User talk:Rick Block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archives: 20142013201220112010200920082007200620052004

Not mentioned as nominator[edit]

Hello Rick Block! Could you please help? I only just noticed that the feature article Tintin in Tibet that I nominated and ensured promoted has not shown anyone as the nominator here Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2014#Promoted in September 2014, even though I am the primary nominator and I also invited my fellow editor Midnightblueowl to share the credit. Can you help us both receive our additional star for this article on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Maybe I messed things up by adding a second person as nominator. Thanks so much! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit will do the trick. The bot didn't know how to deal with {{usert}} (it should know now). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Was there a reason the bot did this? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The list was deleted from WP:FL, here. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That would explain it, although the deletion was by a vandal in this instance. I've undone the strikeout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with old FLC set[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. There was an old set of universities of Canada series which were separately named based on their province or area which now all redirect to universities of Canada. I changed the names of the lists back to their original names when promoted so we wouldn't have the nonsense of five or so former featured lists all called "universities of Canada" but was reverted by the bot. [[1]] Any way of rectifying it? Cowlibob (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of admins[edit]

This edit by Rick Bot broke the list of admins page. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls[edit]

Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Snowager-Talk to Me! 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick Bot and Wikipedia:List of administrators[edit]

Rick Bot seems to have gotten confused somehow. Yesterday, it reported 596 active admins [2]. Today, it's reporting 447 active admins [3]. That's an enormous, unprecedented (by more than one order of magnitude) drop. Something's not working right... --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot fetches the current list of admins every time it runs. Today it only got a partial list (apparently only the first 1000). My guess is it will be fine tomorrow but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for letting me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Rick_Bot down[edit]

user:Rick_Bot is not currently working. I'm attempting to figure out why and will fix it as soon as I can. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's working again. If anyone notices any problems, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Archive debates/2015 January index[edit]

Is it possible to run Rick Bot to index January 2015 CFD discussions? I'm not sure of the proper procedure I just noticed that December, February and March were indexed but not January. Liz Read! Talk! 10:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. It waits until it thinks all the discussions are closed. If this takes more than a few weeks after the end of the month (or if it's confused about whether discussions are closed or not), a month might get skipped. I'll run it manually to create the January index. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rick! I imagine it's confusing to the bot as it did index March but there is still (4+ months later) one discussion that hasn't been closed yet. I've been working at CfD on and off for two years and this is the first time I've come across the indexes but it's nice to know all of the information is in one place. Thank you again for your bot. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Bot question[edit]

Hello Rick Block! Random question here – how hard would it be to get Rick Bot to track Good articles, and update the WP:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles page, in the same way it already tracks Featured articles?... Just randomly curious. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this quite a while ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter#Automating Good Article contribution recognition. Things are somewhat different now (the WBFAN updates are now completely automated, and I've abandoned the DYK archives), but the brief answer is still that it would take more time than I have available. I don't know if anyone ever pursued this at WP:BOTREQ. You could search the archives there if you're interested. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the answer! I might pursue this further on my end, if I have time... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by number of Featured list nominations[edit]

Hi there,

You forgot to add a star by my name Birdienest81 denoting that I promoted the 73rd Academy Awards to a featured list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The bot has occasional glitches. This edit will do the trick. The star should show up tomorrow. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrators and Rick Bot[edit]

Yesterday, Rick Bot reported 575 active admins [4]. Today, it reports 437 [5]. Hrm. Me thinks something changed (and it wasn't a >100 drop in active admins). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the fetch of the current list of admins did not complete for some reason (network glitch?). I'm running it again. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It did it again [6]. Not sure why, after a very long period of uninterrupted service. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely looks like network glitches. The bot uses the api interface to get 500 admins at a time and continues fetching until the returned list doesn't say there are more to fetch. If this keeps happening I suppose I'll have to make the bot a little more resilient in the face network glitches (like also check to make sure the fetch succeeds). It's been doing strange things with WP:WBFLN as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Rick, Can you please start this and this report for Urdu Wikipedia? We really need them, Thanks. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad, I'd be happy to share the source code (in fact, it's at User:Rick Bot/scripts), but I'd rather not take on running a bot against any of the non-English wikipedias. The source code is mostly Unix shell and awk, but also uses a custom version of one of the pywikipediabot functions. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Great, Thanks for sharing source codes. :) --Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing FAs[edit]

I noticed (because one of mine is missing) that Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2015 is missing the last three three articles listed on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2015. Could you please correct this error and investigate how it happened and make sure its not repeated elsewhere? Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the missing 3 from September to WP:FA2015 and checked the rest of the months in 2015 (they're complete). The bot uses cURL to fetch various pages (like the monthly FA logs). Fairly recently, these page fetches have started failing occasionally (I'm not quite sure why). I've been making the bot more resilient (retrying failed fetches) but haven't gotten everywhere yet. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Now would you know how long before (or if) this would get reflected in Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations? BollyJeff | talk 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The next time the bot runs (tomorrow). If you look at the history of WP:WBFAN you'll see the bot updates it every day. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Animal birth days and deaths days[edit]

I'm not sure if you saw the before version[7] before making this edit.[8] I'm not entirely sure how long animals have been included in the language of Wikipedia:Days of the year, but it didn't start with me. I certainly think including something like the death of the last passenger pigeon wouldn't be unreasonable; arguably that could be better fitted under the events section. I was just trying not to rock too many boats while making what I thought was a reasonable and incremental change. -- Kendrick7talk 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing of articles[edit]

Hi Rick Block! I'm not sure if I should ask someone else but I am new to Wikipedia and you seem like a polite guy. Last night I was editing some of the articles for the band Underworld as they could have been otherwise misleading to readers given their state, after editing some of the articles about their albums I began to receive notifications from a user named "emotionalllama" saying that I was not stating what was factual (in fact I was, being a huge fan of the band, I am, as you could imagine, well up to date on their history and therefore know what they have and have not done). After a period of time they began to threaten me with account bans and blocks by posting Wikipedia policy quotes and started saying I was "disruptive" (perhaps I may have made some mistakes, but that is understandable I hope because I only joined Wikipedia a matter of hours ago). After finding out they were not an administrator, I searched the list of users, I found them but they're account link was in red, not a blue link. It also seems that they created this account a matter of minutes after I began editing and then deleted it (or got banned) after I responded to them on their talk page. I'm not sure, but surely there has to be some kind of rule or penalty for people pretending to be administrators and then using that to bully new editors. Whilst I may have made some mistakes, as I am a diehard fan if this band (seeing them in March) I think I know what I'm talking about when I edit any article related to them. Perhaps I may have violated policy but if that was the case, I didn't mean to. The controversy was in relation to their discography, the article lists the album "dubnobasswithmyheadman" as their third album when it is regarded by the members Karl Hyde and Rick Smith as their debut. Before this they released two other albums "Underneath The Radar" and "Change The Weather" also under the name Underworld, however these albums are regarded as being by a separate band that also happened to be called 'Underworld' due to the significant difference in their music style and genre and because the lineup was different (although Karl and Rick were part of this band). Therefore "dubnonasswithmyheadman" should be regarded as their first album, "Second Toughest In The Infants" their second album, Beaucoup Fish their third and so on, you get the idea, instead of them being listed as their third, fourth and fifth albums (the discography extends on) to avoid confusion. These edits I speak of were made by me before I decided it was better to create an account.

Many Thanks,

Underworldfan97 Underworldfan97 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this issue has already been resolved. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cricket deliveries has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Cricket deliveries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jack | talk page 09:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
dutiful bots and
personal advice
... you were recipient
no. 162 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick Bot - List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations error[edit]

Hi, the bot messed up the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations with this edit. I have reverted it. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

wp:wbfan option to skip usernames[edit]

  • Hey, some people do not want their usernames on WP:WBFAN. Removing their names from the relevant "List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations" pages would be difficult if they were sole nominator. Can the bot maintain and reference a list of names to be skipped? Perhaps the logic would be: if username is a co-nominator for a given FA, skip that username but do record other con-nominators on WBFAN; if username is sole nominator, skip that entire FA. [Your suggestions also solicited] Thanks!!!!   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who does not want their name listed at WP:WBFAN could delete their name from the relevant "by year" nomination summary page, e.g. WP:FA2016. The bot reconstructs the WBFAN page every day based on the current content of the by-year summary pages. Would this suffice? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The question of whether that would suffice would need to be answered by several editors separately and individually, at different points in the future. All I know is that it would be a burdensome task for those who have more than five or six FAs, and would be especially so if they are the sole nominator, because they'd have to delete an entire FA entry rather than merely removing their own username from a field of co-nominators... I dunno what language bots use, but in Python etc. this is an easy fix that has the added virtue of being reversible: Just manually create/maintain a separate page with a list of usernames to be skipped; then bot skips those usernames when writing out wp:wbfan. It's reversible in the sense that a person can later *remove* their username from that list. Then the bot simply doesn't find that name on the skip list during next run, so the name is not skipped, but instead is simply re-added to wbfan. Ta da.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting this because you do not want your username listed at WBFAN? Would deleting the relevant entries from the by-year nomination summary page(s) suffice for you? I'm suggesting this approach on the assumption that someone who does not want their username listed at WBFAN would also not want their username listed at, say, WP:FA2016. It's also reversible (albeit not as easily). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally like WBVANITY (I mean WBFAN). But I am deeply familiar with the phenomenon that some people do not like such things. I am a teacher, and once in my first or second year of teaching I made the mistake of casually mentioning (during class) the name of the top student in the class. That girl came to me in tears (I was stunned) and asked me never to "make a public announcement" again...I don't think anyone cares about WP:FA2016 or similar pages, because those pages are obscure. It also probably isn't an issue that credit can be retrieved by searching, since everyone knows that contribs are ultimately public by licensing policy anyhow. I think it's the fact that WBFAN is the beacon (it's the vanity page, the "public announcement") that some people find off-putting (I like to use that word whenever I can :-)).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Erin Dolgan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erin Dolgan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Dolgan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BethNaught (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Rick Block. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)