Dump reports
Would dump reports be a more viable option for the fair use image query I suggested on WT:DBR awhile ago? I remember we ran into the problem that some fair use images use text as the fair use rationale versus a template, but maybe these dump reports can weed out the standard fair use text? Perhaps by using the header I suggested. Anyways, I just thought of it and wanted to ask. Merry Christmas! Killiondude (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps. Might be easier to just query the API for the titles.... Do you have a list of words you'd want to exclude? "fair use"? Is that it? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- === Fair use in X === is the header given in several pages that show examples of text fair use rationales. Do you wanna just exclude those items? WT:DBR#Files is where I brought up the categories that would be involved. Killiondude (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. We might get a lot of noise in the report if we just do that header. Maybe exclude "fair use rationale" anywhere in the page text (on second thought). Killiondude (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
flagged revisions
If flagged revisions is accepted into the enwikipedia, will it take the place of protecting a page? BtilmHappy Holidays! 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It depends which configuration is enabled. Wikipedia:Flagged protection has the potential to replace page protection. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this regex possible?
Is there an "end of file" special character in regex? I am trying to match pages like User talk:Red walnut, where the final section is the "Please update your status with WP:VG" note from Xenobot. Alternatively, could you help us out with a db query that shows last revision datestamp and last revision user for the talk pages of those listed at Wikipedia:VG/MEM#Unknown ? Thanks in advance =) –xenotalk 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an end of file character. $ is for end of lines. I suppose if you had . matching newlines, $ would be the end of the file if it's unbounded.... I can get the list of top users / timestamps, but probably not until the end of today. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No rush - thanks. –xenotalk 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Stepping in as a stalker. If using perlre style regexes, and the "s" modifier is given, $ will match the very end. I think. tedder (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=334788657 (I didn't format it 'cause I'm lazy and I didn't know what format you wanted.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No formatting? Clearly there is no love in this relationship ;> j/k - thanks!
- Thanks for the input tedder. For some reason it's not working for me as
- Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=334788657 (I didn't format it 'cause I'm lazy and I didn't know what format you wanted.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Stepping in as a stalker. If using perlre style regexes, and the "s" modifier is given, $ will match the very end. I think. tedder (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No rush - thanks. –xenotalk 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(?s)'''xeno'''bot .*? September 2009 \(UTC\)\</small\>\</div\>$
Bot thing
I need you to create all of the red-link submission pages at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant or Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010. On all of those pages, take the text from User:IMatthew/Msg and put it in there. Please and thank you! :) iMatthew talk at 21:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
International talk page delivery
Hoi, just a quick heads-up that I replied to your reply on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#International talk page delivery. It's been a couple of weeks since your reply, so you may not have noticed it. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Bernstein Bot
It looks like one of the functions of your Bot is to update the list of FA by length. If that is the case, I wonder if it would be possible to do the same for GA? If there are too many GA for a single page, perhaps a page for just X# of the longest ones and X# of the shortest ones? Шизомби (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a category for all GAs and where would you like the output? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Category:Wikipedia good articles and Wikipedia:Good articles/By length would probably be a good spot. A quirk of GA is that the category appears on the talk page, so some additional bot instruction might be needed to have the article name appear in the list rather than the talk page. Шизомби (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done (sort of): Wikipedia:Good articles/By length. I can adjust the limits to whatever you'd like (currently they're both set at 1000). It looks like some of the entries are "wrong" because the talk page has been split from the article. For example, Libby (Lost) is listed because the talk page using the category is at Talk:Libby (Lost). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you - it looks like it may be listing them right now on the basis of the talk page length, rather than the article length? Шизомби (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- When you have a chance, could you check the above, whether they're listed on talk page length or article length? Thanks for your help so far! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier and forgot. The pages should all list their article size. However, there is some database corruption at the moment (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Announcements), so a few of the entries are wrong. If you want, you can list some examples of pages that are listing the wrong size and I can verify with that it's corruption and not another issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- When you have a chance, could you check the above, whether they're listed on talk page length or article length? Thanks for your help so far! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you - it looks like it may be listing them right now on the basis of the talk page length, rather than the article length? Шизомби (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done (sort of): Wikipedia:Good articles/By length. I can adjust the limits to whatever you'd like (currently they're both set at 1000). It looks like some of the entries are "wrong" because the talk page has been split from the article. For example, Libby (Lost) is listed because the talk page using the category is at Talk:Libby (Lost). --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Category:Wikipedia good articles and Wikipedia:Good articles/By length would probably be a good spot. A quirk of GA is that the category appears on the talk page, so some additional bot instruction might be needed to have the article name appear in the list rather than the talk page. Шизомби (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Spam time
Spam time as discussed on Wikipedia Talk:Meetup/DC 9, Sadads (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a message already written and a target list? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
From the VP thread, perhaps you didn't see
MZMcBride, it has been suggested that you were the "person running the site." Do you know why people would say that? If it was not you, could you tell us who it was? Feel free to email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. I, for one, would appreciate candor. Cool Hand Luke 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that the person running the site (in the non-technical sense) had an e-mail exchange with ArbCom and Jimmy at the beginning of October. (I was lightly involved in an e-mail exchange (though looking at the e-mails in my archive, ArbCom wasn't CC'd on the ones I was involved in), though the thread (very) quickly died. If you have particular questions that relate to my involvement in Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them (here or via e-mail). But I can tell you right now that any questions or poking that doesn't directly relate to Wikipedia won't get an answer. I don't delve into your off-wiki activities; the same respect should (and will) be extended to me. (And, yes, I took that village pump off my watchlist as it was a classic lose-lose situation. Long responses were admonished; short responses were admonished. I have better things to do than be chastised by people with little (or no) insight into the particulars of the situation (if a situation even exists!).) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- If ArbCom wasn't cc'd, why do you claim it was a conversation with ArbCom? Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, a bit of confusion on my end, apologies. I'll try to clarify. I got an e-mail from Jimmy on October 2, 2009 from Special:EmailUser asking about this. I replied to him (and CC'd the other person who I consider to be "running the site"). That e-mail thread lasted about two or three replies and died that day. I assumed (I don't know if mistakenly or not, you'll have to check the ArbCom archives) that Jimmy had sent an e-mail to the ArbCom list or had received his information from the ArbCom list. He clearly had been informed by someone about the site; I assumed it was someone on ArbCom / the general ArbCom mailing list. I never personally had any e-mails from the ArbCom list and I don't believe the other person did either. The other person has told me that their e-mails came from an individual Arb, which may explain some of the confusion here. I also spoke to at least one Arb about the site, though not via e-mail. If you could check the ArbCom archives for very late September / very early October, it might add some clarity here. "ArbCom knew" is a funny expression indeed. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- If ArbCom wasn't cc'd, why do you claim it was a conversation with ArbCom? Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Cremepuff
Since I was the person who filed the reports at ANI which led to both blocks, I have input to make to the un-block discussion (obviously). Your instruction that I withold my perfectly reasonable opinions (or weren't they reasonable? Do you have a problem with any particular ones?) is not terribly polite, and I don't intend to heed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what ownership of articles has to do with any of this, but your posts aren't helping matters and have the (slight) appearance of grave-dancing. I've asked you politely to stop posting there as you've clearly had poor interactions with Cremepuff222 in the past. Please heed my advice. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue about it. I will not keep away from the Cremepuff page because I have perfectly valid input. If you have a serious problem with that, feel free to make a drama of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Well, I think I missed why you are referring to each other as Cremepuff (cute nickname, I guess). Otherwise.. what? Might this be time to go get a cuppa coffee? TreasuryTag, it sounds like MZMcBride thinks your posts to user talk page are making the situation worse, not better. tedder (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- We're talking about User talk:Cremepuff222.
- TreasuryTag, it sounds like MZMcBride thinks your posts to user talk page are making the situation worse, not better. Well, that's what I assumed from MZMcBride's use of the phrase "your posts aren't helping matters" – but thanks for your valuable interpretative assistance. But what made you think I needed any aid in understanding such a simple concept? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Brrrrr. It's cold this morning. Cup of tea, anyone? APK whisper in my ear 12:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Treasury, I know you were singled out by Cremepuff to be the object of his infantile postings, and it's clear that you feel strongly that he should not be unblocked. That's a perfectly valid and reasonable reaction. The point is that your current postings to Cremepuff's page are not helping. Any admin who has been following this situation will already be aware of how he chose to deliberately annoy you, and I think you can trust that your strong opposition to his unblock is a known quantity. Sometimes the wisest course of action is to simply disengage with a particular user, unwatchlist their talk page, and forget about your past troubles with them. There are thousands of other vigilant users who will catch on to it if he starts up with his previous bafflingly idiotic behavior should he be unblocked, which doesn't seem all that likely in the near future anyway. And I'm not just saying this, I practice it myself, and I can assure you it makes your Wiki-time far less stressful to occasionally purge your watchlist of the user and talk pages of those you have had disagreements with. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Re Your recent reversal of my block
Please see here. Sorry for the confusion. KnightLago (talk)
signpost help
Halp! I'm publishing the 'post for Ragesoss, who's busy. Here's the message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe/Message Can you post it through the bot for me? Thanks :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Should start in a minute or two. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=336313926&oldid=322292156 --MZMcBride (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Undertow
[1] I feel it is for me to undo this revocation. I screwed up so I should make ammends. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, excellent that that's been sorted. Thank you, Pedro. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Larabot - and bless your little algorithmic innards - thanks for the notice, but I only created the page as a redirect to the referenced Ian J. Mason. The redirect page was later turned into a BLP page by an anon user. Your work is appreciated but your attention needs to be directed to User:222.154.142.84. Maias (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Software update problems? (Animated gifs frozen ...
Animated gif on my page froze (and have heard report of another).
(Checking the uploaded copy in table, no problem, but .en display version is frozen.)
Also div absolute positioning has all shifted (up). [That problem has disappeared]
NOTE: I mentioned this at Village pump (Technical)... QUESTION: Anywhere else I should report this? Proofreader77 (interact) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- bugzilla:19173 looks about right. Roan has been playing with GIF support lately, but he's not around at the moment. No idea about div positioning.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks. (The absolute placement error [which I verified with another editor], seems to have cleared up.) Proofreader77 (interact) 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Vandalizing BLPs
Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (Link)
Roger Davies talk 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's rephrase the question: were you being truthful in that WR post? Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ask Mr. Kohs. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Roger, what on earth gave you the idea that Thekohser would vandalise them? Majorly talk 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- He said he will, though he uses the euphemism "breaching experiment". How else do you characterise adding bogus information? Roger Davies talk 04:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have a difficult time believing that Mr. Kohs would do anything to actively harm a biography of a living person, given his writings on the subject. I think the same can be said of me. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the point though is it? Adding any bogus information is vandalism. It is also disruptive because it requires editor time to undo it. Roger Davies talk 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- The list never ends.... I've also started looking at aggregate statistics for unwatched biographies (non-redirects in namespace 0): tools:~mzmcbride/misc/unwatched-bios-count.txt. Though, my main focus at the moment is supposed to be climax. I'd say it's about 80% finished. Just need to get those final bits in place.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can we please keep this on topic? Did you supply a list to Mr Kohs or not?
- Will you also please supply, by email, the list of 8062 articles to ArbCom? Thanks, Roger Davies talk 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sent. Please let me know if you need anything else. Cheers! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. A direct reply to the earlier question. Have you or have you not sent a list to Mr Kohs? Roger Davies talk 05:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've already answered this question and the other questions posed here. Do you have any further questions? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- In no sense have you answered the question, you evaded it. What I am seeking is a direct answer to a direct question. Have you or have you not sent a list to Mr Kohs? Roger Davies talk 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I did. You asked if I supplied a list to Mr. Kohs and I answered "Ask Mr. Kohs." You asked if I gave Mr. Kohs a list of biographies to vandalize. I answered "No." (You can append "of course not" to that answer, if you'd like. Have you seen my BLP work?) My answers haven't changed, Roger. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Is there a reason you seem so infatuated here? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he answered the question immediately, if you cared to look. Majorly talk 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did. And he didn't :) He used a semantic wriggle instead. Roger Davies talk 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he answered the question immediately, if you cared to look. Majorly talk 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course I did. You asked if I supplied a list to Mr. Kohs and I answered "Ask Mr. Kohs." You asked if I gave Mr. Kohs a list of biographies to vandalize. I answered "No." (You can append "of course not" to that answer, if you'd like. Have you seen my BLP work?) My answers haven't changed, Roger. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Is there a reason you seem so infatuated here? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- In no sense have you answered the question, you evaded it. What I am seeking is a direct answer to a direct question. Have you or have you not sent a list to Mr Kohs? Roger Davies talk 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've already answered this question and the other questions posed here. Do you have any further questions? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. A direct reply to the earlier question. Have you or have you not sent a list to Mr Kohs? Roger Davies talk 05:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sent. Please let me know if you need anything else. Cheers! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- The list never ends.... I've also started looking at aggregate statistics for unwatched biographies (non-redirects in namespace 0): tools:~mzmcbride/misc/unwatched-bios-count.txt. Though, my main focus at the moment is supposed to be climax. I'd say it's about 80% finished. Just need to get those final bits in place.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the point though is it? Adding any bogus information is vandalism. It is also disruptive because it requires editor time to undo it. Roger Davies talk 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have a difficult time believing that Mr. Kohs would do anything to actively harm a biography of a living person, given his writings on the subject. I think the same can be said of me. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- He said he will, though he uses the euphemism "breaching experiment". How else do you characterise adding bogus information? Roger Davies talk 04:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Roger, what on earth gave you the idea that Thekohser would vandalise them? Majorly talk 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ask Mr. Kohs. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's rephrase the question: were you being truthful in that WR post? Steve Smith (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(od) Thanks for the direct answer. Incidentally, approximately how many articles were in the list you sent Mr Kohs? Roger Davies talk 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I'm being discussed in private on the ArbCom mailing list. Perhaps I'll be CC'd on one of these e-mails at some point. It certainly would be nice if people would act in the open. Transparency is one of our core values, after all. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not one of Arbcom's though. I'd watch your back, MZ. Before you know it, you'll be desysopped for your very abusive behaviour. Majorly talk 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is. Though I'm having a tough time squaring script-generated lists of soft targets, guides to successful sockpuppetry, and the creation of sockpuppets and proxies, with transparency in its conventional sense. Roger Davies talk 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Roger, how is "no" not a direct answer? —Dark 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
(Roger) Is it true that you have just given a banned editor, Thekohser, a list of BLPs to vandalize? (MZMcBride) No.
- And treason. You forgot treason, Roger.
It's your turn to answer my question, for what it's worth. "I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Is there a reason you seem so infatuated here?"
And you can put down the flamethrower any minute now. You've now accused me of vandalizing biographies, creating sockpuppets and using proxies, and evading your questions, all of which are demonstrably false. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- And treason. You forgot treason, Roger.
Good to see our crack team of arbs hard at work, continuing to ask the wrong people the wrong questions. Simmer down, Roger. Either toss out some evidence to back up your laughable claim that MZ is abusively sockpuppeting or retake your seat.
That said, clearly the interest is related to unwarranted self-importance, wherein ArbCom feels it necessarily to involve themselves in all things off-wiki. Lara 03:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
userspace links bot- alternate view of it
I've been confused because this report seems to have pages that don't actually have userspace links. Anyway, I reprocessed the output into this: User:WikiBacon/Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space version 2. Just thought I'd share it with you. tedder (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like it's missing yet another template that calls {{REVISIONUSER}}. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mine's missing that template, or yours is missing it, or what? I don't understand what you are saying. tedder (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- The report generates all articles that contain links to namespace 2 (User) or namespace 3 (User talk). It then excludes pages using certain templates (like {{db-meta}} and {{under construction}}) as they include links to user pages ("This page was last edited by Username (Contribs • Log) 26 days ago."). I imagine the false positives you're seeing are coming from a template I haven't properly excluded. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mine's missing that template, or yours is missing it, or what? I don't understand what you are saying. tedder (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fancy a quickie?
This is very low priority, so at your convenience.
Need to know what talk pages have the following arrangement:
|archiveheader = |
or
|archiveheader = }}
This is because the KingbotK plugin was molesting certain MiszaBot settings and this will fail the archiving. –xenotalk 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Off to Wikipedia talk:Dump reports with you! Post there and I'll try to take a look in the next week. The biggest issue at the moment is that the dumps are a bit behind, so I'd be scanning page text from about December 1, 2009. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Biographies o_o
From an e-mail I'm currently drafting:
If we assume that a page with fewer than five watchers is unwatched, it comes out to 336,043 biographies out of 427,085. That’s roughly 78% of biographies or a three-fourths chance of randomly choosing a biography that is “effectively unwatched.”
--MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- x_x JamieS93 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is the least surprising thing I have ever read. Well, that and when Michael Jackson died, but that fell under BLP recently deceased. Did you hear about that? I'm pretty sure that article was watched, though. I'm willing to bet that Sue Castorino isn't, and that was my third hit on Special:Random. Keegan (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sue Castorino has (had) two. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume that expects that User:Corvus cornix watched the article, and the user hasn't edited in over a year. The other watcher would have been the article creator by default. What a great job. Keegan (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It now has six watchers. Let's post all problematic BLPs on MZM's talk page to get more attention. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume that expects that User:Corvus cornix watched the article, and the user hasn't edited in over a year. The other watcher would have been the article creator by default. What a great job. Keegan (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- omg private info! Killiondude (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Juliancolton? ;) NW (Talk) 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sue Castorino has (had) two. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)