User talk:The Earwig/Archive 11

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

403 error

Hi Ben. I am getting a "Yahoo! BOSS Error: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden" error when I plug in article titles and try to do a copyvio search as opposed to searching on an individual url (that function is working fine). Any help you can offer to get this fixed would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note. I noticed this earlier today but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Hopefully Yahoo is having some intermittent problem (which will resolve itself soon), or I'll need to poke the higher-ups who manage the search permissions. Will check tomorrow. — Earwig talk 05:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Not yet resolved. No need to reply. Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Update for people watching: I've identified the problem as Yahoo BOSS reporting this error when doing searches:

{"error":{"lang":"en-US","description":"Valid AppID but requires registration."}}

But I have no idea why this is happening. The internet is not that helpful, but suggests either waiting or verifying payment info (which the WMF would have to do). I sent an email to Coren. — Earwig talk 22:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Coren: The problem is also having an impact on the work of CorenSearchBot, so this needs to be fixed ASAP. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Boss page says they charge per 1000 queries. I don't know if that's new or not, but perhaps the bill needs paying? CrowCaw 22:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • They've always had that up there, but I assumed the WMF had some kind of deal (y'know, the whole non-profit benefiting-humanity thing) or automatic payment set up. But that could be it. — Earwig talk 23:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Still affecting it I fear. Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Coren on his talk, and also Moonriddengirl, who works for the Foundation. So hopefully this will get fixed soon. --Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Things should be back in service by tomorrow. There was a billing mixup, and the fabulous Praveena, executive assistant to the VP of engineering, called them directly to work it out as quickly as possible. :) Thanks for letting me know, Diannaa. If it doesn't sort, please let me know! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Maggie for your prompt assistance. Perhaps we should come directly to you if this problem recurs in the future :) -- Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ben sorry to keep bothering you. CorenSearchBot seems to have resumed its work, but I am still getting the 403 error on the copyvio search tool. Would you mind having a look? Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Dunno; this isn't something that would change by restarting the tool or the like. Let's give it a little more time. — Earwig talk 20:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Did not @Moonriddengirl: give you the new API key? — Coren (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Coren. Not yet. :) There was some confusion, guys, around the fact that we created a new account rather than resuming the old one, which means that bots that use this need new keys. Praveena produced this yesterday, but I'm afraid that I had not yet gotten to that email. Earwig, check your email. :) It should be coming your way in about 10 minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright everyone, I've updated the key to the one Maggie sent me and restarted the tool. Looks like it works now! Thanks again to the WMF for providing this service. — Earwig talk 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped get these important tools functioning again. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

A couple of Wikipedia mirrors to add to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions

I just came across these Wikipedia mirrors, which should probably be added to the exclusions list:

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — Earwig talk 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyvios "No webservice" Comment

Hi The Earwig,

Sorry if I missed any notices about planned maintenance - I just would like to let you know that the page for copyvios (https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/) is showing a "no webservice" error. It would be great if you could have a look if this is not supposed to happen.

Thanks, - Andrew Y talk 12:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi The Earwig, The page seems to be available now. Thanks! - Andrew Y talk 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi – It happens once in a while but should fix itself in a few minutes. I'm aware of the issue but fixing it is going to be annoying so I'm not sure how soon that will be. — Earwig talk 16:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that, looks like that particular case might have been a known issue with Labs a few hours ago. Either way, an intermittent sort of thing... — Earwig talk 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Copyvio tool isn't working

Your copyvio tool [1] doesn't appear to be working for me- got a "no webservice" error. Often it's just a couple of minutes that it doesn't work for, but it's been about 2 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Should be up now. — Earwig talk 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears to be down again. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I... er... yeah, you're right. What the hell? The logs are completely useless here. Started up again, will monitor closely this time. — Earwig talk 19:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I need an admin to raise a memory limit. Waiting on that. — Earwig talk 19:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Will continue to monitor. — Earwig talk 20:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

EarwigBot and an AFC edit

So, the bot made this edit. However, the edit by the bot implies that the article was accepted at AFC by CumberdaleHubert, when that was not the case. CumberdaleHubert was the article's author, and when the article was declined at AFC CumberdaleHubert unilaterally moved it into main space without addressing the reason for the decline.

I'm not sure if the bot is just filling in the template with the date it was moved and who moved it, or if there is a list somewhere of articles that have actually been accepted, but I think that edit is somewhat problematic, so I thought I should bring it to your attention. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: I understand why you would find this problematic, since in AFC we usually don't want people to move their articles themselves (thus defeating the whole point!)... but it's not technically wrong. AFC's acceptance procedure is informal, so if someone moves a draft to the mainspace (regardless of their connection with it) they are considered to be the one who accepted it basically by definition. It's not the bot's job to determine whether that user followed typical procedure, and there's no official list anywhere of acceptances. — Earwig talk 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for responding. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

copyvios OOMed?

Eyo, the helpful "Copyvio check" link in Tools that let you go directly from an article to a copyvios check appears to be broken. The URL I get for Draft:Malka Marom is https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft%3AMalka_Marom. Actually, I was letting copyvios run from a manual submission and it feels like... something OOMed? Just letting you know. Cheers, E. Lee (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have resolved on its' own. Cheers, E. Lee (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Same thing as #Copyvio tool isn't working above. Will look into it soon™, but it's hard to diagnose and I've been busy with other wiki-things. — Earwig talk 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Didn't see this until now - as always, Copyvios is great, keep up the wonderful work! E. Lee (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
If we didn't have Copyvios, WP:AfC would be SO unhappy. E. Lee (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Oops

Didn't notice it was a draft on Huggle--sorry about that! Kharkiv07 (T) 21:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! — Earwig talk 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Itycene vs. Iptycenes

First of all, thank you for your contribution to the Iptycene article. When creating the article I was thinking about wether to use a singular or plural form. A find the plural form more logical, since iptycene is a general name, several compounds with varying constitution qualify as an iptycene. I understand that e. g. arene and alkene articles are also in singular, but I don't really understand why. Is it simply a matter of consensus? Thank you. Rob.HUN (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rob.HUN: Yes, it basically comes down to consensus. Here is the relevant guideline, which lists some exceptions, but none of those seem to apply to this case, so I went with the singular. Usually when you are debating something like this, the manual of style is useful – just try to find the appropriate section. — Earwig talk 18:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

2015–16 Gibraltar Premier Division

Hi, I was about to create 2015–16 Gibraltar Premier Division and saw you deleted it as CSD A3 just two days ago. I have worked at in in my sandbox for a while, see User:Qed237/sandbox4, and I think it is ready for use. I just thought I should check with you, since you deleted it recently. Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, go ahead. The version I deleted was basically just someone saying "this article should be created." — Earwig talk 16:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Thought it was best to check since it was deleted so recently. Qed237 (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

TfD closure

Hi, wondering why you reverted your closure here? Alakzi (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I thought the TfD was relisted on July 1 since that's the date it was filed under (which would have made it over two weeks old and way overdue for a close) but it seems the relist happened yesterday. While consensus seems clearly against deletion to me, I don't have a strong reason to override Plastikspork's decision here and I didn't want to get into a pointless argument over it. I'll redo the closure on the 23rd assuming no one else does in the meantime. — Earwig talk 23:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anybody would've taken issue with it, but fair enough. Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Anne Frank

Re [2], please could you undelete Template:Anne Frank it to my userspace and I'll have a look what might be merge-able; or even populate it to the various articles that aren't covered by the others. —Sladen (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: Sure, it's here: User:Sladen/Template:Anne Frank. — Earwig talk 21:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Cheers! —Sladen (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking over it, it appears it must have been forgotten mid-way through an editing session in the mists of time. I've updated + expanded the links (covering in particular not covered by the other similar navboxes, and (Special:Contributions/Sladen) populated {{Anne Frank}} transclusion into the relevant articles—so that it's no longer orphaned. Thank you for the help and indirect prompting! Cheers, —Sladen (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Copyvio tool

Hi The Earwig,

I was using your tool to check the content of the Paloma Faith article, and as you can see here, it found 3 sources that appear to be mirroring Wikipedia's content. The three sites are: www.lovemymusic.biz (at least this one credits Wikipedia), en.mashupplus.com, and www.gossip-for-girls.com. I'm not sure if those would qualify for the tool's exclusion list, but I thought I would bring it to your attention. Thanks! Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I added *.mashupplus.com to the list, since it mirrors a large number of pages. The other two don't seem to mirror enough to warrant exclusion. — Earwig talk 01:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Copyvio: add www.newikis.com to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ reports pages from www.newikis.com as copyvio, but that site is mirroring content from enwiki, dewiki and some more. Merlissimo 11:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. — Earwig talk 21:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Interested in working with Community Tech?

Community Tech is looking at some commonly used tools (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108422 for Copyvios) and seeing if they are good candidates for us to help improve them while we're getting our team and processes set up. I took a look at the issue tracker and it doesn't look like you have that much in the way of open bugs or feature requests. Is there anything you have planned or that you'd be interested in working with us on? Any small things you've been meaning to do for awhile and haven't gotten around to? Any features you think would work as an extension? --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I replied on the Phabricator task. — Earwig talk 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Tried your copyvio detector and failed

Hi Earwig, at first glimpse it gave me almost 90% probability of copyvio, but then I recognized, that you do not expand the templates, right? So what is left to compare on a page like this, is a one-sentence-header and the footer. Instead I would have been interested in the relevant texts. Do you think you can change your tool to expand Mediawiki templates before comparing. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the message. I will work on that soon – I have an idea how to fix it. — Earwig talk 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Quarter Million Award

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Earwig (estimated annual readership: 326,976) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

copyvio: mirror wiki2.org

Hi, please add mirror http://*.wiki2.org to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions. Wikipedia url rewrite documentation at http://wiki2.org Examples:

Merlissimo 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! — Earwig talk 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Copyvio: add lexikon.freenet.de to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions

toollabs:copyvios reports pages from http://lexikon.freenet.de as copyvio, but this site is mirroring content from dewiki.

FYI: Since this week my bot MerlBot is using your tool as additional check when reporting sites for quality assurance on dewiki (Example: de:Special:Diff/145071039). Your tool works great and understanding your API is simple. Merlissimo 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Same for bei www.ammanu.edu.jp. --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 10:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both; added the exclusions. Used http://www.ammanu.edu.jo/wiki1/* for the second one so let me know if there are other mirrored sections of that site. — Earwig talk 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Same content as lexikon.freenet.de is also available via http://wikipedia.freenet.org .
Maybe the tool could automatically exclude all pages having a link to the history view of the original page?
I added wikipedia.freenet.de. Your idea of checking for backlinks to the history page sounds good. I will work on that. — Earwig talk 02:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Another one: proxy2974.my-addr.org --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, this is a proxy, not a mirror. Added. Will be unnecessary after https://github.com/earwig/earwigbot/issues/53. — Earwig talk 15:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually I haven't checked anything about it, not even read the hostname which would've made me notice the difference. Just seen another user's report of a false positive. Seems like three incidents is enough to become unattentive. --nenntmichruhigip (Diskussion) 18:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio: add wikipedia.net.ru / www.de.wikitotal.info to User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions

Mirrors
dewiki http://de.wikipedia.net.ru
enwiki http://en.wikipedia.net.ru

Maybe more languages. So i would suggest adding *.wikipedia.net.ru .

http://www.de.wikitotal.info is a mirror without linking to wikipedia, without a list of authors and opening a lot of popups.

Thx. Merlissimo 10:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Earwig talk 16:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Untrusted connection

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T112608

Hello Earwig, I used your Copyivo Detector on Firefox and it said that the connection to it is untrusted. It stated that the security certificate for labs expired today. ///Racer-Ωmegα 02:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I looked into it and the issue has been reported; link provided on the right. We'll have to wait for the Labs people to get on it. — Earwig talk 02:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

EarwigBot

Hello, please could you run EarwigBot to clear the 14 undated AfC submissions at Category:Undated AfC submissions. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Earwig talk 18:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There's another seven to be cleared, if you don't mind running EarwigBot again. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: It runs weekly already. Is there a particular urgency here? — Earwig talk 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: OK, that's cool, when is it scheduled to run automatically? JMHamo (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: Sunday nights/Monday mornings, as seen at User:EarwigBot/Tasks. — Earwig talk 18:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

MisterMorton continues removing parameters

Instead of responding to your attempt to discuss, MisterMorton continues undeterred in removing legitimate parameters without edit summaries or discussion: [3]. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And again: [4] Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked him for 72 hours. Thanks for the notices – I saw the edits once I woke up, but didn't have chance to respond until now. — Capt'n Earwig arr! / talk 18:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Your User Page

Revert if you disapprove of this change to your user page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Earwig talk 00:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Earwig! Those two articles I have caused quite a bit of trouble, but I hope it is worth it! The events of the last couple of hours have certainly restored my faith in the fairness of the system, so thank you and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Notes on BRFA

Hey, just wanted to mention two things in response to your closing message at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 5.

  • Adding parameters during a merge that duplicate the function of other parameters is somewhat frowned upon, because it causes parameters to rapidly proliferate. It makes it much harder to maintain the template in the future. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, and I doubt it's written down anywhere, but it's generally best practice to keep the code as simple as possible while achieving the task that you've set out to do. Makes things more accessible to those unfamiliar with complicated template syntax.
  • In this case, even if that did seem the way to go, it's not possible. The second and third parts of the piped dates at Template:Old CfD actually aren't part of the date parameter; they're treated as their own unnamed parameters. Template:Cfd result also has an unnamed parameter, so these two would conflict.

~ RobTalk 06:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: For the second point, you can treat the unnamed args as dates if both {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} are given, otherwise treat {{{1}}} as the section name. I imagine that should work in all cases. For the first, I guess there's no way to win here, but as far as I can tell the only necessary change would be replacing {{{name}}} with {{{name|{{{1}}}}}} (unless {{{2}}} is also given) since all the other parameters are the same. Right? — Earwig talk 14:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that's possible, but rather complicated in terms of syntax. I do think the way forward should be substitution in an ideal world if someone comes along to double-check my work in the sandbox. Sorry about withdrawing after you put in the work on that BRFA, by the way. I was having a shit day - problems with getting data for my thesis. ~ RobTalk 15:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That's totally fine. This task is not at all urgent and your real life is far more important. Best of luck to you. — Earwig talk 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As a note on process, if I eventually return to this task, what is the process for that? Do I open a new BRFA or request the old one to be reopened to continue where we left off? ~ RobTalk 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Either is fine, I think. — Earwig talk 02:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
When you have a chance, could you reopen this BRFA? I've spoken with a few other editors about the transclusion problem for the substitution method of going about things, and it turned out to be a non-issue. ~ RobTalk 03:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: You can re-open the BRFA yourself. However, I'm still not convinced that we can't merge and redirect the templates. — Earwig talk 04:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, thought a BAG member had to be the one to reopen a closed BRFA. We can discuss the best way to proceed in the BRFA if you'd like. ~ RobTalk 04:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

MisterMorton is at it again

He has resumed removing infobox parameters without edit summaries or discussion: [5], [6]. I made another report at ANI. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Jayron32 has blocked him indef – I'm glad another admin stepped in to deal with this so I don't need to make a unilateral decision here. I really hope he comes around and submits an unblock request; I think he could make a fine contributor if he was willing to discuss his opinions with others. — Earwig talk 18:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Userspace content issue

Thanks for fixing that. I'm surprised I made a boneheaded amateurish mistake like that. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem; happens to the best of us. — Earwig talk 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot Feature Request

Hi Mr. Wig! Would it be possible to add a checkbox to the EarwigBot's search page saying "Bypass Exclusion List"? Sometimes I know content is free or PD, but I still want to get the side-by-side between the article and that source. Typically for PD/CC attributions which weren't done when the content was imported here. Right now I just Google specific phrases, but your in-context comparison would be so much more useful. Thanks for all you do! CrowCaw 22:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahoy! I'm definitely aware of that issue, and I plan to fix it as part of https://github.com/earwig/earwigbot/issues/53, which will improve the exclusion system overall. It will allow direct comparisons regardless of whether a URL is excluded, and let you know which URLs were excluded from normal checks. Shouldn't be too far in the future, maybe a couple weeks. — Capt'n Earwig arr! / talk 00:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Woot, thanks! CrowCaw 00:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crow: Okay, this is done now. However, I'm a little confused because it seems that support for doing direct comparisons with excluded URLs was already implemented? — Earwig talk 09:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep direct compares always worked. It is the full on BOSS search that I was hoping to get the option to bypass the exclude list. So it would include all the various mirrors, PD sources, etc. CrowCaw 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Well, now you're able to view the URLs that were excluded in the "checked sources" list, along with the standard option of directly comparing any of them. I figure this should be good enough for most situations, since there shouldn't be a huge number of exclusions, and you should be able to tell which ones you want to check directly. Let me know if you'd rather have an explicit option to bypass the exclusion list for the full check. — Earwig talk 23:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll play with it for a bit and see if that does what I'm looking for! CrowCaw 22:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Update! That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks again! Crow Caw 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to know! — Earwig talk 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

*wikipedia.net.ru in User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions

Hello The Earwing,

although *wikipedia.net.ru is in your exclusions list, we get reports about copyvios suspected from that page, as example: [7]. Could you check it? Thank you very much! --Filzstift (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Fixed. Seems I forgot the dot. (It'll be up to 12 hours before the list is updated by the tool.) — Earwig talk 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Monkbot task 9

Just to finish the item left hanging. At the brfa you wrote: The reason I mention it is because the error category is lost in examples like Acasta-class destroyer. The category for that example is currently added by Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox and not the live version. Acasta-class destroyer will be added to Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors when I next update the module code.

Thanks

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — Earwig talk 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way . . . .

Highest compliment I could give would be to say that I had no idea: [8]. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm an adult now, of course, but most of my contributions here were indeed made as a minor. I can't help but get a little frustrated by age-based opposes. It's just adminship – an important thing, surely, but not so important that we should require otherwise-competent users to be adults. Oh well. — Earwig talk 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Coming here to say the same thing as Dirtlawyer1; I was equally unaware of your age when you passed your RfA and when I looked at your candidacy just now, I thought your performance there was impressive. Acalamari 09:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Happy Anniversary!!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!


Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, —☮JAaron95 Talk 04:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! — Earwig talk 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Ruben Correa

I'm baffled: I see you reverted an edit supposedly made by me notifying a bot that I had slapped a speedy on this article. Which I didn't: I never slap speedies on kick-thed-ball playeres, since it appeard that anybody who has even piled up the jumpers to form goalposts for a kickabout in the park is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha. It was another eponymous page I tagged...TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah; that page is currently a redirect, but when you tagged it someone had replaced it with an attack page (now deleted). — Earwig talk 13:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

About the BRFA...

Look, The Earwig, I have to type the password, in a plain string, in the source, for the library to work. Otherwise, nothing will happen when I run the code. Is that enough explanation for you? PhilrocMy contribs 23:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. You should be separating the bot's password from the source code, or at least redacting the password before uploading the code to a public website. — Earwig talk 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Silly me, just found out about a way in my library to separate passwords from source code. I will apply that way onto my source, and then refile the BRFA. Get to the BRFA when it's filed, OK? PhilrocMy contribs 23:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Umm, you haven't seemed to acknowledge the other two points I brought up when closing it. — Earwig talk 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
About the second point, I don't know how I "disregarded" your instructions. And about the third point, I didn't know there was a problem. PhilrocMy contribs 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) I will try to explain this in different terms. When I noticed that your password was publicly viewable, I had three options:

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Consider the account compromised. Block it and hope you re-secure it before a malicious user can take advantage.
  3. Re-secure the account myself by changing the password before some else can. Send you the temporary password so you can change it and retain control.

The first one would have been irresponsible. The second would have been acceptable, but I figured it would be better to assume you had uploaded the password by mistake (it's happened before!) and ensure you could keep using the account. I said in both the email and the BRFA that you should change the password. (Why? Not doing so means I still have access to the account, which I shouldn't. It was only an emergency measure.) It's concerning that you didn't see a problem with this, even after I told you. — Earwig talk 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I couldn't avoid putting the password onto MediaFire. I didn't know there was another way. (oh yeah, I refiled the BRFA: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Redirectbot 2) PhilrocMy contribs 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to add that to the main BRFA page? Anyway, I'd prefer if another BAG member takes a look at this before I comment further. — Earwig talk 00:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

About the new BRFA...

The Earwig, you need to comment on my new BRFA. You're the only BAG member that's really that active. PhilrocMy contribs 15:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a few around; pinging some of them: @Anomie, Slakr, and Magioladitis: please take a look when you get a chance. @Philroc: Alakzi's given you a number of things to look at, so please work on those in the mean time. — Earwig talk 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt that anything has changed to alleviate the concerns that resulted in the rejection of the previous BRFA: the operator doesn't seem to really know what they're doing, programming-wise. Anomie⚔ 11:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio detector - let's see the background photo

Thank you for creating & maintaining this most useful tool. I always think, while waiting for results after pressing Submit, wouldn't it be great if the submission form would now clear and let us admire the picture beneath?: Noyster (talk), 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll think about it. — Earwig talk 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

need help with Judith Barsi

I need your help with Judith Barsi. My old enemy AldezD has deleted Fatal Vision from the article, claiming it's not mentioned on her imdb entry - when in fact it is and he also deleted the fact that she played a 3 year old toddler in the miniseries which was made when she was six, which is also true. Can you and others deal with him because i am at the end of my rope. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Unfortunately, I am a bit swamped with work right now and don't have a lot of time at the moment to take a careful look at this. I can probably do so in a few days, but I think it would be faster to try elsewhere. Is this what you're talking about? It seems he undid the edit. If you're talking about something else or there's a broader issue going on (and you are unable to work out a solution on the article talk page, or by talking to him directly), the dispute resolution noticeboard is an option. Thanks. — Earwig talk 01:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just at my end with AldezD. He has a very bad WP:OWN attitude towards the Barsi article and he is still stalking my general Wikipedia edits. He should be banned, but i know WP will never allow it. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The da Vinci Barnstar
For "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". I use it all the time and it is wonderful! Thank you so much for one of the most valuable tools the community has. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Anna! — Earwig talk 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

species articles

I tagged it because it's factually just wrong. You can't author a plant species. A good chunk of his species articles are also just factually wrong in more significant ways - he obviously made them using an unauthorized bot and fucked up a db pull, because many of the details are just wrong. Which is more reasonable: nuke 80k pieces of crap and selectively restore useful articles as they come up, or manually sort through 80k pieces of crap including checking the sources on a bunch of articles to ensure his bot didn't fuck up a db pull? If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can write a bot that works, get BAG approval, and create all the same articles that will actually be accurate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For centralization, I am going to respond on your talk page. — Earwig talk 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

General note: account security

Hi all,

Given recent events, I thought it pertinent to confirm the security of my account. My account password is strong, safe, recently updated, and completely unrelated to any password I use elsewhere. I just completed a self-audit of other major internet accounts, and all is well; some weaker passwords have been updated, but I don't think the important stuff (like the password reset email for this account) was ever in danger.

For those reading, now is as good of a time as ever to check over these things.

Best,

— Earwig talk 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Hello

Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.

This not the first time that i handel his harrasment as stalking and undo my edit for several times and the user:Volunteer Marek ask him to stop this clear cut evidence of harassment. and when he called uneducated. It's interesting when he called me Christian-propaganda, when his articles been deleted for being full of propaganda and i will not talking also about his inappropriate comment's in different articles or talk pages. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why send this message to so many people? See admin shopping. I haven't looked into it, but this sort of thing usually belongs on ANI. — Earwig talk 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello thanks for responding, Becouse i didn't know admin here and who can help. And this not the first time which i face with him personal attack and harrasment, So I asked help maybe i can find admin that see what's going on. So i should write there ANI? Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That, or a different page depending on the exact nature of the dispute. See WP:DRR. — Earwig talk 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care

I refer to my contribution where I inserted word "diseases" on Nov 11 2015 which you removed saying, "Possibly a mistake? word addition does not make sense."

To the layperson "symptom" is less used word, "diseases" is more understandable. There are for "symptom" on Google only "About 66,800,000 results" though for "disease" there are "About 501,000,000 results", 7.5 times more.

Please respond at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvcv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvcv (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. — Earwig talk 10:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Chrome and your privacy

Hi there, I notice in your profile that you say you use Google Chrome. I think you might like to know that Google Chrome is often referred to in many communities as a "botnet" because of numerous security and privacy issues, both in its code and by Google. I recommend you take a look at the details here. Please take a look at other browsers that care about your privacy, particularly FOSS (free and open-source software). I personally recommend Firefox-based forks such as GNU IceCat and Pale Moon (latter for Windows users), although if you absolutely insist on Chrome-based browsers, please take a look at Iridium or Chromium (Chrome's non-proprietary brother) (WARNING: Currently, both Iridium and Chromium are confirmed to "phone home" to the devs' and Google's servers respectively, so Chrome-based browsers I unfortunately cannot recommend *much* at this time. I know, limited options, but the digital world is becoming less free every day. Check out the "Windows 10" article on InstallGentoo Wiki for example). This not an advertisement or endorsement of any sort, just a goodwill warning to spread the word about free software and privacy, a value treasured by the Wikimedia Foundation. Have a nice day!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your concern, I am fairly well acquainted with the issues you mention and I have no intention of switching. Indeed, many of the points listed on the website are related to features you can disable. Calling Chrome a botnet is fear mongering at best. — Earwig talk 01:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what features exactly you disabled? For my own benefit. Also when you support FOSS you are supporting mutual community advancement and development of new and brighter technologies unrestrained by snooping and restrictions; also Chromium and FOSS browsers in my experience are actually faster than Chrome. Can you prove how Chrome is better in any way please? --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I mean, they're even linked directly from the installgentoo.com page. The address bar autocompletion can be disabled. Resource prefetching too, and for me it was actually off to begin with. Likewise, the safe browsing stuff can be disabled (but I find it hard to argue that the benefit of Chrome detecting malicious websites for you is outweighed by potential privacy concerns of pinging Google's servers every so often). Using a Google account to sync browser data is an extremely useful feature for me, since I switch between three computers frequently, and it's probably the main reason I use Chrome over Chromium. I do support free software, but I don't usually force myself to use it when an alternative exists that I am comfortable with and that has certain features I want. At any rate, there are arguably far greater concerns in the world than Google: my ISP has even more awareness of my browsing activity; the phone company knows where I am and has access to my private conversations with other people; etc... — Earwig talk 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
So much FUD. Legoktm (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Help needed with a Wikipedia page

Hey Earwig,

Hope you remember me from the earlier conversation. You had helped me with creation the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indiabulls_Real_Estate_Limited_(IBREL). It again got rejected:(

Can you please help me with this?

ThanksChints247 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chints247: I am sorry for not replying sooner, but I'm still too busy at the moment to give this a real look (ideally I'd make these changes myself): I still think the writing style needs a bit of tweaking. In particular, "is one of the largest players" could be quantified – they appear to be the fifth or sixth largest by market capitalization, so can we say that and add a source directly after? The beginning of the history section ("with the objective of...") needs rewording, since we are usually not concerned with a company's mission statement. More to come in the future if you remind me after the weekend is over (will be travelling). — Earwig talk 09:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: Thanks for this. I will have a look at the text based on your feedback :)Chints247 (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Earwig's Copyvio Detector

Hi sir, I suddenly know about your Earwig's Copyvio Detector then i start checking articles of nepali wikipedia. I've found something wrong to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I copy a sentence from one of the article of newiki i.e., पेस्ता to search in yahoo! BOSS search engine then it don't shows any result but with Google search engine it gives too many websites. So, I kindly inform you to please add Google search engine inspite of yahoo! BOSS search engine to your Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It will very helpful to all users of Earwig's Copyvio Detector. You have used yahoo! BOSS search engine to your Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Please, replace or add Google search engine to Detector. Regards, -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 07:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Have a look! While searching in Yahoo! BOSS search engine & in google search engine. -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You seem to be a bit confused... I will try to clarify this. First off, you linked to the wrong search page for BOSS. https://developer.yahoo.com/find is literally for searching within Yahoo's developer documentation, not for using BOSS itself. The actual search results generated by BOSS should be mostly the same as Yahoo's ordinary search results (here is the corresponding page for your example, which definitely has pages). Secondly, it's not as simple as just "adding" Google to the copyvio detector. We have a deal set up where the WMF pays Yahoo for BOSS (or maybe it's provided for free, I'm not really sure) so we are able to use its search results in the tool. Google has no API for its search engine, so we'd have to break its Terms of Service to use those results, or convince Google to let us use them, which we haven't been able to do so far. Finally, I'm not clear exactly what pages you were running the detector on—was there an actual violation you were expecting to find that wasn't caught or were you just testing it? — Earwig talk 08:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
पेस्ता is 100% copyvio article but why copyvio detector is not detecting that? just check out this link once! When i've check that article giving the link of website on copyvio detector then its give suitable copyvio results. Why it is so?-- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 11:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Super late response here, sorry. Got a bit distracted. I looked into it and the issue is actually language-related; that article doesn't use normal English punctuation so the tool has trouble breaking it up into sentences. Will work on it. — Earwig talk 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: I think I fixed it. — Earwig talk 07:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On original research

Hello Earwig. This page had been being changed by anonymous users and others without real/well explained reason as noted noted all day. Thanks for your notes on logs not representing independent information on Wikipedia. I was not aware of that until you explained it. Can you confirm you have locked this page (which is probably a good idea) and how I get access? --  User:Npcomp talk 07:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Npcomp: Thanks for your understanding. I have not disabled your account. Another admin, Kelapstick, has locked ("protected") the page while disputes are being resolved. You are welcome to edit other pages without restriction. In particular: (I wrote that before you changed the message.) The protection expires automatically in a few days, but the hope is that the disputes will have been resolved by that point; we'll have to re-protect it if they're not. If you still believe the material should be included, you'll want to get consensus for that on the article talk page, but I strongly caution you that without some sources backing this up it's extremely unlikely anyone will agree to keep that section. As a more general note, be aware that edit warring can lead to blocks being placed on your account, although this is usually not done without warning (especially on less experienced users). Just keep in mind that discussion should come as soon as a dispute begins; many editors limit themselves to one revert per page per day to ensure that tensions are kept low. — Earwig talk 07:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig, your explanation is amazingly helpful. -- User:Npcomp talk 07:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks Earwig for your detailed explanations for an inexperienced user. npcomp (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. — Earwig talk 07:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig/Archive_11&oldid=1084159063"