User talk:Meno25/Archive 17

Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 24 July 2013
Archive 10Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

AWB edits

This could be the poster child for useless, careless use of AWB. Making purely cosmetic changes and adding an "uncategorized" tag to the main page? Please be more careful with AWB. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And here is another purely cosmetic edit. From WP:AWB, Which I would hope you are familiar with, "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." You may want to consider scaling back your use of automated tools so that you can more easily manage them and ensure you are actually making desirable edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Oddly enough, you're not the first admin to do this! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The tagging of the Main Page is partially AWB's fault. rev 9256 removed the restriction on Main Page. I may have to put it back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

rev 9271 Re-excluded Main Page from tagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tagging articles with Menobot

Under which task authority are you allowed to add maintenance tags to articles with Menobot? Gigs (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gigs: The BRfA is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot II (I am assuming that since I got the task approved that I can operate it under any of my two bot accounts.) --Meno25 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
You should probably link to all the BRFAs from the bot's user page if you intend to use them interchangeably. I don't think there is a strict rule against it, but it is kind of a bad idea, because if there is an error that necessitates a bot block, we will have to remember or know to block all the bots. It would be good to note that you do use the bot accounts interchangeably on both their user pages, or which BRFAs both bots are operating under. Gigs (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Gigs: I will update the two bots pages with a description of all tasks. Thank you. --Meno25 (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

User:MenoBot at pl.wp

Done. Replied at pl:Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Meno25#Odp:User:MenoBot. Matma Rex talk 22:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

14:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Re: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Thanks, good spot. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 21:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Baseball ratings

All the baseball articles that were left as automatically assessed were ones I had not gotten to changing from stub-class yet. If you're just removing the auto tag without reassessing then you just made a huge amount of work for me tracking them down again... Wizardman 16:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wizardman: OK. Point taken. I will redo the edits manually. Thank you for your message. --Meno25 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem; checking the automatically assessed articles are useful, it's just always better to check manually. Remember that most of those assessments are from 2007-2008, so that's six years of editing that may have happened since. Wizardman 02:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Auto tagging articles is inappropriate (stop it)

A tag is a very heavy-handed ugly thing that just lingers on an article forever. It is a state of Wiki (of the design!) that articles are unfinished. Tags really belong on the TALK page as they are commentary on the article. And for that matter, instead of tagging, FIX.

And don't give my any crap about lists or categories...the damned bot can add hidden categories if needed. But tags are bad, bad news.

TCO (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

TCO do you mean tags like {{orphan}} in the article page or wikiproject banners in the talk page? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Orphan. (Talk page stuff is great and I approve. But defacing tops of articles is extremely off-putting. P.s. I won't argue it...you have the commentary.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talkcontribs)
(talk page stalker) I'm not seeing a problem here. Numerous consensuses have said it's OK to tag articles pbp 14:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Magio: He is probably talking about Perfluoroheptane specifically this edit.

TCO: There is a consensuses in favor of tagging articles with maintenance templates such as {{deadend}} and {{orphan}}. Many bots (including my bot) do this task and many users do this task with their primary accounts without a bot flag. So, I am not sure how can I help you here. If you want the maintenance templates to be added in the talk pages instead of in the articles, then I suggest that you raise this issue first in the Village pump. --Meno25 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Carl Schmidt (Coptologist)

The article has been assesed as stub, but now is enhanced a lot. It contains enough details of importance to an average reader, has sources, literature, works, links and everything else that is needed for an article. So I request to assess the article again. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Giftzwerg 88: Article reassessed. Thank you for your work on the article. --Meno25 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

17:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013