User talk:Headbomb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:20, 2 August 2018

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

DatBot 9

It's running now but it seems like Yobot has already tagged most of the pages. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy:, yeah that's fine/expected. The point is to have a bot tag those files automatically so we don't have to do that ourselves. Yobot did that a while ago, but it wasn't a continuing task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using Template:Hover title instead of Template:Abbr for User:AAlertBot

Right now, AAlertBot uses Template:Abbr via the {{Tooltip}} redirect, but for accessibility reasons (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text) {{Abbr}} should only be used for abbreviations. I don't think the source code for AAlertBot is available, but would you consider replacing the use? The order of parameters is opposite, though, so I think you'd go from {{tooltip|'''1''' participant|del: 0, keep: 0}} to {{Hover title|del: 0, keep: 0|'''1''' participant}}. The end result should be the same. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: would have been better to post this at WP:AALERTS/FR, but I'll ping @Hellknowz: on this, since he's the one that can do a thing about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 3, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master thesis on Wikipedia Bot Policy

Dear Headbomb,

I'm currently working on my master thesis - an analysis of Wikipedia's bot policy development (German and English communities). The data I focus my analysis on are the contributions to the talk pages of the two sites Wikipedia:Bots (de) and Wikipedia:Bot Policy (en). I already dived a bit into the data from the English talk page and also had a look on the history log of the policy site. I noted that you are one of the main contributors to this policy. I would be very happy, if you could answer some of my questions regarding the development of the policy.

Where did the policy's contributors mainly discuss the contents of the policy?
Were contents usually put on the project page first and discussed later or vice versa?
How important are the IRC channel and the mailing list to the development of the policy?
How did the contributors ensured that the contents of the policy always aligned with the general consensus?

If you also know someone who can give me more insight into this topic, I would be very happy, too. Any answer to one or more of my questions will be extremely valuable to me.

Kind regards --Mmaarie (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmaarie: Hi Mmaarie! I'll gladly answer your questions, but I'll ping Xaosflux (talk · contribs) as one of the oldest/wisest active WP:BAG members (here since pretty much the beginning of bots on Wikipedia, if not before).

Concerning discussion of WP:BOTPOL (and in the past WP:BOTS), I believe most of it happened on the talk page (WT:BOTPOL as well as WT:BOTS). The archive boxes on those pages will link to most old policy-related discussions, as well as some proto-policy discussions. There are likely a few WP:VP discussions as well, but those aren't centralized. Maybe Xaosflux knows of a few important ones off the top of their heads. There may be some discussions at WP:BOTN (and its archives) too.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean Were contents usually put....?, if so, what do you mean by content? Do you mean the main text of the policy?
I have never used the mailing list (I'm not even aware there's a bot-specific mailing list), but if there is such a mailing list, my impression is that no one cares about it. Concerning IRC, it's a very informal channel. The most policy-related discussion I've seen there is BAG members headdesking in exasperation of particularly clueless/egregious behaviour of certain bot operators. We sometimes ping each other for input, but the feedback there is very "Here's a draft/Here are my tweaks" followed by "Yeah looks good." or "I'll take a look." followed by on-wiki edits (either copy-editing/tweaks to the draft/policy directly, or a talk page discussion ensues). All in all, I'd say IRC is not very important to policy developments, and mostly serves as a "BTW, can you take a look at this" sort of venue. Anything remotely serious happens on-wiki, since we want a public record of what was done and why.
I say a good chunk of the policy (the day-to-day stuff, refinements to wordings that clarify meaning without changing the substance of the policy) has grown organically from experience-based WP:CLUE. For instance, when I updated the WP:BOTISSUE section, I just boldly edited the page and posted a message on the talk page to get feedback from the bot crowd to make sure I didn't write anything crazy/objectionable. Other things are just boldly done, and if there's an issue, Wikipedia users are not afraid to voice their discontent so it either gets reverted quickly or refined to bring it in line with consensus. For changes that are more substantial/possibly controversial (what is/isn't allowed, e.g. a simplification to ADMINBOT), there is at the very least a consensus-gathering discussion on WT:BOTPOL, or a well-advertised WP:RFC.

I hope that answers your questions, let me know if there are more, or things you need clarified! @Xaosflux:, feel free to chip in at any point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Headbomb,

Thank you very much for your answers and the insights! Coming from the theoretical point of view, information from someone who has actually worked on the policy is very helpful. The second question was quite confusing, but the information I was looking for actually came with your last answer :)

I will analyze my way through the talk pages and ask again if I come across anything I don't understand :)

Kind regards, --Mmaarie (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Headbomb,

I stumbled over another question during my analysis and would be very happy if you could help me when you find the time.

This site is supposedly to show users by their user groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/bot. Also, it is stated that the status is held up to date by bureaucrates assigning and revoking status. Due to the inactivity policy on bots I assume that the filtered list displays only active bots. What I don't understand is that rambot is not shown in this list even though on the userpage for this bot it still has a bot status. Do you know why that is and in case of an inconsistency of the list, if this affects other bots as well?

Also, is there a recent list of all active bots, their last edits and their overall edits in the English Wikipedia?

Kind regards, Mmaarie (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmaarie: As far as I can tell, Rambot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since 2006, so it's not an active bot. Its userpage should probably be updated. For a list of bots like that, I don't know of any that's up to date, but there are some in Category: Wikipedia bots or possibly Category:Wikipedia bots (historical). If you wish a more up-to-date list of all active/past bots, honestly I'd make a bot request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:UNED Research Journal/ Cuadernos de Investigación UNED

Regarding this contribution to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UNED_Research_Journal/_Cuadernos_de_Investigación_UNED

I added the external references requested. There are over 800 scientific and technical journals in Central America (http://www.latindex.org), but few have international notability. UNED Research journal is important in the region because it is known worlwide, as proved by the countries of origin of its articles (eastern Asia, Tropical Africa, Europe, The USA, Latin America), and by its presence in highly selective indices, like Scielo, Latindex, Redalyc. According to Latindex standards, the journal complies with 31/36 of the characteristics of a high standard journal. The journal and the articles published can be accessed via OCLC and World Cat library as well as Google Scholar, the Directory of Open Access Journals. A number of libraries around the world have this journal within their catalogue, for example the National Library of Australia, University of Brighton, Journal TOC's, National Scientific and Technical Research Council.

To check this information, please refer to the section References, where I included all the relevant links.

Best regards. LEU Asistente (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LEU Asistente: "Few have international notability", well, if they're not notable, then they're not notable. Nothing much that can be done around that. Scielo/Redalyc aren't selective in the sense of WP:NJOURNALS, as they'll index pretty much anything from Latin/South America that's not complete garbage (I'm not familiar with the Latindex much, but a quick glance seems it's not very selective either). This doesn't mean they're not good journals / good indices for their purpose (making of scholarship from Latin/South America visible), but they're not selective. And if we bring the article in line with WP:JWG, we're pretty much let with the 3 first sentences of the lead and the history section, pretty much everything else would go.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA #4

Your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 4) has been approved for trial --- yada yada yada.. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia curious about bots.

Hey there. I found you thanks to Category:Bot Owners with the help of the live help chat on IRC. I am a 3rd year computer science student, and was told in passing that Wikipedia is a great place to complete a few programming projects, as well as help a really great cause.

I just joined Wikipedia, and I am overwhelmed by the amount of policies there are to navigate. I am excited though because this looks like a great place to volunteer (with other things besides bots). Regarding creating a bot, I feel I have the skill set (programming, regex, etc); what I don't understand is Wikipedia. I have no particular interests besides programming, but am really willing to help out anywhere until I understand more.

That leads me to three questions:

Where would you, as someone who makes bots for Wikipedia, suggest someone like me gets started? Also, how much experience do you need before you can start working on bots? Finally, Is there somewhere I can go to get a mentor-type person (preferably that has created a bot) to help guide me along this process?

Thanks for your time. I am a little bit overwhelmed, but excited at the possibilities.

Kadane (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]