Jump to content

User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2023/April

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


Non-free image reduction bot migration

Hi. I run a similar image reduction bot based on this code on zhwiki and am being asked to migrate from GridEngine to Kubernetes. If you did this migration, how did you create a python2 environment with custom libraries such as pillow? Any comment is much appreciated. Wcam (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See phab:T319659#8301687. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@Wcam: oh crap. I hadn't tried the bot from toolforge yet. I was in the middle of porting it to pywikibot, but then I kind of got lazy, and decided to use your bot as it is. I made one test edit on this image from my local machine. I am currently using kubernetes for all my tasks, looking at the phab discussion, it seems like I won't be able to run this program through kubernetes? does that mean, are you guys using crontab to schedule? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the size reduction task is the bot's only remaining task that runs on the grid engine. Once the build service supports packages (or possibly GLIBC is upgraded to 2.29), it will be migrated. Might I also suggest you test the bot on testwiki rather than here? DatGuyTalkContribs 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran and Wcam: this has now been resolved, see https://github.com/DatGuy1/Bot-Tasks/commit/4ee16aa2ff9d9fad32f747ef9e3b6966b18e11fe. DatGuyTalkContribs 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for keeping this LTA at bay !! Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

DatBot skipping some reports

Hey DatGuy. Can you take a look at filter 1241's log and also DatBot's recent contribs. That filter should trigger a report after one hit, but most users aren't being reported, e.g. 174.166.65.167 and Nippon320. Any idea what's going on here? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in the bot logs, I'm not sure. I've restarted it, let me know if it happens again. DatGuyTalkContribs 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Still missing some. For example, Special:AbuseLog/34835234 was not reported, but Special:AbuseLog/34835265, from the same filter a few minutes later, was reported. In fact, looking at the combined log of all the 1-hit filters, there a quite a few being skipped. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The first one was probably because it refreshes filters every five minutes. Regardless, I've spotted something that might've caused an issue an attempted a fix. Let me know. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good now! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Seven (1995 film)

On 14 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Seven (1995 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ned Beatty turned down the role of John Doe in the film Seven because the script was the "most evil thing" he had ever read? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seven (1995 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Seven (1995 film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward B. Barry

The article Edward B. Barry you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward B. Barry for comments about the article, and Talk:Edward B. Barry/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Access to copy of deleted revision?

Hello DatGuy, would it be possible to get access (or copies of the full article source) for my last deleted revisions for the two articles Maria Valtorta, and Poem of the Man-God? I didn't realize that including a few lines (insufficiently paraphrased), even though they were cited would create copyright issues.

The issue is there were a lot of intervening edits that were, perhaps inadvertently, revision deleted that were non-infringing edits, representing a lot of structural cleanup, citation cleanup, article improvements, etc. that was lost through the revision deletion of all edits since Jan. 27 on one article, and since Apr. 8 on the other article. I would simply like to: 1) remove any infringing material from the articles which I can do very easily, and 2) keep all non-infringing edits.

For the record, I've written the admin who performed the revision deletion, and she is unwilling to provide me with the full article source, as she states that Wikipedia policy does not require her to do so. I fail to comprehend why she is unwilling. I am appealing to a sense of fairness, reason and impartiality given the amount of work lost. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello DatGuy. Here is a link to the discussion on my talk page: User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God. Here is a link to the discussion at Deepfriedokra's talk page, where he filed a similar request, which was turned down: User talk:Deepfriedokra#Access to Deleted Revision? — Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Now mind, I would have no objection to anyone else doing so. But I had two opposes on my talk page and could not see my way through to do it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Normally I would do it, but the content that was removed contains copyright violations from at least four places on Poem of the Man-God and one on Maria Valtorta. Content in both articles was actually removed by another editor because of the poor quality of the sources. Some unsourced content was removed too. As I explained on my talk page, attempting to repair this deeply flawed material is unlikely to have a good outcome. It's better to find two or three high quality sources and use them as the basis for new additions to the articles. — Diannaa (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Dearest Diannaa, you did your job in finding the copyright problems and revision deleting to remove them. Good and well. But your insistent unwillingness to provide me the original article text so I can correct the issues, is well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Arkenstrone (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Arkenstrone: I'm going to defer to the more experienced Diannaa on the copyright aspect. However, if you will specify what uncopyrighted content you would like restored, I am willing to provide it. While attempting to repair this deeply flawed material is unlikely to have a good outcome I say that if you are willing to attempt it outside of the mainspace and then merge it with consensus, that's your choice. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The copyright aspects I am happy to correct, so this shouldn't be an issue, and I won't merge/publish until it is free of all copyright issues.
The reliable sources issue I can also correct, as I see there are some sources that are indeed not very good, which were intended as placeholder sources until I had some time to locate better ones (which I have now located).
I am happy to correct both the copyright and reliable source issues outside of the mainspace. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
To make it simple, if you wouldn't mind emailing me the full article source from the most recent deleted Arkenstrone revisions for both articles, that would be great. The reason is there are many changes interspersed throughout. Then it can stay deleted in the revision history, and I can work with it outside the mainspace. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa: do you have any insights into the legality of doing this? DatGuyTalkContribs 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Reproducing copyright content is a violation of copyright law. I don't see why email would be an exception. However copying for private use is an exception; perhaps this use would be considered such an exception. — Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It looks like you are correct:
"Fair dealing is a user’s right in copyright law permitting use of, or “dealing” with, a copyright protected work without permission or payment of copyright royalties. The fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act allows you to use other people’s copyright protected material for the purpose of research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review or news reporting, provided that what you do with the work is ‘fair’." [1] Arkenstrone (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I am the another editor [who removed content in both articles] because of the poor quality of the sources.
You expect the user to then merge it with consensus. However, the user has stated they would re-use the very same unreliable sources they already put previously in the article, to create a FALSEBALANCE. They have also proved that they did not understand what a reliable source was. See Talk:Maria Valtorta#Recent heavy POV-pushing in which Arkenstrone demonstrates this behaviour (the list I gave contains all the unreliable sources used in both articles they have asked asked for, adminshopping for the third [Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and you] time here). All their work, which is now revdeleted, was done relying on those unreliable sources. Veverve (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I am the another editor [who removed content in both articles] because of the poor quality of the sources.
Yes, there were some sources that were of low quality. However, your approach to this was to remove large swathes of text from the article, instead of bringing it up on the article talk page. You could have tagged the sections with low quality sources with a "better citation needed" tag. In other words, you didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function. But more importantly, immediately after gutting the article, you contacted Diannaa and asked her to check for copyvio and she found some insufficiently paraphrased text, and so revision deleted all edits to Jan. 27 and Apr. 8. That sort of gaming of the editing process resulted in my inability to access the previous text and correct the copyvio + improve sources.
You expect the user to “then merge it with consensus”. However, the user has stated they would re-use the very same unreliable sources they already put previously in the article, to create a FALSEBALANCE.
If you have been following the discussion more closely, you would see that your statement is incorrect. I said above that I do recognize that some of the sources are indeed of low quality, and I would correct them (I already have some higher quality sources).
See Talk:Maria Valtorta#Recent heavy POV-pushing in which Arkenstrone demonstrates this behaviour (the list I gave contains all the unreliable sources used in both articles they have asked asked for
I fully intend responding to your article talk page comments, but I've been busy interacting with admins and other work. Some of the sources you mention in the list are indeed low quality sources. But not all. I will respond to you on the article talk page soon explaining why. Also, I'm not pushing any POV. I'm supplying historically accurate information regarding the sequence of events and statements of high-ranking members of the Church for which I have the receipts. And I am happy to provide those higher quality sources. But you seem unwilling to give the normal editing process a chance to function. Why?
All their work, which is now revdeleted, was done relying on those unreliable sources.
Not all, some. But therein lies the problem. Revdeletion is not used for purging material with unreliable sources. Reversion or manual removal is sufficient, but only after giving editors a chance to replace any unreliable sources with reliable ones. Diannaa, as far as I am aware, didn't revdelete all those edits because of low quality sources, but because of copyvio text introduced early on. Which, I have said for the nth time, I can correct very easily outside the article mainspace, provided I have a copy of the original article text. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Dianaaa has not given the similar request previously made to admin Bbb23, here it is: User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits. I will note that the user seems to have made their request specifically to admins that have already imposed sanctions on me in the past, except for Diannaa. Veverve (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour, in addition to an Arbitration Enforcement Sanction, where you gutted large portions of other articles without discussing or reaching consensus, and then engaged in edit warring. I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not the place to give lenghty explanations about my comment. I did not come here to argue with you, simply to inform the admins. Your positions are clearly understood by one reading the article talk page.
Why have you not taken the time and energy it took you to argue with and ask to 4 different admins to improve the articles? Would that not have been way easier? Veverve (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not the place to give lenghty explanations about my comment. I did not come here to argue with you
So why are you here? This request has nothing to do with you. I'm simply requesting access to a deleted revision. I didn't mention you here, nor was I going to bring up your past history of similar questionable conduct that got you banned multiple times previously, as I felt it wasn't pertinent at this time. You've brought that upon yourself by attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process. Arkenstrone (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have already said why I was here.
You've brought that upon yourself: brought what? Stop acting like you are some kind of referee. I did not game anything. On the other hand, a 4-admins forum shopping is an attempt at gaming the system. Veverve (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I've already explained myself. Nothing more need be added. I repeat: "I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour..." Arkenstrone (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here's what going to happen. Arkenstrone, I will email you the content of the deleted revisions. After you first remove any copyright violations and close paraphrasings, you will find higher quality sources to support any written information. You will then, slowly (meaning no 25 kilobyte additions), merge the contents while following WP:BRD. I strongly caution you against adminshopping like you've done here, especially with administrators who've previously sanctioned the person who's challenging your edits. If you must seek a second opinion, it should be done on a noticeboard (most likely WP:AN in this case). As an aside, and this applies to Veverve too, please copy-edit your comments before you press 'publish changes' to avoid flooding. This is applicable even more so on user talk pages as I've received 28 emails in the last 24 hours. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
After all the above discussion, what am I supposed to make of this? User talk:Arkenstrone#ANI Arkenstrone (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The two sections are for different issues, this is content and the AN/I thread is conduct. It's their right. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DatGuy/Archives/2023/April&oldid=1157741751"