User talk:Peelbot

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Welcome to my talk page. You are probably best directing your question / comments to my owner, User:Mike Peel, on his talk page. Alternatively, please post new messages at the bottom of this talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. If you do this, then my owner will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

Re: Physics tag

Dear Sir/Madam,

You may have inadvertently bin me into the 'physicist' category. I'm an applied mathematician who worked with some card-carrying physicists to publish papers in some physics journals. Can you please re-bin me into applied math category? I'd do it if I know how. Much obliged. Edward Ng 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Edward NgEdward Ng 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've retagged the article about you into the mathematicians and applied mathematics categories as best I can. Hope that's OK. Mike Peel 22:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

916 America

If you wrote the article named 916 America, please learn more about the minor planet and please edit the article. Musicalplanet 15:37, 9 July 2007

Physics tag

Can you please stop tagging every single article in the encyclopedia with the physics wikiproject tag? There's no reason for that. — Omegatron 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The bot seems to have gone "off the rails", and is tagging non-physics articles.--Srleffler 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you both provide a bit more information than that, please? Which articles have I mis-tagged? I'm only tagging articles within the categories listed at User:Peelbot/Physics categories, no more, and 99.9% of articles within those should be physics-related. Mike Peel 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from the last fifty edits (some less appropriate than others):

I assume if you continue back in the list of edits, you will find more inappropriate cases, with similar frequency of occurrence. It would be good if you would go back and fix these before running the bot again.--Srleffler 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running through these:

Vulcan (hypothetical planet) -- I'd count that as physics, heading towards astronomy. It was physical laws that suggested that the planet was present.
Vorpal -- that _did_ have physics content in it, until you split off the physics bit. I've now moved over the physics tag to the new page.
Vitalism -- you're right here. It's in Category:Obsolete scientific theories, which I should have gone through more carefully. I'll go back and check through that category shortly.
Visual acuity -- I'm not sure why this one's in Category:Physical quantity, tbh.
Vacuum plasmaspraying -- already detected, and fixed.
Trepidation -- borderline astronomy/physics. I can't see the harm in it being tagged as physics.
Transmitter power output -- again, borderline, methinks.

I'll check through the categories I've already tagged, and will tag, in the next few days to find any more occurrences like these. Most cases seem to be either articles in the wrong categories, or mixed categories that I haven't picked up on. Thanks. Mike Peel 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm all set up to tag the last batch of categories, but I'll hold off for the next 24 hours. If there are no further comments by then, I'll run the batch. Mike Peel 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably remove Category:Ballistics from your bot's to-do list, and go through that one by hand. Many of the articles are not really "physics". I suspect this is part of the problem: categories whose topic is certainly a field of physics, but many of the articles within fall outside the subject matter usually considered "physics". --Srleffler 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever tried to get rid of these pointless Wikiproject tags? I'm sure it's been tried once without consensus, but I don't know where the discussion was. — Omegatron 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that they are pointless; they have a number of good applications. e.g. they provide a link to a group of people who can help out at the article if the normal editors run into problems. Mike Peel 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unexpectedly busy this evening and in the near future; I'll try to get these issues resolved as soon as I can, most likely at the weekend. In the meantime, this bot will be inactive. Mike Peel 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the list of articles that I have yet to run through at User:Peelbot/To tag. I'll remove non-physics ones from that list, and seek approval from people that have left comments here, before running through it with Peelbot.

After that list, a phase change in my tagging approach will take place, where I will no longer be tagging whole categories; instead, I hope to be able to compare categories with a list of those that have already been tagged, and then compare those that haven't been tagged with a blacklist, before checking through the remainder individually to make sure they're physics-related and then tagging them with Peelbot.

I will remain pretty busy for the next week; I aim to do most of this after the 15 December 2006. Mike Peel 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

A few more that seemed off target:

I know that some physicists tend to think that everything is part of physics: biology is just physics with a few specialized constraints. But I don't think you're taking that point of view. I'm just removing these inappropriate tags as I find them. The tags probably wouldn't be so irritating if they weren't put at the head of the talk page, ahead of all the other tags. Putting a Physics tag at the end of the list would be a little more modest. --SteveMcCluskey 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can only put the tags at the top of the pages using the current software. Sorry. Thanks for removing inappropriate tags when you find them. Mike Peel 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've now checked through the articles I've tagged, and removed those that I've spotted as not being physics. That doesn't mean that I've removed all non-physics articles - it's likely that I've missed some, and also that there are some that I think are physics that other people don't, but I'm sure they'll emerge over time.

The next step is for me to check through the articles at User:Peelbot/To tag, confirm that they are all physics, and then run them through the bot. After that, I will be suspending this bot for a while, until I figure out how to do the next step (basically list comparison). Mike Peel 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be continuing tagging articles this evening. Contrary to what I said above, I'll be going through the categories listed in the "to do" section of User:Peelbot/Physics categories individually, making sure that all articles in the category are physics-related. Mike Peel 18:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub criteria

What's the criteria for this bot to label an article as a stub? I did a bit of work on a stub article, non-critical string theory, and thought it no longer was really a stub(from what I had cleaned from wikipedia:stub article). So I removed the stub tag and peelbot restored it. I'm not dead set against this, but I'd like to get a better idea of how you've automated this decision. Joshua Davis 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fetched a list of articles in Category:Physics stubs this morning, and have been running through them over the course of the day. Articles are added to that category by the stub tag on the article. I see that you removed the stub tag this evening from the article; as it was present this morning when I fetched the list, my bot thought that the article was a stub and tagged it as such on the talk page. In other words: the bot was using slightly stale data. I've reverted the edit my bot was made, such that the article is no longer marked as a stub on the talk page, and my bot won't be re-tagging it again unless the stub tag is added back to the article in the future. Mike Peel 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 04:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi, I noticed that this bot hasn't used AWB for a considerable amount of time. If you still have plans to use it, please let us know so that we could remove unneeded bots from the check page. Cheers, MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]