Talk Archive: March 2006
I do ALL my archiving by hand. If there is something in this archive that I mistakenly archived, feel free to bring it back out of this archive (copy and paste it, but do remove it out of the archive), and put on my talk page. If you should do this, please add it to a new section at the bottom of my talk page and put a signed reason why you thought it should not be archived yet. Archives |
Table of Contents
|
Hi, The obvious use - which I'm sure you have though of is identifying Novel articles, find a category description within the article and assigning suitable Categories and Stub notices in the bottom as appropriate. Obviously stubs will either need to be derived from general stub assignments already made "Book" or "Novel" or perhaps an assessment of article size. It would be nice to do this before the Stub people manage to delete all our stub templates though. as you might see a number have been put up for deletion. You may debate here I am watching this page.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 07:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been programming a bot that can potentially be used for this project. It's name is Gnome (Bot)
Thanks Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Please respond on my page.
P.S. The bot is nearly done!!! (beta) as it is untested Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As of right now my coding has hit a small runtime bug, Untill I find it, (hopefully before I get out the hammer) the bot can't do much...The problem is in the get category function. Aboslutly needed if the bot is to be used for adding categorys, I will let you know when it is fixed!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I found the bug, Is working as expected!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Which stub categories are being proposed for removal??? Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I looked at the up for deletion and found 3 novel stubs. 2 I could defend as I could reasonalby write code to find these. Unfortonatly the 3rd {{ Spec-fict-novel-stub}} I can't defend, as I cannot see how to find specific keywords, or regex formulas for this. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the mishmash above, (Ill just add to it) Seeing that you are a programmer, perhaps you can help me come up with regex formulas, (I just realized that you knew how to program). They need to be something that are very specific as to minimize false hits ect. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The bot made perfect user assisted edits to wikipedia. Not to worry they were done in a sandbox. If you want to see go to User:Eagle 101/Sandbox.
Give me an idea of what category to start with, this will be what I use to go for a bot flag. The code is done, besides making sure that it make no mistakes on wikipedia!!!
Basically its on your word, and GO!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you are running that slowly then you will not need a bot flag. thanks Martin 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a couple of comments from a WP:WSS regular's view at Wikipedia talk:Statistics#Stub statistics. Basically it boils down to "yes, automate the counts, but please keep using bins rather than exact numbers". Grutness... wha? 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, please go for it. Automatic updates will be of great help. (Though it means I'll need to find another use for my code, but I've spent not so much time on it...) Conscious 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(.*?\[\[\:Category\:([^|]*)\|.*\{\{tl\|.*\}\})
, ignoring everything after the last link to a template. You can take a look at the
full source.
Conscious 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)You said "If possible, leave the ones that should be book stubs on here. I want to know how accurate my regex was... thanks"
Your message has me confused, and I think it might benefit from more context. What category are we talking about? And what did I do that caused a problem? — Mar. 9, '06 [19:47] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Nevermind, I see what you mean. — Mar. 9, '06 [20:15] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Your edits are stripping off the update dates completely, are turning the counts by numbers of pages into hundreds of articles (i.e. 11 pages -> <2200, which is actually "no change"), and are making the diffs basically unusable on this page. Perhaps you should be doing this on a temp-page until the teething problems are sorted out. (And please also see my comments elsewhere on the scheme for using the bot in this way.)
Alai 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I take your point about the dates. Granted the transition would be a one-time deal, so perhaps that's not a difficulty. Obviously I agree that getting rid of the need for "manual" counting is a good idea, but as I mentioned, Conscious has started doing this (I'm not quite sure exactly how) without changing the format at all, and using off-line stats rather than ones that require a bot, which is in principle a much more resource-efficient way of doing it (at least if one already has access to the database). Equally, it may be possible to integrate the two... Alai 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't edit the /ST list at all, much less manually! I produced this from a db query, and Conscious edited it in, using some sort of script I believe he said (you'd have to check with him on the details). Alai 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue with updating /ST is much the same either way. The difference is the database query takes seconds, not three hours to run. Currently I'm running the query on a local copy of (part of) the database, from the download site. Alai 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I can guarantee that they don't match! /ST lists stub types that're approved/"in good standing"; the feed lists everything with " stubs" in the category name, much of which was never proposed, is horribly undersized, may not even have been noticed by stub-sorters, etc, etc. I assume Conscious's script just ignored the "extras". BTW, if you'd prefer the "Stub-counts" list in a somewhat different format, just say the word. Alai 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the source code for your bot available? You've been making some changes to WP:WSS/ST to move towards a fully automated count of stub types (which is good!) but you seem to have hit a few stumbling blocks (Page counts, Redlink categories, etc). Given the freely editabe nature of the wiki, I'm sure you'll encounter other problems with the formatting of the page that could halt execution. Perhaps if others could look at the source code, they might be able to help you resolve these problems?
How often do you intend to run the bot? I notice that on Alai's talk page, you mentioned only running it on Saturdays. If so, it might be worthwhile to reintroduce the dates in the stub count. -- TheParanoidOne 06:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The database dumps are freely available, if you want to work with them directly. I use a partial dump of the page and category-link information, which is in SQL (specifically, the mysql flavour). The dump of the whole database is in XML, I believe. If you meant my output from the SQL queries, then basically it'd be essentially the same as in the page I linked to, but I could tweak the order, the per-line format, that sort of thing. Alai 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just joined and left some discussion comments. That seemed self-explanatory. I am wondering however about editing. I added one paragraph to the article on Marc Edmund Jones. Is that now accepted by Wikipedia and visible to all users? I would guess so, but who has final say? I can imagine someone coming in and removing my paragraph and me re-writing it and on and on ad nauseam. How is all that handled? Who is "the authority"? (What I wrote is known by me to be true and non-controversial, by the way.)
. . . in a case where there is radical disagreement either about facts or opinions or evaluations, it seems there might be a "football contest" of X changing Y's post on Tuesday thursday saturday and Y going in to change it back on Wednesday Friday Sunday. I guess the key is "trust" here, or hoping that consensus and good will shall prevail . . . I just put the four tildes below; do I need more? (That was enough for the discussion pages.)
Hugh Higgins 20:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Something that achieves the effect of a redirect, using transclusion. Look at the code of the template in question. Alai 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. Good luck with your op! Alai 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just the kind of answer I was looking for.
No I am not a disputative type who wants to get in arguments about the content. I would save that for discussion. I am glad there is a procedure for resolving disputes. So far I have been impressed by the even-handed nature of most articles, for I am interested in some pretty controversial topics.
My respect for Wikipedia is increasing. I did lose some respect for it a year or two ago when I noted one birthdate for someone was wrong, and it appeared at the top of Google Search as from Wikipedia. If I had been a member then I would have suggested a change - might not have been bold enough to just make it myself.
Further ?? comes to me: Is there someplace to write a justification of a change you make? Suppose I had changed that birthdate: I would have liked to write "Well I have checked x number of sources and all but one give this date." Or something like that, so people would know why I made the change.
Thanks Eagle for the clear response.
I've got a picture that is simply no more than a poor screen shot of a television series "Invasion America". I know I need to put down copyright stuff on it, but how the heck do I do that with this pic? I would contribute more pictures as well, but how would I work out the copyright information? Invasion America is a series that was never at one point under production and showed only two seasons (one was an edited version for younger audiences). I am still kinda perplexed how I would label these.
Your replies are too friendly. (LOL) Colonel Marksman 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Good replies, Eagle, I am keeping them for reference when needed. Meanwhile, it does sound like good faith and common sense. Thanks.
I thought I put the four tildes under my name . . . but this time did not put a space before them. Shall try again. Good to be here.
Hugh Higgins 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Are you still interested in pursuing the idea of using Gnomebot as a janitor on cleanup? If so:
Alba 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much, and I'm excited to see Gnomebot fly!
Alba 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The general idea here is to migrate nonspecific tags like {{cleanup-date|XX}}</wiki> into more specific categories, so people will be more likely to attend to them. Let's look at a proposed behavior list: * Cleanup --> wikify, if low wiki link list ** Note that we might ought to request wikify-date|XX if this will be a large set * Cleanup + List --> cleanup-list, if cleanup and article seems to be a list * Cleanup + Image --> cleanup-image, if cleanup and in the Image: namespace * Cleanup + Disambig --> disambig-cleanup * Add <nowiki>{{Sections}} to a cleanup page if:
Since Cleanup Resources gets edited from time to time, this is now a longer list than I first proposed, but nonetheless I think it covers everything that can be safely automated by Gnome(bot). Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if, once a month, the main list on WP:CU got archived for everything more than 1 month old. Is this possible? (We can ask some other bot to do it if it's too much trouble. I know there are plenty of bots out there that do similar tasks already. Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
=== We are posted to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. === Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
First off, I should mention some things:
I see you've just made a number of nominations on SFD, on the basis of their being unproposed and undersized. And yet, you also vote to "keep" (which apparently can't be changed, because it's in bold(?) the SFD on the school types which are, well, unproposed and undersized. If you're planning on being an SFD "regular" I do hope you're not planning on making a habit of ignoring the size criteria, as frankly it's annoying enough to have the creators show up and do so. Alai 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article Benson Deng has been added to your desk. Looks like an easy one. Please accept, pass or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
you might need to regenerate this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Book to novel autolist - as someone has very helpfully done a lot of work on it - but unfortunately not removed the titles worked on. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! I discovered your list just yesterday after I had already done some sorting. I will make notes on those remaining. Good luck with your project. Her Pegship 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hallo, Eagle! It seems that the categorization-by-topic is going to happen somehow, according to this shiny new proposal. They don't mention any sort of automatic categorization system, though--seems like it'll all be done manually, with a taskforce to do it. It might be the best way to do it, or at least the best way to get people involved, which is really the important part. If you're involved in one part of the process, chances are you might continue and do more complex/responsible jobs, right? Good luck with GnomeBot, and I'll keep an eye out for any progress on the Cleanup Disaster (sounds like I'm talking about the mess of some crazy toddlers, heh). Tamarkot 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Eagle, this looks fantastic. Unfortunately I'm about to hop a plane, so I can't give your work the thought it deserves. I'll talk about it when I get back! Alba 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at the Gnome bot list and the recommendations it was making and found that I pretty well agreed with all of them. It looks like it will do the job and cut the backlog. I have been going through them by hand and find that the most I can cope with is two or three days a session. Also I have to depend a lot on subjective judgement which is not ideal. Thanks for your support for my ideas. ping 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry I have made you wait for so long, but I missed your message somehow. So, I'll try to explain how my script works:
If you want more specifics or need help in coding certain parts of this procedure, I'm ready to help you. Conscious 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am putthing this here now to let every one know Gnome bot made this edit.
Is it correct, personally I can't tell. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I must have expressed myself badly, I intended to ask Alba to look at the suggestions that I had already made to you since I knew he was involved. There was nothing new. Sorry about the confusion 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would arbitrary deletion of cleanup tags serve any function? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Good day,
Could you please explain the reasoning behind a recent edit to the Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay stub which was carried out by your bot? Folajimi 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are here to complain about gnome bot, please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gnome (Bot)
I have already explained why the bot did what it did.
If your compliant is different than the one on the link, by all means tell me about it I just am puttting this here to direct you to where I answeared one complaint, It may or may not be the same as yours
Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't welcome users with inappropriate names... it only confuses people. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:28] < freakofnurxture | talk>
You asked about task for your bot
As we a getting through the Books --> Novels now, can we think about the next steps.
I have been asked "I notice there is no stub category for horror novels, political novels, or comedy novels"
Could we use the bot to find out if any Book or Novel stubs fit those genre (one at a time I think)
Let me know. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes the aim being to see if there is a case for such stubs. Not if there are only a few. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How about a listing of all articles that claim to be Novels which do not have the project notice in the talk page. 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk Archive: March 2006
I do ALL my archiving by hand. If there is something in this archive that I mistakenly archived, feel free to bring it back out of this archive (copy and paste it, but do remove it out of the archive), and put on my talk page. If you should do this, please add it to a new section at the bottom of my talk page and put a signed reason why you thought it should not be archived yet. Archives |
Table of Contents
|
Hi, The obvious use - which I'm sure you have though of is identifying Novel articles, find a category description within the article and assigning suitable Categories and Stub notices in the bottom as appropriate. Obviously stubs will either need to be derived from general stub assignments already made "Book" or "Novel" or perhaps an assessment of article size. It would be nice to do this before the Stub people manage to delete all our stub templates though. as you might see a number have been put up for deletion. You may debate here I am watching this page.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 07:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been programming a bot that can potentially be used for this project. It's name is Gnome (Bot)
Thanks Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Please respond on my page.
P.S. The bot is nearly done!!! (beta) as it is untested Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
As of right now my coding has hit a small runtime bug, Untill I find it, (hopefully before I get out the hammer) the bot can't do much...The problem is in the get category function. Aboslutly needed if the bot is to be used for adding categorys, I will let you know when it is fixed!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I found the bug, Is working as expected!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Which stub categories are being proposed for removal??? Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I looked at the up for deletion and found 3 novel stubs. 2 I could defend as I could reasonalby write code to find these. Unfortonatly the 3rd {{ Spec-fict-novel-stub}} I can't defend, as I cannot see how to find specific keywords, or regex formulas for this. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the mishmash above, (Ill just add to it) Seeing that you are a programmer, perhaps you can help me come up with regex formulas, (I just realized that you knew how to program). They need to be something that are very specific as to minimize false hits ect. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The bot made perfect user assisted edits to wikipedia. Not to worry they were done in a sandbox. If you want to see go to User:Eagle 101/Sandbox.
Give me an idea of what category to start with, this will be what I use to go for a bot flag. The code is done, besides making sure that it make no mistakes on wikipedia!!!
Basically its on your word, and GO!!! Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you are running that slowly then you will not need a bot flag. thanks Martin 22:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a couple of comments from a WP:WSS regular's view at Wikipedia talk:Statistics#Stub statistics. Basically it boils down to "yes, automate the counts, but please keep using bins rather than exact numbers". Grutness... wha? 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, please go for it. Automatic updates will be of great help. (Though it means I'll need to find another use for my code, but I've spent not so much time on it...) Conscious 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(.*?\[\[\:Category\:([^|]*)\|.*\{\{tl\|.*\}\})
, ignoring everything after the last link to a template. You can take a look at the
full source.
Conscious 06:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)You said "If possible, leave the ones that should be book stubs on here. I want to know how accurate my regex was... thanks"
Your message has me confused, and I think it might benefit from more context. What category are we talking about? And what did I do that caused a problem? — Mar. 9, '06 [19:47] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Nevermind, I see what you mean. — Mar. 9, '06 [20:15] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Your edits are stripping off the update dates completely, are turning the counts by numbers of pages into hundreds of articles (i.e. 11 pages -> <2200, which is actually "no change"), and are making the diffs basically unusable on this page. Perhaps you should be doing this on a temp-page until the teething problems are sorted out. (And please also see my comments elsewhere on the scheme for using the bot in this way.)
Alai 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I take your point about the dates. Granted the transition would be a one-time deal, so perhaps that's not a difficulty. Obviously I agree that getting rid of the need for "manual" counting is a good idea, but as I mentioned, Conscious has started doing this (I'm not quite sure exactly how) without changing the format at all, and using off-line stats rather than ones that require a bot, which is in principle a much more resource-efficient way of doing it (at least if one already has access to the database). Equally, it may be possible to integrate the two... Alai 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't edit the /ST list at all, much less manually! I produced this from a db query, and Conscious edited it in, using some sort of script I believe he said (you'd have to check with him on the details). Alai 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue with updating /ST is much the same either way. The difference is the database query takes seconds, not three hours to run. Currently I'm running the query on a local copy of (part of) the database, from the download site. Alai 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I can guarantee that they don't match! /ST lists stub types that're approved/"in good standing"; the feed lists everything with " stubs" in the category name, much of which was never proposed, is horribly undersized, may not even have been noticed by stub-sorters, etc, etc. I assume Conscious's script just ignored the "extras". BTW, if you'd prefer the "Stub-counts" list in a somewhat different format, just say the word. Alai 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the source code for your bot available? You've been making some changes to WP:WSS/ST to move towards a fully automated count of stub types (which is good!) but you seem to have hit a few stumbling blocks (Page counts, Redlink categories, etc). Given the freely editabe nature of the wiki, I'm sure you'll encounter other problems with the formatting of the page that could halt execution. Perhaps if others could look at the source code, they might be able to help you resolve these problems?
How often do you intend to run the bot? I notice that on Alai's talk page, you mentioned only running it on Saturdays. If so, it might be worthwhile to reintroduce the dates in the stub count. -- TheParanoidOne 06:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The database dumps are freely available, if you want to work with them directly. I use a partial dump of the page and category-link information, which is in SQL (specifically, the mysql flavour). The dump of the whole database is in XML, I believe. If you meant my output from the SQL queries, then basically it'd be essentially the same as in the page I linked to, but I could tweak the order, the per-line format, that sort of thing. Alai 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just joined and left some discussion comments. That seemed self-explanatory. I am wondering however about editing. I added one paragraph to the article on Marc Edmund Jones. Is that now accepted by Wikipedia and visible to all users? I would guess so, but who has final say? I can imagine someone coming in and removing my paragraph and me re-writing it and on and on ad nauseam. How is all that handled? Who is "the authority"? (What I wrote is known by me to be true and non-controversial, by the way.)
. . . in a case where there is radical disagreement either about facts or opinions or evaluations, it seems there might be a "football contest" of X changing Y's post on Tuesday thursday saturday and Y going in to change it back on Wednesday Friday Sunday. I guess the key is "trust" here, or hoping that consensus and good will shall prevail . . . I just put the four tildes below; do I need more? (That was enough for the discussion pages.)
Hugh Higgins 20:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Something that achieves the effect of a redirect, using transclusion. Look at the code of the template in question. Alai 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. Good luck with your op! Alai 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just the kind of answer I was looking for.
No I am not a disputative type who wants to get in arguments about the content. I would save that for discussion. I am glad there is a procedure for resolving disputes. So far I have been impressed by the even-handed nature of most articles, for I am interested in some pretty controversial topics.
My respect for Wikipedia is increasing. I did lose some respect for it a year or two ago when I noted one birthdate for someone was wrong, and it appeared at the top of Google Search as from Wikipedia. If I had been a member then I would have suggested a change - might not have been bold enough to just make it myself.
Further ?? comes to me: Is there someplace to write a justification of a change you make? Suppose I had changed that birthdate: I would have liked to write "Well I have checked x number of sources and all but one give this date." Or something like that, so people would know why I made the change.
Thanks Eagle for the clear response.
I've got a picture that is simply no more than a poor screen shot of a television series "Invasion America". I know I need to put down copyright stuff on it, but how the heck do I do that with this pic? I would contribute more pictures as well, but how would I work out the copyright information? Invasion America is a series that was never at one point under production and showed only two seasons (one was an edited version for younger audiences). I am still kinda perplexed how I would label these.
Your replies are too friendly. (LOL) Colonel Marksman 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Good replies, Eagle, I am keeping them for reference when needed. Meanwhile, it does sound like good faith and common sense. Thanks.
I thought I put the four tildes under my name . . . but this time did not put a space before them. Shall try again. Good to be here.
Hugh Higgins 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Are you still interested in pursuing the idea of using Gnomebot as a janitor on cleanup? If so:
Alba 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much, and I'm excited to see Gnomebot fly!
Alba 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The general idea here is to migrate nonspecific tags like {{cleanup-date|XX}}</wiki> into more specific categories, so people will be more likely to attend to them. Let's look at a proposed behavior list: * Cleanup --> wikify, if low wiki link list ** Note that we might ought to request wikify-date|XX if this will be a large set * Cleanup + List --> cleanup-list, if cleanup and article seems to be a list * Cleanup + Image --> cleanup-image, if cleanup and in the Image: namespace * Cleanup + Disambig --> disambig-cleanup * Add <nowiki>{{Sections}} to a cleanup page if:
Since Cleanup Resources gets edited from time to time, this is now a longer list than I first proposed, but nonetheless I think it covers everything that can be safely automated by Gnome(bot). Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if, once a month, the main list on WP:CU got archived for everything more than 1 month old. Is this possible? (We can ask some other bot to do it if it's too much trouble. I know there are plenty of bots out there that do similar tasks already. Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
=== We are posted to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup. === Alba 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
First off, I should mention some things:
I see you've just made a number of nominations on SFD, on the basis of their being unproposed and undersized. And yet, you also vote to "keep" (which apparently can't be changed, because it's in bold(?) the SFD on the school types which are, well, unproposed and undersized. If you're planning on being an SFD "regular" I do hope you're not planning on making a habit of ignoring the size criteria, as frankly it's annoying enough to have the creators show up and do so. Alai 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article Benson Deng has been added to your desk. Looks like an easy one. Please accept, pass or let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
you might need to regenerate this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Book to novel autolist - as someone has very helpfully done a lot of work on it - but unfortunately not removed the titles worked on. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! I discovered your list just yesterday after I had already done some sorting. I will make notes on those remaining. Good luck with your project. Her Pegship 20:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hallo, Eagle! It seems that the categorization-by-topic is going to happen somehow, according to this shiny new proposal. They don't mention any sort of automatic categorization system, though--seems like it'll all be done manually, with a taskforce to do it. It might be the best way to do it, or at least the best way to get people involved, which is really the important part. If you're involved in one part of the process, chances are you might continue and do more complex/responsible jobs, right? Good luck with GnomeBot, and I'll keep an eye out for any progress on the Cleanup Disaster (sounds like I'm talking about the mess of some crazy toddlers, heh). Tamarkot 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Eagle, this looks fantastic. Unfortunately I'm about to hop a plane, so I can't give your work the thought it deserves. I'll talk about it when I get back! Alba 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at the Gnome bot list and the recommendations it was making and found that I pretty well agreed with all of them. It looks like it will do the job and cut the backlog. I have been going through them by hand and find that the most I can cope with is two or three days a session. Also I have to depend a lot on subjective judgement which is not ideal. Thanks for your support for my ideas. ping 08:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry I have made you wait for so long, but I missed your message somehow. So, I'll try to explain how my script works:
If you want more specifics or need help in coding certain parts of this procedure, I'm ready to help you. Conscious 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am putthing this here now to let every one know Gnome bot made this edit.
Is it correct, personally I can't tell. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I must have expressed myself badly, I intended to ask Alba to look at the suggestions that I had already made to you since I knew he was involved. There was nothing new. Sorry about the confusion 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would arbitrary deletion of cleanup tags serve any function? User:Zoe| (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Good day,
Could you please explain the reasoning behind a recent edit to the Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay stub which was carried out by your bot? Folajimi 01:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are here to complain about gnome bot, please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gnome (Bot)
I have already explained why the bot did what it did.
If your compliant is different than the one on the link, by all means tell me about it I just am puttting this here to direct you to where I answeared one complaint, It may or may not be the same as yours
Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't welcome users with inappropriate names... it only confuses people. — Mar. 29, '06 [03:28] < freakofnurxture | talk>
You asked about task for your bot
As we a getting through the Books --> Novels now, can we think about the next steps.
I have been asked "I notice there is no stub category for horror novels, political novels, or comedy novels"
Could we use the bot to find out if any Book or Novel stubs fit those genre (one at a time I think)
Let me know. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes the aim being to see if there is a case for such stubs. Not if there are only a few. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How about a listing of all articles that claim to be Novels which do not have the project notice in the talk page. 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)