This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Should I add that to the FAQ or something? I'm working on it. There is a possibility, but needs a major rewrite of the bot, which is in progress. Миша1320:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
RE: My userpage
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No, it doesn't, but if you use standard archive naming (/Archive N) you can just put {{archivebox|auto=yes}} and it will handle that automagically. Миша1320:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Deleted historical television logos
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I feel like a doofus, but a over a month ago I had gotten a bunch of logos restored in order to add fair use rationales, but then only managed to get around to fixing about half of them. Now I see that the ones I didn't fix got deleted again (so much for "There is no deadline"), so I was wondering if you could please restore them again so I can finish up with the rationales and add them back to the appropriate pages.
The images, and the articles for which they are to be used, are as follows:
Done. Apart from writing rationales, remember to actually include the images in articles - the all got deleted because they were orphaned fair use images. Миша1314:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Bug report - pywikipedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Um, shit happens - I was kinda tired yesterday - when I get back home, I'll run the bot to replace it with the current issue. Sorry 'bout that. Миша1310:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
In case you'd not noticed :(
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Bloody brilliant. Apparently the devs weigh consensus differently than the rest of Wikipedia (the original proposal was deemed rejected). At least this solution is smarter than some completely missed ideas and I can only hope that it will cause less problems than it solves. Миша1323:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Problem is now that since there's no agreed policy, it is a free-for-all. I can grant and remove this as I want. Screw consensus, eh? :(--Docg23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for archeiveing my user talk page. Could you please post a link to the archives on my talk page as well? Thanks!--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you don't use a standard /Archive N naming scheme, you'll have to maintain the links on your own - please read about the {{archivebox}} template. Миша1310:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
wrestling project newsletter
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's not about a font - it's about a character I have inserted into the page code. And in the edit summary as well - that's why it looks distorted as well. Миша1312:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Exactly the one I have pointed out - unicode character with a code of #202E hexadecimally, 8283 decimally - you need to google on how to input arbitrary unicode characters as it depends on your operating system and browser. Миша1313:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Over or not, the page has been deleted under a different policy (with some plain old common sense), thus the MfD became immaterial, so I closed it. Quite natural. Миша1317:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Please consider reopening the discussion. CSD T1 does not apply to userspace as the criteria for speedy deletion explicitly state. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
T1 applies to templates. That page checks out as a template for me, is inflammatory enough and on top of that just plainly doesn't belong here. Миша1317:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
the DRV closed it and kept the template; MfD is closed and template gone with it. These are seperate. There was active discussion going on and could have been resolved. Please reopen. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I apologize for being short: what is the merit of an admin, who had not casted a vote in an open review, jumping in and deleting the MfD along with the template with at least 3 other editors and 4 other admins present at an ongoing discussion? This could have been resolved. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You're more elaborate now, but you've evaded the merit again. All I see is talk about process (which I am only making simple) while the merit is whether the page belongs here in the first place. So what that other admins were present? The matter is resolved (or at least, it were until it was yet again needlessly resurrected on DRV). Миша1317:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I hope you'll understand my comments were meant as rhetoric to advance an argument, and not as a personal attack against you or all of Catholicism. I only know "where the bodies are buried" because I'm a Catholic myself, so I got a little carried away. -- Kendrick7talk20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
No hard feelings there. But I did check on cafeteria Catholic to make sure it's not a universally strong pejorative term (it does carry some degree of contempt in Poland). :) It's also probably not the best way to describe me; I would rather say that I view some issues from a wider perspective (like creation through evolution). Cheers, Миша1321:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I didn't check where that link went first; trying to define the term for all of Christendom has created a bit of a mishmosh, especially as a lot of other Christian churches aren't quite as dogmatic. In the U.S. it usually refers to Catholics who use birth control, and as such (IMHO) being a cafeteria Catholic is too widespread to be terrible derogatory per se. -- Kendrick7talk21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikinews importer bot
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could you set it so that the dates are not wikilinked? There's really no reason for it, I think. I prefer the format that we used on the featured portal:medicine, which was
I looked at every other featured portal. Not a single one uses this date format. It clearly is the outlier exception. Every other featured portal with a news section uses a leading date, almost always linked, with or without the year included. I oppose this suggested change. RichardF (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
An "interwiki transclusion bot"
Latest comment: 16 years ago50 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Misza13,
A number of editors have been working on ways to have portals take better care of themselves, rather than require lots of manual upkeep. One way to do this has been the random display of a selection of subpages. Another way has been to have a bot update a time-sensitive page, such as DinojermBot for Portal:Business and economics/Market Indices.
Another, yet unborn bot could take news items from Wikinews and place them in the applicable portal sections (probably by way of a section subpage). DinojermBot's creator doesn't seem to be active here these days, so I'm asking for your help. The basic idea would be for a general purpose bot that could copy the contents of one sister project page to a page at a different sister project. A bot user like myself would be able to specify the applicable source page, destination page, and a few other parameters along the lines of the MiszaBots.
If this proposed project isn't your cup of tea, could you direct me to another talk page where I could pitch the idea? Thanks for your time. RichardF (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
An interesting idea.
It shouldn't be that hard to write such a bot. One challenge is that we're not copying page code to page code, but rather the resulting rendered HTML must be converted into a wikisyntax list. But again, shouldn't be that hard and I can see what can be done.
On Wikia, the thing that you call "interwiki transclusion" is an actual feature. There you can transclude a page from one family into another. When and if at all will this be enabled on Wikipedia is another thing...
Thanks! Do you have a time frame in mind when a bot might be up a running? By the way, does this feature have a real name I should be using? :-) RichardF (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just thought I'd interject in this discussion. :D The feature is toggled in LocalSettings.php by a variable called $wgEnableScaryTranscluding, and it's also controlled on a per-interwiki basis by a bitfield in the database. The feature as it is currently implemented only works to transclude pages in the other wiki's template namespace (as of MediaWiki 1.11.0), so it probably wouldn't be applicable to your situation. Or am I talking about something else? Misza? (I'm not familiar with Wikia's system.) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me]17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
The it's either something else, or the "scary transclusion" has gone further than the documentation says. For an example, see Jack Phoenix' userpage on a remote wiki (and on several more), which actually transcludes a central userpage (although I'm not sure where is it, as this is something different). Миша1318:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Looks like Wikia's using 1.12, which is a version above the test wiki I have (I'm sticking with stable releases for now). Either the Scary Transclusion feature has been expanded in the SVN MediaWiki or they have some extension installed to do that. They sure do have a lot of extensions... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me]21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
This type of bot that could do this cross-wiki would be very useful. Several users are interested, and it could be used on almost every Portal on Wikipedia. No rush, but any ideas as to a time frame on if/when this could be available? Cirt (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
Yeah, it either required that the </noinclude> and the first ** are on the same line (looks ugly in page's code) or just put the whole bot thingie at the end. I chose the latter. Cheers, Миша1321:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Have patience now. :) The testing phase is over and I've set cron to run it hourly. The next run is scheduled *looks at the clock* in about 7 minutes. Миша1322:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, okay. So I guess in order for it to work in the first place, there needs to be some sort of related Category at Wikinews to import from, so if no Category exists for a certain topic, it's not applicable, it can't somehow scan for a particular search term using the "Special:Search" function? Cirt (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
Technically, it can be any page where the <DynamicPageList> tag was used - can be a category page/portal page/whatever. The bot just looks for the first item list (HTML <ul> tag) in the page's content and imports that. Миша1322:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Seems there was a problem with caching - the bot was getting back a version of the page with only three items. I have logged it in on wikinews too, so that it's allowed to do &action=purge and should be fine now. Миша1311:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I went the simpler way (a fix I could do in about one minute) - just copy the first link that appears in each item (this omits the date). I could probably make the bot copy the dates (and whatever else there is) but that would be more of a hassle. Миша1317:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know beggers can't be choosers, so thanks for all of your efforts. Time will tell if featured portal reviewers buy this undated style for news sections. :-) Regards, RichardF (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is the code for this bot available for some of the French bot writers to employ?
If not, do you think it'll take much to make it available?
We have a user on en.Wikinews who is more of a Francophone and would love to see the same method of promoting Wikinews in French on the French WP. I also suspect the Polish and (possibly) Chinese would be among the next to want to 'purloin' your work. --Brian McNeil /talk14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The code is available on the bot's userpage. Refactoring for any other language should be as easy as changing 'en' (to 'fr' for example) in the main() function. I also think I can set up the bot for the polish wp/wn (it's my native tongue after all). Миша1316:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'll pass on the news about fr, and that sounds great about pl. I'm trying to encourage people who adopt it on en to use it as an opportunity to get a new article that they're main contributor on up on Wikinews. If you get interest on the Polish wiki please suggest they try the same. --Brian McNeil /talk21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Both done. It didn't update because there is a bug with unicode handling on one of the pages and the bot died with an exception before it got there. That said, I'll track the bug tomorrow or on Saturday (two pages still won't update); a terrible headache is giving me a hard time. Миша1321:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Миша. I see Portal:Education/News/Wikinews is using dates now. Can you offer me any guidance on how I can get a Wikipedia date style to display, e.g., " [[<month>]] [[<day>]]: "? Can I do it using DynamicPageList or can the bot reformat the date? Thanks again. RichardF (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
It will be better to leave DPL output as is (i.e. plain text) and code the linking into the bot (btw: 10 January is a hard redirect to January 10, so technically speaking, DPL produces "invalid" (or at least MoS-wise improper) output). I have a few ideas and will get to it once my headache is over. Do I understand correctly that you'd like the year omitted and leave just the month and day? Миша1323:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, headache is over, dates are ready and the unicode bug eliminated (should update on all pages now). Now this has gotta be the longest thread evar on my talk page. :) Миша1313:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I just noticed the latest updates. They look great! Thanks! Of course, you know this is now quite the rage over at Wikinews, e.g., The Wikinews Importer Bot. :-) I think they have a very legitimate point for how the bot could help update "See also" sections in current events-oriented articles like United States presidential election, 2008. Are you willing to consider allowing the bot to update article See also sections? RichardF (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
By the way, those Wikipedia portal news boxes and DYK boxes keep on whispering to me that they want bots visiting them too! I might have to start another groveling / any tips? topic here. ;-) RichardF (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done. The next time the list of items changes the bot should start putting noinclude in the same line as the last item. Миша1310:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I saw this type of thing early on, then it went away. Now it seems to be doing it again, but maybe just for articles? Should the bot be doing "timestamp only" updates, e.g., like this and this ? RichardF (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah, a minor glitch - fixed and shouldn't happen anymore now. Btw, thanks for maintaining the bot's userpage - I'm always too lazy to write documentation for my software. :) Миша1317:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please delete
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't go to DRV with it. Why don't you ask Equazcion why he insists on playing this bureaucratic nonsense only to defend a piece of Myspace that doesn't even belong here? Миша1317:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
See my reasoning at DRV. This has been speedied twice before, both times overturned. I don't know why you'd close the MfD with another speedy after all of that... Equazcion•✗/C •17:42, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It's a controversial issue and not clearcut. Just the fact that there are people who don't think it should be deleted is reason enough to let the MfD continue. That's why anyone is allowed to remove CSD requests from pages. In fact the MfD seemed to be leaning towards a keep (note that I myself voted for delete). Equazcion•✗/C •17:47, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
First, just as anyone can remove a CSD tag, any administrator is free to fulfill the request and delete the page. Second, if you !voted delete then why are you reviving DRV? Do you want it deleted or not, for Pete's sake? Or is it just about process wonkery? Миша1317:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I want it deleted. But I want it done the right way. The end does not justify the means. Equazcion•✗/C •17:56, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
What makes my way worse? This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, not a bureaucratic state. Anything that does not further (or worse, detracts from) the objective of building it can (and should) be deleted by all any any means necessary (and the faster the better so as not to waste further resources). Миша1318:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please revert your close. speedy is for unquestionable deletions and it is clear there was significant question of the UCfD. You should at the least have let the discussion continue to the end. Doing it as a speedy or snow is counterproductive, for, as you see, it always arouses resentment. As an admin you have the power to do a speedy, but also the resposibility to use the power appropriately in line with policy. IAR as applied to speedy is not correct when there is opposition. So far from not wasting further resources, it will cause a great deal more trouble. DGG (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted the page in line with policy. Be it CSD T1 or (if you question it) IAR which is always correct when applied to building an encyclopedia. It was not counterproductive. The people who drag it around blind and for the sake of process are. Миша1318:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Misza I really think you went the wrong way on this one, your only supposed to close an MFD by consensus not your own POV. I personally don't like the userbox (my sister is in the USAF) but if the consensus is to keep it then it should be kept. --ChetblongTalkSign21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I, as an administrator am supposed to help maintain a free encyclopedia. That includes housekeeping tasks such as deleting trash that doesn't belong on one. If I find a page that qualifies for a CSD (T1 in this instance), I delete it, naturally. If you disagree with T1 (the bit about template space was added not long ago, and not without opposition), then G0 still applies, no difference. Миша1322:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
If we were to discuss everything around here first, we'd never get anything done. Wikipedia stands on a pillar of WP:BOLD and it applies to admins just as it does to regular users. You can of course disagree with my actions, as I'm just your run-the-mill abusive admin, and struggle to lengthen the process outside the scope of building an encyclopedia despite my best efforts. And that's exactly what happened - a DRV overturned my decision and there we are at the MfD again. So let's close this issue as my personal failure - I still stand a chance of not being called an "asshole" this time round. Миша1322:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Did you check the last pillar in detail before you commented here? In particular, the first link that appears in that section. Миша1322:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
A mógłbyś dokładnie mi opisać te dziesięć warunków,ale po polsku?(na razie gorzej u mnie z angielskim:/)Właśnie ładowałem niedawno kilka zdjęć i właśnie ktoś mi wywalił, z powodów jakie podałes wyżej. No i przede wszystkim:wyjaśnisz mi dokładnie i prosto jak mogę obejść to o czym mówisz,by m.in.ktoś nie wywalił etc.? 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Kryteria w skrócie:
Brak wolnego odpowiednika, czyli nie da się zdobyć równoważnego medium na wolnej licencji. Spełnia to większość screenshotów, bo firmy nie pozwalają na ich wolne rozpowszechnianie (ale są wyjątki, np. Ubisoft, p. {{ubisoft-screenshot}}).
Poszanowanie komercji, czyli że np. opublikowanie medium nie wpłynie negatywnie na korzyści jakie firma czerpie ze swojego produktu. Znowu, screenshoty się łapią, niemniej trzeba to napisać na stronie obrazka.
(a)Minimalne użycie, tj. chcemy, żeby niewolnych obrazków było jak najmniej. Bardzo ważne kryterium, bo na jego podstawie najczęściej obrazki wylatują z artykułów (wystarczy, że ktoś stwierdzi, że jest ich za dużo, ale to jest również kwestia do dyskusji). (b) Minimalne wykorzystanie, czyli jak można to użyć tylko kawałka obrazka, a ponadto w dość niskiej rozdzielczości.
Wcześniejsza publikacja - obrazek został wcześniej opublikowany poza Wikipedią.
Treść - obrazek sam w sobie powinien mieć encyklopedyczną wartość.
(c) Każdy artykuł, w którym obowiązuje fair use musi być wymieniony (w postaci linku), i dla każdego musi być osobne uzasadnienie. Ile już obrazków wyleciało, bo nie miało listy artykułów to nie zliczę...
Piekło, nie? Ale w końcu to ma być wolna encyklopedia, a nie zbiorowisko naruszeń praw autorskich (bo by nas w końcu ktoś pozwał). Миша1318:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've read that there are three bots which auto-archive talkpages: MiszaBot, ClueBot III, and MercuryBot. What are the differences between them? Which one is best? In other words, which one is prone to the least errors and stays up the most often? ☯Zenwhat (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
MercuryBot is a clone of MiszaBot which only archives ANs. ClueBot III is Cobi's genuine creation that has mostly the same functions and apparently can also index the archives. But really, there's no great difference (both are stable, operate regularly and quite reliably), so it's really up to you whether you use MiszaBot or ClueBot. Миша1318:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
archiving glitch?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An extremely rare error. I can't even say I can counter it - must be some lost connection while posting monolithic amounts of text to the server. Миша1318:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it does - at least, User:MiszaBot/config does - it's the template the bot checks to see what pages want automatic archiving. It's parameters are options for the bot. It also gets vandalized pretty often on Talk:Main Page, so instead of removing, you should rather fix it and whack whoever broke it. ;) Миша1317:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
After your archive bot began on Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy I noticed some old sections had no signatures, thus no dates. I used subst:unsigned2 to sign entries in the sections. After several days, the bot doesn't seem to have archived the sections. Maybe there is something about the formatting of the dates which the bot is not recognizing, but I'm just guessing. P.S. The section "Signature" was signed, but with an unusual date format also. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The correct sequence is: day, month, year. Just see what ~~~~~ produces. And don't forget the timezone - without it, the timestamp remains undefined. The bot already accepts a variety of timestamps, but I can't possibly compensate for anything people think of. Regards, Миша1317:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could the bot accept some part of </small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> instead of a timezone? "small" is not widely used, so might be unusual enough to be a reasonable pattern symbol. Unless the bot recognizes all timezone names, "small" might be more unusual than a random three letter abbreviation within parentheses. Or does the bot recognize un-subst unsigned/unsigned2 template incantation? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I don't understand a bit from what you're saying. "Small" is not a valid timezone name. The solution is simple: add "(UTC)" to the date whenever you invoke {{unsigned}}. Миша1321:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Help, please.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I tried to set up auto-archiving with Misza3. See here. I'd like to have my archiving set up similarly to the way Jimbo has it set up: Partially based on date, but partially based on incremental size. That way, I can edit Wikipedia sporadically without having archives that are messy. Did I do it right? Usually, bots are quick and I haven't seen Misza3 appear just yet. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The counter is a meaningless parameter when you don't use it. Either incremental or date-based; I can't see how you could combine these two. Миша1321:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Currently when the bot updates it's target page, it removes all current content and replaces it with the new information. Is there any way for it to leave any information already existing after the last </noinclude> so that portal categories and editing notes can be left alone? Nanonic (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to add to this about perhaps having a link to a page over on Wikinews encouraging people from Wikipedia to get involved with the sister site. I've been scratching my head for days and still can't figure a pithy 3-4 word invite to put on the templates the bot maintains. I have RichardF and a couple of the other people who're making use of this bot looking over what the transition to Wikinews involves. I've proposed creating Wikinews:Wikinews:Welcome from Wikipedia as a landing page for this and would welcome your thoughts on this. --Brian McNeil /talk12:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't delete redirects!
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Please don't delete "unnecessary" redirects, even orphaned talk pages. A redirect that was once made is likely to be useful again; redirects should be deleted only when they are actually harmful. See this policy. Since they're all Talk pages, it's probably not so important. (That's why I've decided against going through the list and restoring them.) But it's always possible that an external site linked to one of these old talk pages before it was moved, and Wikipedia has plenty of room (it's primarily bandwidth that Wikimedia needs money for), so they really should not be deleted. —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
The redirects were created as a result of a page move (of the article). Being orphaned, they provide no internal added value (you don't search the Talk: namespace) and only amount to clutter (we may have a lot of space but that does not excuse from having a mess) and may even stand in the way of future moves (although it is just as unlikely as the page being linked to from outside of Wikipedia). What I'm doing is basically what DerHexer was doing back in 2007 - he once told me that it's a long-standing de.wiki practice - you might ask him how this idea was originally born. And since he was doing it in batches which apparently took him some time to prepare, I have devised a mechanism for full automation and have been running it ever since. On a more humorous note, it's good for your mental health that you have refrained from restoring those pages - DerHexer and myself have deleted some 30-40 (or more) thousand pages since it all started. :) Миша1320:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Which speedy deletion criteria was that again? None? A link to where consensus was decided, then? Bot approval?
I'm not saying I'm actually opposed to this (I can see pros and cons, and do indeed value good housekeeping), but your response to this guy seems to be "I know best"...
Hm, I didn't know we needed a CSD to delete something... :I
And it's not like "I know best"; I'm just doing systematically what takes others greater effort to do.
And to be completely clear, they're not only orphaned redirects, but also have only one item in page history (i.e. they were created by a move) and that move took place at least 30 days ago. Миша1311:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I already talked to DerHexer about it, and all that he said was "I've not deleted unnecessary redirects for days. Misza13 is doing this at the moment.", so I checked it out and came over here. You're right that I would have a hard time deleting 30 or 40 thousand of these; that's why BOT policy requires preapproval. Your bot is apparently not checking the page's logs either, since it's not true that the only activity on these pages is a page move; some of them have been deleted and restored three times. Also, these pages are hardly clutter; they're well behaved redirects that no one will stumble upon from within Wikipedia (only from outside, which is why it's harmful to delete them). Furthermore, they won't stop page moves that reverse the previous move; more generally, they won't stop any page move that the non-discussion article allows. Finally, it's backwards to restrict your activity to old talk pages; it's new ones that are less likely to have received incoming links. (But it's really the length of history of the unmoved name that matters, not the length of time since the move.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok then, I'll work to redesign the bot to consider only new redirects (say, up to two weeks) and make sure there are no underlying deletion log entries. On the other hand, however, I wonder how often talk pages are linked to externally (examples?)... Миша1317:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Talk page of History of California
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you blocked User:Yoooooooooooooooooooo. Please be nice to people. If you block them, it is nice to leave a politely worded message on their user talk page and instructions to pick a new name. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Waste of time. They'll get notified when they try (if they do) to edit by the block message. Plus, no need to further populate CAT:TEMP. In short, thanks, but no, thanks. Миша1317:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Reliable Sources/Noticeboard
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The bot is set to archive any sections that haven't been edited for 28days, the 250k limit refers to the maximum size an archive page can reach before another is created. As the top section was last edited on 31 December, it will be archived on 27/28 January if no further comments are made to it. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was reading the article John Keston and noticed there was an image tag missing its first bracket. So the non-free image Holmesplaybill.jpg showed as unused in an article and you deleted it. I'm wondering if there's a way you could undelete it as can be done with articles? If you manage to do it, can you perhaps fix the tag on the article or send me a message so I can fix it? I just wouldn't want to to be delete again for the same reason! :p --Dandin1 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your bot is doing a good job but unfortunately the pages used by the article are placed in stories in development (main namespace). To stop this happening I would suggest you created an account and put them in the user namespace. If this is not possible you could put them in Portal:Country name/Wikipedia. --Smallbig/Anonymous101 on Wikinews18:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me? All pages the bot updates are either /Wikinews subpages of relevant portals or subpages of Template:Wikinewshas. As far as I can tell from the bot's logs, pages on Wikinews it feeds from are portal or category subpages. Миша1318:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikinews Importer Bot stalled?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Misza! I was wondering what it would take to run a copy of MiszaBot for use on my own wiki. Is that possible to do? If so, what would I need? This isn't urgent, as my wiki's being set up rather slowly, but eventually I'd like to get an archiver and an indexer running. Your indexer module idea in the header has me excited; I wouldn't have to also get a copy of HBC Archive Indexerbot. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
That shouldn't be all that hard. Once you have a family file for your wiki, it should be as simple as setting up something similar to User:MiszaBot/config and running the bot with correct parameters. There might be wrinkles (like some non-standard timezone), but these can be ironed out - one wiki I know to use it is the Battlestar Wiki. As for the indexer part, the development is on hold currently as I pursue a different project, but I'll get back to it soon enough. Миша1317:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah, so I'd just need to get the pyWikipediaBot framework and install Python on the server (if it's not present). I wouldn't need to get SVN commit access to make a family file, would I? I'd just have to add one to my local copy of the framework, yes? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, a local copy in ther families/ directory would suffice. But once your wiki gets sufficiently "notable" ;) it could probably be added to the SVN tree. Миша1319:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, then. Thanks! I'll be back to ask about source code in however many months it takes to get the site set up and working properly. Which could be a while... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
PS: I doubt this wiki will get put in SVN; it's going to be a restricted-access site for project collaboration.
Viewing and editing Wikipedia while running scripts
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I'm asking you this as I think you (or your bot) run some scripts (image deletion scripts?) An issue at ANI involves whether an editor can view and/or edit Wikipedia while running a script. Could you advise on how easy it is for this sort of inability to arise, and how easy it is to get around? The idea is that editors should be able to respond to concerns and queries while running such scripts. This was an image deletion script running for 2 hours after a manual check. The thread is here. Any opinion on whether such "script-blindness" situations are common, and what the guidelines/workarounds should or could be, would be welcomed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
My bots, being based on pywikipedia are by nature run from command line (either my PC or the toolserver). Thus, I have no problems whatsoever with using/browsing Wikipedia otherwise. The question whether I am at all online while the bots are running is on the other hand of completely different nature. Миша1317:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
please allow covers
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am trying to update the Portugal The Man page to be accurate but you are deleting my files/comments. I manage the band this is correct info and we own it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearofmusic (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you're referring to Image:Wizard cover hi.jpg, please read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - one of them requires that non-free images be used in articles - this one was orphaned and consequently deleted. You can reupload it if you actually include it in an article and write a fair-use rationale for it (or you can release it under a free license, like GFDL, which will mean that others are free to modify and/or redistribute works based on it). Миша1319:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You deleted the image in the "info box" on Turn Left. It was not unused as it obviously was uploaded and displayed prominently on that page, and it was not unfree as it was uploaded by an editor of the paper. We can't find a copy of the file so can you please give your reason and restore it if possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastcoastmystery (talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
PR
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hej. Czy wiesz, może jak zostać ekspertem tu na en? Tzn. Jak zostać Peer review? Jeśli mogę to proszę o wytłumaczenie mi tego, bowiem uważam że umiesz skutecznie tłumaczyć. Pozdrawiam Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
No dzięki za komplement. W Wikipedia:Peer review chodzi mniej więcej o to, żeby ściągnąć do prac nad artykułem większą rzeszę ludzi. Jest na to jakaś tam procedura (sekcja "Nomination procedure") i tak się zaczyna - potem wolontariusze (Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers) zaczynają się znęcać nad artykułem (na tej stronie jest napisane żeby dać im znać na ich dyskusji, że pojawił się do przeglądu artykuł z ich "dziedziny") i jakoś się tam kolaboracja rozwija. Oczywiście nie chodzi tu o prawdziwych akademickich ekspertów, tylko "eskpertów"-amatorów (bo nikt Ci nie sprawdza w papierach, czy znasz się na tym, co piszesz). Nigdy w czymś takim nie uczestniczyłem, bo zajmuję się raczej techniczną stroną obsługi Wikipedii, ale żeby się zahaczyć jako "ekspert", to trzeba by pewnie zaciągnąć się na wspomnianą listę wolontariuszy, a główną stronę dodać do obserwowanych i... czekać na okazje. :) Миша1321:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Jak rozumiesz pojęcie "Znęcać się nad artykułem"? No i czy wtedy, ja jako osoba znająca np. Harry'ego Pottera, mogę być ekspertem w tej dziedzinie? A tak przy okazji - czy masz komunikator internetowy? Pozdrawiam:-)Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Znęcać" w potocznym sensie - czyli weryfikować i dodawać źródła, poprawiać/wywalać bzdury itepe. Jeżeli znasz się na HP, to po prostu dopisz się do listy wolontariuszy z adnotacją o Twoich zainteresowań i śledź główną stronę PR w poszukiwaniu interesujących zgłoszeń. Z komunikatorów używam tylko IRC, na freenode często można mnie spotkać. Миша1321:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Mógłbyś podać mi linka, gdzie mam się zapisać? Znam się na geografii i innych tego typu pierdołach Przy okazji - jest tu prócz ciebie i Piotrusa polskojęzyczny admin?:) Kasia a.k.a KatLos 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Apparently, you recently deleted an image I uploaded: Image:Gunz0148gp2.JPG. That image was not an unused, unfree image, as its been in the article for Gunz: The Duel for over a year. What's more is that image was not tagged with an orphaned image tag (I believe I get a new message when that happens, but I did not), and recently (3 days ago) re-added the picture to Gunz article after someone deleted it off the article for no real reason. The time between that deletion and the re-add is six days, which is sooner than the seven-day cutoff period for the orphaned image restriction, which, as I said, was never added. If you could, please, restore the image? Thank you. --Antoshi~!T | C01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Archives have to be on subpages of the page that calls the bot. You had "User Talk:" in the settings, when the namespace is "User talk:" (lowercase 't'). I fixed it; post back if it still doesn't work and I'm sure Misza will get on the case ASAP. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Personally, and this is just my own opinion, I wouldn't bother. Setting up archival is usually a one-time thing. Making the bot case-insensitive could confuse people into thinking that links like User Talk:Voyagerfan5761 should work. I know one of the central tenets of software development is to adapt the program to the user, but I don't see how it would be particularly useful in this case. But you do whatever you want with your bot; I don't care that much. ;-) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]00:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think you deleted this image:
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Image:Pie pequeño.JPG, that is. It was deleted once before because it had no fair use rationale. It must have been restored and had a rationale added, but it got removed from the article it had occupied, and apparently no one bothered to return it. If you'll please restore the image, I'd like to return it to its article. Please and thank you! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You may delete it now. It is visible in Littlefoot's article again, but not under the same file name. I re-uploaded it under another file name which I had already placed in there, but it now has a proper fair-use rationale at last. Thank you for your time!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
super hawt drama
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before (sorry if it has), but when the archive bots create a new archive page after the previous one fills up, they do not make a link from the (current) talk page to the new page. This makes it seem that discussions archived to newer page(s) before links to those pages are made have disappeared/been deleted. Maybe use something like {{Special:Prefixindex/User talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/01/Archive}} (based on Template:afd2)? Jason McHuff (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it's been asked before. If you use a standard naming scheme for your archives (/Archive N), you can use the {{archive box}} template: {{archive box|auto=yes}}. Миша1319:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Simple housekeeping. It was merely a redirect (not an actual talk page) to Talk:Thylacoleo. Not links to it anywhere, unlikely to be searched for, thus I see no reason why it should exist. Can you name one? Миша1319:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah, are you saying the talk page for Talk:Marsupial Lion was moved to Talk:Thylacoleo? That's what this seems to suggest. I'll move the project tags back to the talk page and see if I can reclaim any old talk. FYI, it was an actual talk page but was subject to many moves, and in the process, the original talk page and page history were lost. So this is a bad page move that needs the history repaired, not the talk page deleted. Someone forgot to restore the old talk and history. See also:[2] I need an administrator to restore the lost talk and article history. —Viriditas | Talk23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Misza13, I know this exists somewhere, just not sure where and you seem like a good person to ask. Do you know of a bot that checks to see if an article talk page has a quality/importance rating from a project, and then fills in empty ratings for the other project tags on the same page? I want something to auto-assess talkpages for {{WikiProject Theatre}} - all the categories are empty since I just added the quality-assessment function - but I don't want to go rating 1,000 articles manually... Cirt (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I can't since I don't use WP:AWB. But I imagine it's as simple as installing it and adding the plugin (the user guide explains how). Whether there is a non-AWB bot that does the same, I don't know. Миша1322:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I set up Misza bot to archive my user talk page, however I just discovered it isn't really archiving anything. It removes the old threads from my page, but it never puts them in the archive. On the archive summary, it says it is archiving "to /dev/null." I've removed it from now, but this is the code I used:
It may not be explicitly stated in the user guide, but the template simply cannot be compacted onto one line like you did - it must be one parameter per line. Миша1310:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, and thanks for adding the archiveheader parameter to your wonderful bot! I have a couple of questions about its use.
Does the bot assume that the target is in the Template namespace? That is does the template need to be in curly brackets ({}) or does the namespace need to be specified (i.e. Template:Example)?
Can it support sub-page templates outside of the template namespace? For example, the Drawing board's archives are three layers deep (/Archive/<year>/<month>) and the standard templates won't reach up back to the main discussion page. I'd like to set up a subpage of the project page with the needed template if the bot will support it.
I can't speak for Misza, but I think the archiveheader is raw wikitext. I've put in {{User:Voyagerfan5761/talkarchive}} and it seems to be working quite well. Of course, the bot hasn't created a new archive page quite yet; I still have a few KB to go. (I used to have Werdnabot/Shadowbot3.) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I don't quite understand - the parameter is just raw text that will be put on newly-created archives.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hiya! I was wondering, if you would be able to un-delete the ACCESS TV logos, would you also let me place the appropriate non-free image copyright tags (with sources) so they can be used on wikipedia again? I can list the images in question if you want. they are:
I've tweaked the code for you. You should go in there and set the minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive options (defaults 5 and 2, respectively) to lower numbers if you don't get very many talk page messages. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
