User talk:AllyUnion/Archive18

Recent additions

Your Stress Was EATEN BY A BEAR!

I don't see the point of archiving the articles that have appeared on DYK anyway. I think a template on the talk page would be a better way to keep track of the articles that have appeared on the template in the last 3 months, purged monthly.--nixie 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's to prevent the same fact from re-appearing. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how one would reappear given that only new articles are suppposed to appear on the template.--nixie 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many new articles. Plus all the facts are interesting. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My bad, I figured archiving was part of DYK procedure(since it basically said so there), I didn't know a bot did it all. You sound stressed, let me lend you my pet bear, he eats stress. We need you for all your useful bots that help the project.karmafist 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is, but the thing is that I'm trying to fix a mess... left by improper archiving. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what then, i'll let you do it from now on. Serves me right for trying to do the right thing. karmafist 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily pointing fingers at you. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent additions highly visible page

I am begging you to stop archiving the information

Hey, AllyUnion, you only need to ask me once :) I haven't touched this page in about a week. It was in pretty bad shape then and had not been archived in a long time, no images. How long has your bot been broken?

Anyway, this page is linked from the main page, so I have a request; can we please be extra carefull to format it nicely, include the images and keep its archiving up to date? If the bot's not working I'm more than happy to do it manually. But, again, it is a highly visible page, linked from the manipage, and we should keep it looking nice. --Duk 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I will try to get some kind of parser written... --AllyUnion (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know regarding this. --Duk 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Double redirect bot

I'm confused about "Kakashi Bot". Is he a working bot to fix double redirects automatically without human intervention? Does such a thing exist? If so, can you point me to its source code so that I may download and run it on my own Wiki installation, where double redirects are starting to become a problem? Thanks a lot. --Cyde 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No intervention, but it's based on an SQL query list that doesn't seem to work all that well. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD bot

I noticed that you have an AFD bot that automatically puts the entire contents of articles listed for AFD in to a subsection of your user page. This is very useful I am sure. But who uses it? And why isn't such a thing maintained on an official site somewhere? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I don't know who uses it. 2) It has been traditionally placed there. The previous user before me also placed it under a subpage of his userspace. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The previous user before you? Do you mean that there was another AllyUnion before you? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro ran a bot to update a similar listing at User:Anthony DiPierro/Current VfD, and I just took over the job. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating it on my user page. I had read it here already, and understood it. Thanks again. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurando-san

Here's something I've never seen happen before; the nominator has included a date in the description of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Felix the Cat and the bot has picked this up as the nomination date. That's something I never thought could happen, and I'll have to post a message somewhere warning people not to put any dates above the nomination date. Perhaps it would be best if the nomination pages had a line directly below the title saying "Nominated 5th December 2005" or something like that, above the description. Would the bot pick this up correctly? Is there a way to include the current time in the code, because that would be perfect and it would solve problems like this. Raven4x4x 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the bot's userpage, here. If you notice on the notes section of the page below, it has indicated that it will indeed work. The logical reasoning behind this is that I can not base the nomination on the history, as I do not reliably know which edit in the history indicates the date in which it was first nominated. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, no matter what the date is, it will always read the first "readable" date. Unfortunately, it was the May 15 date. You could, just add:

<!-- ~~~~~ -->

to the template code, and it will fix all the problems... except Brian0918... who finds that he needs to be special and write his date in a format different from everyone else. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it never occured to me to just hide the date in the code like that. It seems so obvious now... :) Thanks again. Raven4x4x 09:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Category: color -> colour

Hope I have the right place. Did I miss a discussion of a change from colour to color? The color article is regularly messed up and reverted to color, so I'm surprised to see this happening...? Notinasnaid 15:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you doing it anyway?? Georgia guy 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please understand, this was abuse from user 130.159.254.2 (talk · contribs) who added the template notification at the top of the page, which, forced NekoDaemon to make changes. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see this and continue the discussion in WP:CFD. Thanks. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikifun

Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.

Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD bot change

Since all closed RFA's have the subs:at/subs:ab text, can you make your bot reckognize those and mark AFD's as closed so I dont have to keep finding that RFA's are closed by opening them. Thank you.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That is on my to do list. But at the current moment, I'm very busy trying to earn a buck for a living, plus my computer is not functioning properly. Therefore I can not help at this time. But it is something I will do in the near future. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

bot request

Hi! I wonder if my bot request was granted after I created the user page or do I need to do anything else? I have now tested the code offline and it seams to do its thing, I will be busy during Christmas and New Year but would like to have permission to start testing online if I get any time over. See wikipedia talk:bots#Shark articles unifying bot Stefan 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Afd2

The template Afd2 currently has 2 equal signs on each side (== ==) instead of three, and the WP:AFD is set up so the date is a 2-equal-sign headline and the individual article discussions have 3 equal signs. There were 3 equal signs several days ago, so could you change it back? (It's protected.) --King of Hearts 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, as far as I am aware, it is still three equal signs. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, see for yourself: Template:Afd2. Here's an example of what happens:

Some Weird Article

This is nonsense.

The following is the text I typed in:

{{subst:afd2| pg = Some Weird Article | text = This is nonsense.}}

--King of Hearts 01:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So it's working, never mind then. --King of Hearts 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image:BobbyFischer.jpg

NotificationBot, please go to Image:BobbyFischer.jpg. I've added the URL to that page. Adnghiem501 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Afd/Old

I noticed there's no link whatsoever from main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. I wanted to link it from Old discussions header but I'm afraid it would screw up the bot somehow. Can you add the link in that place?  Grue  17:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know (to update it anyway). --AllyUnion (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandbot

Some trouble with the template:

• New interwiki at tr:Vikipedi:Deneme tahtası
• "About the Sandbox" and "Editing tutorial" are being linked twice
• Template could use a link to Wikipedia:Introduction

Thanks! Ashibaka tock 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Email me if you want to make the changes yourself or any adjustments. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dumbass article

Hi! I put in some reasons why the dumbass article should be unprotected on the talk page. Thanks! BlueGoose 08:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See comments on Talk:Dumbass. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

FPC bot problem again

Today Kurando-san performed a strange move on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lille Marsh. It was moved from third from the top of the main section (see here) to the very bottom of the section (here), but not into the older than 14 days section. Why on Earth would the bot do this all of a sudden? Raven4x4x 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The nomination date was apparently changed. See [1] --AllyUnion (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But the date was changed to a later date. Surely this would mean the bot would move it up, not down? Raven4x4x 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know why it did that. But if happens again, let me know. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

redirected categories

Hi - I noticed that NekoDaemon is meant to move contents from categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects. I've been doing some WP:CFD cleanup and thought I'd let ND do some moving rather than doing it manually (or asking Beland or Who to do it with their bots). The claim at the category redirect page is that ND patrols "hourly". Does this mean ND examines each redirected category once an hour, or that it wakes up and does some amount of work every hour? I added the redirect template to Category:U.S._history_images about 24 hours ago and the articles aren't moved yet. Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And, while we're at it, what would you think about adding category deletion as well? WhoBot and Pearle are typically used for both moves and deletes, but if there were an equivalent to template:categoryredirect for categories to be deleted, deleting a category (after discussion at CFD of course) could be semi-automated by adding the category to a "to be deleted" category patrolled by ND in much the same way as Category:Wikipedia category redirects. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The first problem is fixed. As for your suggestion, I'd rather get some kind of community consensus before preceeding. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've talked to Beland about this a bit as well (see user talk:Beland). I'll start a page on this somewhere, directly solicit input from folks I know might be interested (you, Beland, Who, Kdbank71, K1Bond007 to start with), and put pointers to it on VPP, CFD, and the requested bots page. Anyone else likely to be directly interested, or anyplace else I should post a notice? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/cleanup. Still sort of drafty, but I suspect you'll get the general drift. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments section in FPC

Can you please enlighten me as to why the 2 day nomination section has been removed from FPC? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus was formed on the talk page, and no one particularly opposed the idea. Furthermore, there is picture peer review now... --AllyUnion (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

United States vs American Television Networks Categories

The category clearly states that Category:American television networks should redirect to Category:United States television networks but the bot seems to be doing the opposite. [2]

Confused. Hope this works out. -- Hinotori 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The bot is functioning normally. A user attempted to rename Category:United States television networks and Category:United States radio networks without bringing the matter to WP:CFD. I swapped the tags to reverse the process. The same user also performed a copy-and-paste move of List of United States cable and satellite television networks to List of American cable and satellite television networks, the latter of which was speedily deleted. I intend to nominate the two new categories for deletion after the bot has finished emptying Category:American radio networks. —Lifeisunfair 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying that for me. :)

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RfB?

I believe we need more bureaucrats, and I believe you'd make a fine one. BD2412 T 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious support, but I'm afraid I will have to decline until I have more time on my hands to handle the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. --AllyUnion (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, AllyUnion! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandbot broken

Looks like Sandbot crashed. — Alex 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. I think I have fixed whatever problem it was causing. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Anytime :-) — Alex 09:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

Hi I am going through and fixing bad Wikisource links left from the language split. I have been doing this by hand off a search for Wikisource. So far I have looked at 700 of the over 4,000 results from that search and I now have a good idea where I will find errors. Is there any you can pull out a list of all the instance where WP links to WS without a template? The most common ways these links are setup is [[Wikisoure:This is an example]], [[s:This is an example]], [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_is_an_example This is an example], and [http://wikisource.org/wiki/This_is_an_example This is an example] If I could have listing all these links and so I could just test them out and only look up the article when I find a bad link, it would be great as these bad links are really causing extra work at WS. Or if you have any suggestions as how I could do this without looking through 4,000 articles individually I would appreciate it. Cryptic suggested I ask you as you have a toolserver account.--BirgitteSB 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1) I can run a query for you off the toolserver, but it would help me greatly if you had the query in mind; 2) Which database are you talking about? (English Wikipedia?) 3) Can you be more specific? I don't fully understand the context in which you are asking me to look up and for what reason. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry here is the long explanation. All the links that went to WS before the language split worked fine. After language split the links now go to the wrong place. One example is if you look at the History of Henry David Thoreau. Several of his works were linked to on WS and when the language split happened the works moved but the links stayed pointing to old wikisource. Another common problem using the interwikimedia link which once linked to works at the old wikisource, now links by default to English WS. You would be surprised how many instances there were of someone links to a non-English work on the old WS from the English WP. So the real problem is that now when editors from WP follow the lost links they see that the page does not exist and there is the standard prompt to "Create this page." Well they are repeatedly. I have seen 16 deleted edits and rarely have I followed these lost links to see less than 3 deleted edits. Almost every day at English WS it seems we have a work added that we can't read by an anomynous user we can't contact. I imagine it is just as tedious at the old WS, which still host some languages like gaellic, to have english works repeatedly added to their site. For my use I was hoping you could query the English WP, altough I imagine the problem exists elsewhere. If you look at my Contribs you see how am fixing these links, but you can't see all the pages containing the WS templates and other uses of the word "wikisource" I had look through hunting for these errors. If I can't find the right place to correctly link to I am deleting the link, but with cut and paste I feel I have done pretty well finding even Chinese! pages. Thanks for reading all this if you have more qusetions I can probably put together some links of what is happening--BirgitteSB 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you to take the time to look at my contributions the past two days? I have going through the {{wikisource}} links because it also has alot of errors. So you might to look a bit further back for the examples I was writing about above.--BirgitteSB 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if I understand correctly, there are new namespaces at the Wikisource. And Wikisource is now segmented into different languages. You want a query of any text that has the word "wikisource" in it. Gotcha. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly I have been working off a search of simply wikisource, but I was hoping you could help with a more subtle query. Most of the errors occur in following 4 ways of linking to wikisource: [[Wikisource:This is an example]], [[s:This is an example]], [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_is_an_example This is an example], and [http://wikisource.org/wiki/This_is_an_example This is an example]. I was hoping to get a query on these particular uses of wikisource if it is possible. A query on just wikisource would also includes all the templates and 3 out of the 4 templates rarely have errors. See Wikisource segmented into different languages back in August, so there are a good deal of correct links as well. As far I know no one has attempted to make these fixes systimatically until now. When did I search on just wikisource I got over 4,000 results and I have gone through about 700 of them. I really don't know what toolserver accounts can or what the results would look like. I just was hoping there is a better/quicker way to go about this. Thanks for any advise you can give me.--BirgitteSB 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll have to think about it. It's essentially four different queries unioned together. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do one query as you requested, and another query to search for anything currently using the {{wikisource}} template. They will be placed at User:BirgitteSB/Query1 and User:BirgitteSB/Query2 --AllyUnion (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, unfortunately, those queries are really out of date. And not necessarily correct. The toolserver, at the moment, doesn't have the space to run full text queries. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK bots

Hi, this is with reference to Talk Page Converter and Talk Page Converter (backup). I have just tried the first one and it seems to be good in terms of obliterating need for some grunt work. However, a couple of fixes need to be made. Firstly, the image name is getting into a separate line just below the line it is supposed to come in (I want it to come immediately one space after the "?"). Secondly, I want the image name to be displayed e.g. if the input is [[Image:Dunmore pineapple north elevation.jpg|100px|Dunmore Pineapple]], the output is "Dunmore Pineapple." Based on the prevalent practice on DYK archival, the output should be ([[:Image:Dunmore pineapple north elevation.jpg]]). With these two minor fixes, I'd reckon that it wd reduce half the workload in archiving. Could you let me know if it is possible? --Gurubrahma 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, but I'm a bit busy with other things at the moment. I can't tell you when I will be able to try to correct it. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)