as stub? –xeno^talk 03:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That article and ones like it should be tagged as stub if it is possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ready to go

• Here is a sample of 27 edits that the bot would make. I can either use "auto=yes" "inherited=yes" or just omit any mention altogether if you prefer. Let me know when you want me to run the bot. –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That looks great. Go for it. That is a very clear edit summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here are 1027 pages that likely contain only the Chicago template ( page doesn't contain: (?s)class[ ]*=.*?class[ ]*= ). –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is no problem that some will go unchanged with this process. We will improve the information on many pages, which is great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• With its current orders, the bot will operate on 682 pages in the unassessed category and I will run this task shortly using "inherited=yes". –xeno^talk 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Pilot task running... –xeno^talk 07:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the use of "inherited=yes" to include instructions on removing the parameter when a manual Class assessment was done? Pknkly (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you guys, it would not be hard to do but may require the help of the WPBannerMeta project. –xeno^talk 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to let people know what its about and how to respond to it (i.e., remove it if they agree - the standard messgae given for auto stubs).Pknkly (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right now the auto= message specifically refers to a stub template. I'll have to poke around over there again. –xeno^talk 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Order change: inherit if only 1 rating available

• In addition to the 1027 mentioned above, there are about 2000 that contain only one class parameter, or perhaps have conflicting reports. Are there any projects that you would have a higher confidence level in to inherit their tag? (WPBio, for example). –xeno^talk 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are still better off inheriting the most recent assessment from a single project than having nothing at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

	only one rating available	two available	three	four	five	six or more
auto-assess?	Y if only a single rating is available	Y if they agree	if 2+ agree	3+	3+	4+

How's this? –xeno^talk 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to go from my perspective.Pknkly (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess, it might be the case that there is a majority but not the proper number agreeing. In these cases, go with the majority.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The most complicated I came across was Talk:Ted Turner. Will start tagging those with only one rating available soon, after I work out the logic for many ratings. –xeno^talk 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why he is in the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The day Shepbot visited it, it said he was from Chicago... [3] Vandalism I guess? –xeno^talk 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• This task is  Done. 77 manual edits in the development/testing phase and 1584 edits in live fire mode. See above for some even-strength disagreements... Xenobot could tag with the lower or higher rating if you wanted, but they should probably just be manually assessed. Here are 2002 pages that did not have a class=rating to harvest. –xeno^talk 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WRT split assessment. list-class overrides any class but FL, FA, GA. I noticed some discographies that are probably split between list class and other classes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, I can build this in. –xeno^talk 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Barnstar

		The Chicago Barnstar
		This barnstar connotes our appreciation of your infinite wisdom and diligence in helping WP:CHICAGO identify and in many cases automatically assess articles that should be added to our project. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks =) –xeno^talk 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope?

You found us a lot of high quality articles that belong in the project (Template:FA Encyclopædia Britannica, Template:GAstar Lynton K. Caldwell, Template:GAstar Radioland Murders, Template:GAstar Tucker: The Man and His Dream). However, somehow Template:GAstar "Tonight, Tonight" got added as part of Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs, which is not in the project but which is a subcat of a category in the project. If you included subcategories, we have a lot of problems because many subcats do not belong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ShepBot tagged this article back in '08: [4]. On that day, [5] the article was in the category: Category:Songs about Chicago, Illinois. –xeno^talk 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you want, I can generate a report of articles tagged by Chicago that aren't presently in one of the defined categories, but there would probably be a lot of false positives... –xeno^talk 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask Pknkly about that. If it would be useful to him do it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the list anyway, was curious. 1073 articles tagged by Chicago not in a category listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS. –xeno^talk 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Combing the list for redirects... Are redirects in the project scope? –xeno^talk 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By excluding redirects the list fell to 923, and by excluding those that did not contain the word "Chicago", 161 pages: [6]. –xeno^talk 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Within the above, by "and by excluding those", did you mean category codes in which "Chicago" was not contained in the title of the category? If you did, beautiful! I suggest those category codes that have the word "Chicago" in its name and is not within Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List be placed into Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List automatically. Can that be done? That leaves only the 161 pages: [7] which have to be manually assessed and which I have started - discussion taken up below. Pknkly (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked for the word "Chicago" in the article at all, it could've matched a piece of prose, or a category that contained the word Chicago. Can't update CHIBOTCATS automagically... Both for technical and practical reasons: there are some categories that include the word "Chicago" that may or may not be in the project scope, for example Category:Chicago songs, Category:Chicago albums... ? –xeno^talk 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see - that's unfortunate. I do beleive all categories with the word "Chicago" should be in the Chicago Project's category list and if they are out of scope it should say so within the category record. I'll look at and respond to the two examples you gave. Will pick this up in Clean Up section. Pknkly (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to put this in the list please don't link the ones that are out of scope. There is a tool that will give you a list of all categories that contain the word "Chicago", right now it's not working for me though. –xeno^talk 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a little time to review the lists. I'm going to go forward with the following understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong:

(1) The "Auto Class Inheritance" bot runs only against the list of articles assigned to and listed within Category:Unassessed Chicago articles.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but in future it might run concurrent with a normal tagging task (up to you guys). –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(2) The assignment of the "Category:Unassessed Chicago articles" category was at one time done by a different bot that may have used a different set of categories by which Chicago Project articles were determined (i.e., it did not use Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think it used the same list, but the articles may have since been removed from the category that got them tagged. See example above of "Tonight, Tonight" which at one point was in Category:Songs about Chicago Illinois. Check the date the bot tagged the talk page, and then view the revision of the article from that day to investigate further. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(3) Due to #2 above, there are articles with the ""Category:Unassessed Chicago articles" category that are no longer Chicago Project articles because they do not have a category that is within Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List. Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes (but they may be in an assessment category now, if the bot inherited), or the articles are missing a category that should be there and may have been inadvertently removed. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, because of the above, via the new "Auto Class Inheritance" process, we are apparently assigning Chicago Project class levels to articles that may not in fact be Chicago Project articles.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative, I've run the auto-inheritance on all articles in the unassessed category. In future, I could cross-ref the unassessed category with those in CHIBOTCATS and avoid any that don't seem to belong - if you like. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Category:Chicago songs and Category:Chicago albums should not be in the project any more than Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs should be in the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean up and sync Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List

Nice dandy clean up tool you've developed above. I looked at the 161 pages: [8]. I, or maybe someone could help, manually look at respond to each one. For those that have a category code that needs to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List I will do so with the edit summary "Old category code part of Chicago Project". I will remove the Chicago template from the Talk page of those that do no have a legitamite reason for being a Chicago Project article as classified by the categories in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List. If you can automatically add the category codes (discussed above) that have the word "Chicago" in their name and I (or we, if I get help) respond to each of 161 pages: [9], I beleive we will have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List that is in sync with the Category:Unassessed Chicago articles. On the down side - we may not be synced with the other Class value categories (e.g., FA, GA, etc.) - but that will be a different chapter in this saga. Pknkly (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember something may be in the scope of the Chicago project but still not have a category in CHIBOTCATS... Some categories are too wide to be included, no? Also do not forget the larger list : 923 (inclusive of the 161). This contains articles that are tagged by the project, but are not in CHIBOTCATS (but they do have the word Chicago in them somewhere). So this could be because: 1) the reason I mentioned above, it is within the scope of the project, but not in one of the CHIBOTCATS; 2) it was in a CHIBOTCAT but the category was erroneous, a bot tagged it not realizing (e.g. Category:Chicago songs these should be de-tagged?). –xeno^talk 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We are on the same page - I understand and agree with what you said above. I see the light at the end of the tunnel for the 186 stuff (which should now be no greater than 173 due to the work I already finished). I can clear that by myself if I have to. At this rate, it could take up to a week. After that we can focus on the larger problem. I'll just take a peek at Category:Chicago songs, Category:Chicago albums. By the way, as I worked with the 186 stuff I was getting some "lessons learned" ideas I would want to pass onto designers and developers (e.g., have the bot give the category code used within CHIBOTCATS when they declare article is in scope for Chicago Project). Where can I drop things like that and come back to them later for further discussion? If I stop and discuss things nobody is getting to the 186 (173 now))Pknkly (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that I run the bot over all of the categories at once, rather than one at a time which would really take a lot of time. Unfortunately no one is really updating the plugin anymore... But you can leave a suggestion at WT:Plugin++. –xeno^talk 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for help (please see Help wanted. Maybe some of your Indiana people are looking. I wasn't sure if you wanted the instructions to include background information (which I always feel is useful and encourages participation through learning more stuff) with specific references to your page or about the bot. Wanted to shield you from possible extra questions and perhaps work. Please edit the instructions in any way you see fit. Pknkly (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to reference anything you need here, or on the bot's page(s). –xeno^talk 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't every article in Category:Disambig-Class Chicago articles have shown up on the cleanup list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Most or all of these showed up in the larger cleanup list: [10]. I trimmed it down to 161 and those without the word "Chicago", but the 923 still contain articles that lack a CHIBOTCAT. –xeno^talk 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how this list was created?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I took the list of articles in the project and eliminated those that were in CHIBOTCATS or had the word "chicago" in them. –xeno^talk 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why only three of the CTA station Dab pages were listed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The short list contained articles not found in any CHIBOTCATS and without the word "Chicago" in them. If you added the word Chicago to the disambiguation line, this particular query wouldn't catch it. –xeno^talk 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review, advise on possible disambig article tagging conflict. Pknkly (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot MK V standing reports

Please review and edit as needed (should take less than five minutes. By the way, is Wikipedia:CHIBOTCATS/LOG a standing report? If so, what does it report? Any other standing reports produced by Xenobot MK V?Pknkly (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I usually post the net-new articles about to be tagged there before I tag them. I'll take a look at the bot's section a bit later, gotta head out for now. –xeno^talk 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC access request

I've just posted a request at Wikipedia:IRC#Pending_requests_for_access_to_channels, could you check it and act on it an let me know if I've got the right idea on how the cloak request works? Thanks,--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, another admin took care of it. However, if you have time, I'd like some help understanding cloaks as I obviously don't get it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Rjd, you didn't create a cloak yet. Go to m:IRC/Cloaks and follow the instructions there to create one. Otherwise your hostname/IP will be visible to others on IRC. –xeno^talk 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Got this straightened out. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indiana assessment

Hello! Sorry I missed you RfB, I would totally supported that! I wish they would allow cavassing. But then again I am radical! haha!

I think that we can go ahead and try to auto assess WP:INDIANA article with Xenobot whenever you feel up to it. I do have a couple question, it looks like you use one or more assessments from other articles to determine the assessment your bot will make. I would like to only take an assessment if at least two projects have already rated it. If, for example, Project A assessess as stub and Project B assesses as Start, will you apply a Start, Stub, or no class to the article? (Stubwould seem like the correct awnser to me)

Also, is there a paremeter you will add to the project template that will cause it to go into a category or inform the viewer that it was assessed automtatically? User:Betacommandbot (RIP) used to do something like this as I recall, but hunting through the difs I can't find it. So maybe I imagined it. I know it at least put a note on the talk page. If no such paremeter exists, could the bot at minimum add a category on the talk pages where you make an assessment. Something like Category:Auto assessed Indiana articles? I just think that at some point it will be benficial for humans eyes to manually check things, and also to make sure the reader knows it is an auto assessment.

No hurry on anything, and if you are busy I totally understand. Thanks Xeno! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I can instruct the bot to only tag where at least two projects have rated it.
• Thus far, I've just been not tagging in even strength disagreements.
  • What I'll do is generate a report of the disagreements and you can look them over and confirm you want me to tag as the lower class.
• I can use auto=XX where XX is the rating and I can sort out your banner to put them in the category and provide a note about it.
• Do you want me to run the 'default importance' as well? Should I use "autoimport=yes" for the param?

I'll try to start this task in the next couple days. –xeno^talk 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can run the default importance as well. About half our categories are assigned one now, other half are too complex. I think the importance paremeter is less important, it is really more of an internal thing, but adding a paremter for that would be fine too. In all reality we only have a pretty small core of articles of major importance, and they are already defined as such. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you looking for an automated alert system to let you know about assessment changes, check out the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's Assessment Bot... You can set up an automated alert system like we use at WP:Micronations, (see it here)... There's no way to flag it as auto assessed, but you at least will know what changes were made to the assessment... Maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but just my attempt to help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be useful, I will take a look at it. Our projects primary problem is manpower. There is only about four of us who are regularly active within the project. Anything we can do to help with that is a good thing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek is now threatening me with administrative action on my talk page

Has Literaturegeek become an administrator, can she threaten to "block me"?[11] Once again she personalized a discussion [12], and has over reacted to my response, and now harasses me. This is a long standing pattern which I have pointed out to several administrators. Please help.--scuro (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the first bit is a standard user warning that any editor can issue, and Lg would have to seek action either at a noticeboard, or at WP:AE, I suppose, if there's anything relevant in the case. You have the same avenues - based on my past participation, it would be best to seek an outside opinion.

Forgive my poor memory, has mediation been attempted? –xeno^talk 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I insist scuro that you publicly retract your slur on editors personal character on the ADHD talk page. It was a severe personal attack, which I want retracted immediately.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

scuro, classing your fellow colleague as "anti-psychiatry/scientology" was not productive. Please amend accordingly. You would both do well to argue to your audience rather than at eachother. –xeno^talk 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scuro is meant to have a mentor appointed by the arbcom but it has not happened, so the drama continues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire for mediation with a disruptive editor. Editors have gone down this path before and it turns into game playing. I would like the arbcom ruling of a mentor to be inacted, it was meant to be. Until remedies of the arbcom are exhausted I don't feel going over failed territory is worthwhile. Sorry I am not in a good mood.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to check directly with an Arb or a clerk what should be done given that they haven't followed thru appointing a mentor. –xeno^talk 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• At the heart of this lies a content dispute; has there been progress made into this advisement? –xeno^talk 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC) -

7) All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

There have been a couple of occasions when ADHD was just about to be officially nominated for collaboration project of the week, but scuro each time manages to sabotage it. One would think if his claims were true that he would want doctors and pharmacists reviewing the article?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway as my talk page says, don't feed the trolls, so I am backing away from this game playing, unless something major needs addressing. Sorry for disruption to your day or evening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if we all refrained from placing our fellow colleagues into adjective categories. Thank you for dropping by. –xeno^talk 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but my bet is that I will see such behaviour over and over again. We have also not discussed the major point of this thread, and that is that Literaturegeek has threatened me with administrative action and she has no right to do so. That is harassment plain and simple and this sort of thing has been going on far too long and reported to several administrators. No one should have to put up with harassment indefinitely.

Literaturegeek's own words here on the thread once again personalize this way beyond anything that I posted on the talk page. Stating that, "those who have a similar viewpoint about ADHD to anti-psychiatry/scientology's viewpoint", neither mentions anyone by name nor does it "classify" anyone. It is a description of those who hold minority viewpoint and who have avoided moving the article forward. If my comment is really worthy of an apology, then I would be deserving of many apologies for specific references by name, from SEVERAL of the contributors on the ADHD page. If action will be taken, I would take the time to document this. Consensus and mediation has been sought for YEARS, and those who hold minority opinion have avoided it at every turn...and believe me there have been many opportunities. I am still willing to do so, but you will most likely see that they do not take me up on this offer, nor do they make counter offers. I'd love for them to prove me wrong on prediction!! If any of them want to start fresh, I'd be very willing to mutually apologize for past transgressions. I do so much want to move forwards, but until that time that they are willing to come to table, please stop the specific harassment directed at me personally by name. By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only. I've also taken the time to learn how to reference properly.--scuro (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For superlative talk page lurking, and for being a good sport about the subject. :) Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Durova's sockpuppet account