Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) (automation assisted) |
Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) (automation assisted) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<div style="float:right">{{Dating maintenance categories progress box|title=[[User:Helpful Pixie Bot]] [[User:Helpful Pixie Bot/Backlog|main backlog]]|total only=yes}}</div> |
<div style="float:right">{{Dating maintenance categories progress box|title=[[User:Helpful Pixie Bot]] [[User:Helpful Pixie Bot/Backlog|main backlog]]|total only=yes}}</div> |
||
{{Mirror me}} |
{{Mirror me}} |
||
{{Notice|ARCHIVING: This page is archived semi-manually. |
{{Notice|ARCHIVING: This page is archived semi-manually. You can resurrect a thread by ''copying'' it back, noting that you have done so both on the thread on the archive and here. Thanks. ''RF'' }} |
||
{{User talk:/Rich Farmbrough/Bug logging}} |
{{User talk:/Rich Farmbrough/Bug logging}} |
Revision as of 18:18, 6 May 2012
User:Helpful Pixie Bot main backlog | |
---|---|
Total | 46036 |
User talk:/Rich Farmbrough/Bug logging
|
|
|
So that helpful bot...
Rich, you mentioned a couple weeks ago that it might be possible to bot-tag a series of articles, yes? Say, for example, the swimming event pages for Swimming at the 1996 Summer Olympics (i.e. men's 50 free, women's 50 free, men's 100 free... women's 4x100 Medley Relay): all 32 event pages are missing the preliminary results for those that made it back for finals. Each page has a "Non-Qualifiers" section, that could/should have an expand list tag inserted (and maybe even a note about the finalist prelims times are missing?). Is that something a bot could do? -- Hooperswim (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, once I overcome the "little local difficulty" of an Arbcom case and a month's block.... Rich Farmbrough, 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC).
- Cool, cool. Thanks. -- Hooperswim (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
How many categories are there?
(Not including redirects). The Transhumanist 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- A lot! It depends partly on whether you include empty categories and red-linked categories. There are approximately 15,419 soft redirected categories. I'll have a look at the stats by namespace later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC).
- Unfortunately we don't have a dump for all page titles, only all main-space titles which currently runs at about 9.3 million. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC).
- Unfortunately we don't have a dump for all page titles, only all main-space titles which currently runs at about 9.3 million. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC).
Link to diffs from dates on clean-up tags
Would it be possible to link the date to a diff showing the edit that tagged an article. Something like This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: See talk page. Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (2007) As far as I can tell Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs) adds the dates to these tags, so I was hoping it could link to the diffs at the same time. There was a discussion started at the clean-up tag talk page about doing this for that tag, but it could possible be useful on all all the tags in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. As you run Pixiebot I was hoping you would have some ideas on how this could be implimented (it would be good if it could be added to old tags as well as new ones, but even just new tags would be a start) and steps needed to achieve it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it would be possible. Generally it is the edit before HPB or another bot dates the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks. I put a note at WP:Bot requests#Link to a diff when clean-up tags are applied to try and get the ball rolling. AIRcorn (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Crushing a statistical shibboleth
While "The Rise of Warnings to New Editors on English Wikipedia" caused consternation back in May 2011 - "40% of all initial edits to new user talk pages in our sample were negative templates" - but the previous research blog "How much do new editors actually improve Wikipedia?" showed that over 40% (42.6%) of first edits were either vandalism (about 25%) or unacceptably low quality. The level of warning therefore, seems pretty much on the nail. Why was this not picked up in the blog? I suspect it is because the "take out" from the previous research was
The key thing to note in comparing the two samples is that the percent of acceptable edits made by newbies did not dramatically decrease from 2004 to 2011.
This is a strange item to identify as key, since the changes are far more important than what remained the same. The percent of excellent edits fell roughly from 25% to 10%, while vandalism rose from a couple of percent to about a quarter of all new user edits.
Given this analysis, we need to look harder for the reasons for lower new editor retention, and certainly not assume that there is good evidence that templating is the cause, at least at present. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
Request
Hi I was wondering if you could code something to copy the lists of municipalities and communes into the articles by Provinces of Morocco from Italian wikipedia like this. Basically its the same format, same source, but just copying the lists?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm looks doable. Did you notice there are four Morrocan flags on that stub? (BTW I am currently sorta-blocked and at arbitration, so I will not be able to implement until the block expires on the 31st, unless I get an unblock earlier.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
- BTW if you want to do that later, you should check out the charts I already made at User:Calliopejen1/WIP/Morocco communes on the doctor's behalf, which is pretty duplicative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I created this as I believed we needed a template like Bare URLs to encourage editors to add full citations not to just the websites. Can you improve this properly and sort out the documentation and take care of adding it to some articles where the refs need filling out like Alogia (band)? I'm thinking of organizing a bot to add this tag to all articles on wikipedia which needs refs filling out properly as in browsing it makes a big difference if sources are adequately filled out with details consistently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well??♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Template looks fine. I think the bot should have a go at filling the detritus out, several successful bots have done just that. It's somehting I am interested in, but since I am about to be blocked, banned, de-botted and de-sysopped, I am not likely to be doing it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
230 page moves
Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke. There are about 230 page moves that have to be reversed. Is there a way to [semi]automate page moves? -- PBS (talk:ye4s) 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it can be simplified,
into a three/four click processusing a browser, or a script could be used. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC).
my userpage
thank you. i will behave. :D -badmachine 03:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Astrobots
If I may; one question for you about the articles slated for redirection to List of minor planets:
Speaking totally theoretically now, let's take no action yet, would it be possible to somehow swipe the infoboxes from all those articles, and then somehow store the infoboxes into List of minor planets, and how difficult or complicated would that be?
I ask because have a hunch if we did that, it would help to overcome resistence to Helpful Pixie Bot 50.
So whaddaya think? Would it entail a long and tendious overhaul of the entire List of minor planetsto get it ready to accept the infobox information? Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well I have been thinking about that, since it's a shame to loose information. The only complicating factor is that the LOMPs would then have more data, and we would have to be careful of their size. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
- (Of course I would prefer to see each stub made into an article, but the worry is that at some point they will just get swept away, as is being tried with some of my skeleton articles, where there is known information to fill them). Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
- I'm not sure I understood what you said about the only complicating factor, but I think you are saying it would make LOMP too big, somehow, and that's bad for some reason. All I care about, and if I may just at this point use a visual aid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw, that these be dealt with individually in someway other than an article for each. It's three minutes long, that video, so if you'd rather please skip to the middle where we start using new automated searches, and then to the two-thirds point or so, and then to the end, which was more that two years ago, so keep in mind how many more they may have found since. There is no way very many of these (though some can, will, and do) have articles without calling into question certain fundemental principles of Wikipedia, not to mention what such articles would even say, other than just that each was detected moving in a certain way, because there's nothing to say about most of them. There is no end to them, because there is no low end to their size. The only limit to their numbers on Wikipedia is the maximum sensitivity of our instruments in the future, or limits of the human ability to care about finding more, whichever maxes out first. We must limit article status to only those with notablity as per WP:NASTRO.
- Anyway, back to my main point, although they mustn't have articles, they may be dealt with on lists or charts, and if my idea doesn't work, then perhaps you or another has some idea what, if anything, to do with all those infoboxes. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikibook? 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. But I don't understand exactly something you said about the LOMP. Why do we have to be careful about "their" size? Did you mean "its" size, i.e.: LOMP? The way it's done, you can't open up the whole list at once, you open a subsection of a much, much smaller size.
- But about the Wikibook idea, I don't see any reason you shouldn't go ahead and store them there if that's what you want to do. It could be at least a place to store the infoboxes and then later place them into LOMP or whatever, so I like that idea. My eye is on getting those articles converted to redirects, so if creating an asteroid infobox storage book if it's easy to do or otherwise the best way to get that done then I'm ok with that and don't understand how anyone could object to taking that step at this point again if that's what you'd like to do, as far as I'm concerned I encourage it.
- But just one more time about LOMP, why is it important that it not be too big? It's not as if the user opens the entire document. Would it be lighter to make a bunch of collumns for each fact in the infobox? Then you'd lose the infox formatting making it lighter. I'd imagine.
- Before signing off, I just want to remind everyone that this is going WAY over and above what WP:NASTRO or even WP:GNG say we should have to do. There is no reason we have to save these infoboxes, we have full authority to convert them all into redirects without saving the infoboxes. We're just being extra nice and careful, but if it turns out that this isn't worth doing it shouldn't block the redirection bot going ahead because the referents of these articles are clearly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely, we can get the data from JPL or a number of other sources. I do have a slightly long term view that each of the significant sized hunks of rock will be notable, indeed very important, as we start to get serious in space in the next few decades. But for now they probably need to be listified, as planned. A careful approach might make later de-listifying easier. For example the data can be stored in templates which can be re-purposed for a short article or a list entry.
- The LOMP parts are still fairly large and the size selection is based on the amount of data for each item. But no biggy.
- The Wikibooks suggestion is an IP, not me editing logged out. Rich Farmbrough, 17:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
- Wikibook? 64.160.39.217 (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- (Of course I would prefer to see each stub made into an article, but the worry is that at some point they will just get swept away, as is being tried with some of my skeleton articles, where there is known information to fill them). Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
- Rich was just indicating that he thought you interpreted the wikibooks suggestion as coming from him while logged out. It actually came from me (an unregistered user who is not Rich). The LOMP entries without the stuff from the infoboxes (orbital elements etc). look pretty useless to me. If the infoboxes were produced from JPL data, then maybe a wikibook that's an expanded version of LOMP could be made the same way. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment
Yobot is blocked again. Check User_talk:Yobot#Blocked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
HPB
Just a heads up: HPB has been blocked by Elen of the Roads (Special:Log/Elen_of_the_Roads). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. What would you call an admin who blocks someone she's in an ArbCom with? A rogue admin? So would I. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
- Indeed, so would I. But I just temporarily stopped your bot, in the hopes that you might avoid trying to cram your third foot in your mouth - I assume that the bot does so much stuff that it's hard to keep track of the items it doesn't actually have approval for. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, I have unblocked it. It is up to you what you do with it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, so would I. But I just temporarily stopped your bot, in the hopes that you might avoid trying to cram your third foot in your mouth - I assume that the bot does so much stuff that it's hard to keep track of the items it doesn't actually have approval for. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's something of an apology here, and as noted she's unblocked the bot. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updates. I would have been totally ignorant of the block. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Now that you are back, here's an invitation...
I would feel honored if you joined the Perl WikiProject. The Transhumanist 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Favour
Hi Rich. I hope you remember me... ;) Would you please take a look at the question I filed at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:As of and let me know whether there's anything preventing a merge of these two templates? Kind regards, Osiris (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48
Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}
. . *
Edits by:
- Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by BAGGER was by Hellknowz at 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse
Hi Rich! Thanks so much for participating in the Teahouse - it's always great when experienced editors come by and help out. I encourage you to consider being an "official" (for lack of a better word!) Teahouse host! If you'd like to learn more about that, and the basics about how the Teahouse is proceeding during this pilot period, then I encourage you to take a look at this page! It has tips and can inform interested participants seeking to help new (and experienced!) editors on how the Teahouse works differently than other help places on Wikipedia. Thanks Rich, and see you at the Teahouse :) Sarah (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Template question
Could you look at template:Monthly clean up category as used inc categories like Category:Articles needing cleanup from February 2008, please? It is displaying oddly and seems to be adding a redlink category at the bottom. Is it just that an update hasn't taken affect yet due to a backed up queue? RJFJR (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed - I self reverted and went back too far. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
Arbitration Committee
I feel that I should inform you that it looks like you will be facing a one year minimum ban, administrator rights revoked for a minimum of one year, and indefinitely restricted from using any automation tool including assistance scripts and bots.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- You have to be kidding. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- Not according to ArbCom. I don't see you around that often so I don't know you well enough to judge you. As a result, I'm neutral about this and Wish you the best.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well thanks for the wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- ArbCom hasn't fully voted yet on this but it may interest you to look at this.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Does seem rather one sided and extreme. Even the guy who brought the case said de-sysopping was "too harsh". Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- The rest of the community has yet to decide so hope for the best. At this point it can still be overturned.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fortunately I am an optimist, so I can deal with things that might happen. Unfortunately I'm also a chronic depressive, so I'm not so good with things that will definitely happen or have happened. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- Fortunately I am an optimist, so I can deal with things that might happen. Unfortunately I'm also a chronic depressive, so I'm not so good with things that will definitely happen or have happened. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- Where did I say that desysopping would be too harsh? That was the main reason I requested the case. I may have said a ban was unnecessary, although I can understand why it's been proposed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, I obviously thought too well of you. You only said that banning would be too harsh - that was probably in the withdrawn section of the workshop. I find it curious that, when the case was ostensibly brought for creation of categories you would even consider desysopping relevant. Perhaps you could explain that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- I've explained my reasons for this elsewhere, but the reasons for wanting you desysopped were twofold - first, because your persistent violation of your restrictions and conduct were unbecoming of being an administrator, and second, because removing your admin rights would at least hamper your efforts to use AWB, preventing you from continuing to cause problems. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, conduct unbecoming - I've seen worse from all concerned. And the AWB thing is crazy. If BAG or ArbCom asked the AWB devs would code a special exception to exclude me. Rich Farmbrough, 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Hm, conduct unbecoming - I've seen worse from all concerned. And the AWB thing is crazy. If BAG or ArbCom asked the AWB devs would code a special exception to exclude me. Rich Farmbrough, 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- I've explained my reasons for this elsewhere, but the reasons for wanting you desysopped were twofold - first, because your persistent violation of your restrictions and conduct were unbecoming of being an administrator, and second, because removing your admin rights would at least hamper your efforts to use AWB, preventing you from continuing to cause problems. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon, I obviously thought too well of you. You only said that banning would be too harsh - that was probably in the withdrawn section of the workshop. I find it curious that, when the case was ostensibly brought for creation of categories you would even consider desysopping relevant. Perhaps you could explain that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- The rest of the community has yet to decide so hope for the best. At this point it can still be overturned.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Does seem rather one sided and extreme. Even the guy who brought the case said de-sysopping was "too harsh". Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- ArbCom hasn't fully voted yet on this but it may interest you to look at this.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well thanks for the wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
- Not according to ArbCom. I don't see you around that often so I don't know you well enough to judge you. As a result, I'm neutral about this and Wish you the best.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI
I just noticed that a user who complained about your bot has not bothered to notify you about it (see WP:BON). It seems that the ISBN fixing code may be editing at an excessively high rate, so could that perhaps be slowed down to once every 5-10 seconds? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks I noticed. It's operating more slowly now. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
language templates
Hi Rich,
Are you still willing to bot the language templates? I've removed the request for a ref section, which was the sticking point.
Hope things go well with ArbCom. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I'd be happy to. Unfortunately ArbCom looks pretty grim right now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Kwamikagami, may I ask you to reflect that to the ArbCom? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are the respective talkpages (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision), and the Workshop is technically still open. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Two more
Turns out Grutness left in 2011, and Fastily a few days back. Both cite persecution. Both were incredibly productive. Rich Farmbrough, 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Kind of a rhetoric question: 'Who cares?'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Pages with missing references list
It looks like Helpful Pixie Bot has not run Category:Pages with missing references list in quite a while. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that's true. I'll try and schedule a run before I get banned from running bots. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Done. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Thanks! ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
ISBN format please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Thanks. This is being typed manually. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well a new offence of "hiding automation" is being created. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Incidentally if you add
{{Pixie me}}
to a page the bot will visit it in about 18 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Well a new offence of "hiding automation" is being created. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Thanks. This is being typed manually. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- (ISBN format, continued)
-
- Today you revised hyphenation and inserted template at Silent to the Bone:
| isbn = ISBN 1-68983-601-5 {{Please check ISBN|reason=Check digit (5) does not correspond to calculated figure.}}
. Previously I have deleted the template request after "confirming" the flagged number (no hyphens) with some source. Now I infer that the algorithm is more reliable than the source ... Today in this case I revised initial '1' to '0' per LCC; that catalog entry does not hyphenate this one (0689836015) so I retained your hyphenation. Do you hyphenate reliably and in a way editors might do manually? I have been using 1-3-5-1. --P64 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)- Yes, the hyphenation algorithm is reliable. The way the numbers hyphenate is unfortunately not just something you can remember. The numbers have meaning, the first part is the "language area code" - clearly there are many languages so the "big" languages get a large range: 0- and 1- are English, 2- up to about 6- are French, German, Chinese ... (or similar) ... then the smaller language codes get the numbers starting with (say) 71- ... and smaller still 801- .. and then things like 9998. The same tactic is used with the next "chunk" which is the publisher code.
- So if you want some ISBn's hyphenated and checked, simply add the (invisible)
{{Pixie me}}
template to the article and the bot will come along in 18 minutes or so, and fix them up/check them. - Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)
- Today you revised hyphenation and inserted template at Silent to the Bone: