Jump to content

User talk:Chris G/Archives/2011/October

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


RfC bot: simplification idea

Regarding the RfC bot: at this Talk page there is a suggestion that the "per editor limit" may be unnecessary. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One bot and Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates

The category Category:AfD debates (Nominator unsure of category) is going to be deleted. Could you please remove it from One bot's updates of Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

GA bot

Would it be possible to have your bot recognize {{User|Example}}, {{User2|Example}}, ... as well? A recent change to GAN/preload, means that the "User2" template is no longer substituted, so your bot is reporting these as by "???". I think it's better if we don't substitute the {{user}} or {{user2}} template since it just looks messy. If you notice the recent edits by your bot to that page are cleaning up the errors due to the substituted version of User2 taking up more than one line. This change to User2 was also reverted, but a mess was made over the past 24 to 48 hours. I believe I cleaned those up on the individual GA# pages. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since I happen to be watching this page, you can use {{tlp}} for things like {{User|Example}}, as you have above. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
How does {{tlp}} or {{tlx}} solve the issue with {{GAN/preload}}? You lost me. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with that. Typing {{tlp|User|Example}} is easier than typing &lt;nowiki&gt;{{User|Example}}</nowiki> as you did above. Sorry for the confusion. →Dynamic|cimanyD← (contact me) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I made another change to {{GAN/preload}}, so the default will be to have a "substituted version" of the standard {{user}} template, which should be recognized by your bot. We shall see if it lasts. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

RFC bot trashes page

Hi, please could RFC bot (talk · contribs) be amended to not cause extensive damage to discussion pages, as it did here? Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've now fixed it. --Chris 11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Oops! Thanks for signing my comment for me, that was a big mistake on my part! + Crashdoom Talk 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a big mistake. Happens to the best of us. You're welcome. --Chris 12:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC bot malfunctioning

It seems to be transcluding things it shouldn't be onto various RfC subpages, for example: [1]. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Good article}}

Hi Chris, I've noticed that the documentation for the template says "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis." Looking at the history, I think that wording has been there since June last year. Your (very helpful) bot adds it right at the top of the article, although I think that AWB (for instance) will move it to the "correct" place if "fixing" the page. Not that it's terribly important in the grand scheme of things, but it seems slightly odd to have the GA bot, of all bots, add the GA template in the "wrong" place, only for it to be moved by other bots! Any thoughts? BencherliteTalk 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's because us coders are lazy (harej originally wrote the bot, I've just recently taken over running it). You will notice it says "at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis". This means, in order to add it to the bottom the bot would have do to some (fairly error prone) parsing to workout where the defaultsorts, categories, and interwikis are etc, in order to add it to the correct spot. Obliviously it is much easier just to add it at the top. That said it would be possible to change the bot to add it too the bottom, however you'd have to twist my arm with a pretty good reason (the more parsing and messing around with the page a bot does, the more likely it will make an error and screw the page up). --Chris 08:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot 8

Chris, I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that Snotbot 8 was already in trial when you denied it earlier today for not having consensus. I took H3llkn0wz's comments at the start of the trial (or even just the fact that the BRFA had gotten as far as a trial) as a sign that we were past the point of determining whether or not the task should run at all. I've spent quite a bit of time writing the code, creating templates, monitoring the bot, debugging the code, etc. under that assumption, and I'd be disappointed if all that work was for nothing because consensus wasn't adequately gauged at the start of the trial. Had the trial elicited complaints by users who noticed it while it was running, I would understand how it could be denied while in a trial phase, but there were no such complaints. Can you explain to me how a BRFA can be denied for no consensus after it has already run its trial, or perhaps could you reconsider your decision to close the BRFA? Thanks. —SW— express 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understood it, the trial had been marked "Trial complete". I understand that you would be disappointed with this outcome, however I still feel that there was not enough consensus for the bot to go ahead. However, I will create a thread on WT:BRFA to request review of my deny, and comments from other baggers/the community. --Chris 02:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Focolare Movement

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Focolare Movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Double request

The RFCbot has just delivered a request to comment which it had already requested of me on 11th October. SpinningSpark 12:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

RFC bot and quotes

It has been reported to me that RFC bot fails when the talk page containing the RFC request as quote marks. Apparently, if the RFC request is in Talk:A B "C" D, it attempts to update Talk:A B. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I assume you are referring to this rfc? however I can't see where the error is. Would you mind posting me a diff of what you are describing? --Chris 12:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It was reported by Timeshifter (talk · contribs) that this version (admin only) was created by his invocation of the bot at as of October 16, 2011, at 18:24 (UTC). It contained (with some quotes to prevent unnecessary headings and tags:

== Should most of the cities with protests (even with references) be deleted? ==

{{rfc|pol}}

Nabla deleted most of the cities from the list. They were returned pending discussion of [[WP:LISTS]].

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service

Seems to be working much more as I imagined now :) Excellent work on the rewrite. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Username Change and RTV

I initially wanted to change my username and then cam across the "Right to Vanish" and decided to request that because I don't need to be on here as a user anymore. To re-request the RTV do I just need to go back to the Changing Username section and get rid of the @ symbol?--SigmaTDCO (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you just need to remove the @ symbol. However, as you only have 4 edits, I would suggest it would just be easier that you abandon your account. --Chris 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot and Watchlist

I noticed that on my watchlist, RFC bot edits are showing up even when Hide Bots is true. Could it be related to this? Mojoworker (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's strange; hide bots works fine for me. Can you diff me as to which edits aren't being hidden? --Chris 01:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently seeing [2] and [3] when "Hide bots" is selected. Mojoworker (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That is intentional. The bot does not flag that edit as a bot edit because it is leaving a message for a user. I can change this if you like, but I think it makes sense not to flag the edit. --Chris 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess it depends on how editors use their watchlists. For example, edits from EdwardsBot delivering the Signpost disappear when "Hide bots" is selected. I view RFC bot similarly — the edit is uncontroversial and I don't really need to see it on my watchlist since I wouldn't need to follow up on it. So, I guess I'd prefer if it didn't show up, but, it's not a big deal. It just seemed inconsistent with the other bots' behavior. Mojoworker (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

I removed myself from WP:FRS

...yet RFC bot still from time to time asks me to participate in discussions. Can you please look into this? hare j 14:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, I came here for the same reason. Name withdrawn from list on 26th October. My talk page spammed by bot on 29th October. Is there some delay in the bot updating its mailing list or is there a bug here? SpinningSpark 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That was a stupid bug and should now be fixed. --Chris 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_G/Archives/2011/October&oldid=1075222067"