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. |
Thanks to the date-unlinking bot edits like this are possible. Hard to image someone doing this manually. Hekerui ( talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work to improve the automated GAN page. I just compared the two pages, and the two histories: [1] and [2]. The bot seems to be working well, although for some reason, HMS Inflexible (1907)/GA1 was not parsed successfully. The bot then describes it as "failed" whereas it is actually "on hold".
The main differences are in the edit summaries. The bot's are more reliable, but miss some information. I believe that for new nominations, it would be useful to know the subtopic, and for passes and fails, it would be useful to know the name of the reviewer (I appreciate that the latter involves parsing the signature, which could be tricky). The GAN page edit history is one of the tools reviewers have for spotting reviews out of process and other problems.
Finally, a request. The GAN page is getting pretty large and I think some reviewers would prefer separate pages for each topic (the top level of the hierarchy). One of the advantages of an automated system is that we can have both, without using transclusions. (The problem with transcluding the separate pages is that the GAN page itself would then be static – no edit summaries.) Could RFC bot produce such separate pages as well? Geometry guy 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look here. The latest addition (sock puppetry) was formatted differently than the other entries and wouldn't show properly. I reformatted it and it still looked bad. I then figured that something about the italics in the original heading might be doing it, so I harmonized them, but it's still not working. Please take a look. – Brangifer ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response to my requests for reviews! FYI, I am the course leader, do let me know if you have any questions about the course or the assignment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I mispoke earlier – the assignment ends on 11th, not on 8th. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
James, I see that the bot has been stopped for more than a day. Is it not possible to leave it running unattended—say, overnight?
It was cleared to do 70,560 edits per week but we haven't even managed 10,000 yet. If it were a little slower than the approved rate, I wouldn't bother you, but less than a seventh, which might take years to clear the backlog, appears unsatisfactory.
Would it be possible to establish a completion date? The logic of the bot permission is that the completion date should be 65 days from when permission was given (650000 edits at 10080/day). I'd have thought two months was quite enough for this task. Tony (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You removed an "expired rcftag" tag less than a couple of hours after I place it on the above article. I think one of us did something wrong... Can you investigate? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You should probably consider halting the bot while this request for clarification is looked at. – xeno talk 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
I hereby award this Barnstar to harej for creating and seeing the FDUB through its teething stage. As a result, WP will have a considerably improved reading experience through fewer distracting low-value links. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
I was going through and cleaning up bad mfd templates and I came across something weird that happened with one of your mfds. Check out Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Pittsburgh_Steelers and Template:User_Pittsburgh_Steelers_Fan and Template:User_Steelers. Looks like maybe this was an improperly done multi-nom? Gigs ( talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! @ harej 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the RM bot is pretty cool – saved me a lot of work doing a multiple move request just now. Nice one!-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the RFC list, several of the talkpages for the discussions listed have been archived, which probably means those discussions have wound down and can be safely removed from the RFC list (and indeed the current instances have wound down). Perhaps a new rule to add to the bot's logic? -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I recently placed an RFC at the Liquid Crystals talk page and within a few minutes the RFCbot came along and removed the tag at the top of the discussion page telling people there was an RFC. Is it supposed to do this or is it malfunctioning? Chhe ( talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Vatsan34 ( talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Requested_move 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose, the latter with "Weak oppose: I have to qualify my vote by saying that I don't know much about Mongolia. ". More support at Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Naming. The article was a long time at " Provinces of Mongolia" and the individual articles and the Category:Provinces of Mongolia, per WP:UE use the English translation too. Could you please re-count? TrueColour ( talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Curious, other items on the Pol RfC list are listed in multiple category lists (IE: RfCs on Federales and Mark Levin), why not the RfC on Golan mountains? -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
rfctag|xxx|yyy}}
, where "xxx" is the first category abbreviation and "yyy" is the second category abbreviation. See
Template:Wider attention for a full list of abbreviations.
@
harej 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)If you are still intending to edit the above article, please add the notice to Wikipedia:Good article nominations under the computing section. If you are not, I would like to take it over. Please note: With all due respect, after a certain amount of time (reasonable) I will start to edit, if you have not replied to this. -- MWOAP ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that a semi-protect of User:Full-date unlinking bot/manual override may be in order. – Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes GA nominators withdraw their nominations, e.g., Jungle Strike today. The bot recorded this as Failed Jungle Strike, which is inaccurate.
A simple solution may be to follow {{ Article History}} and describe the outcome of a GAN more straightforwardly as "listed" or "not listed". Geometry guy 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh really cause i blocked your mother real good last night!! brian moore ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves/current -- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 13:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
the article, semi-periphery countries has been renominated for good article. -- D.j.weingart ( talk) 03:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated 88 Fingers Louie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88 Fingers Louie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wuh Wuz Dat 15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The RFC bot keeps removing my rfctag as "expired". We had been drafting this RFC for a couple weeks before taking it public. I put the RFC tag into a section, but that pushes it below the TOC so I'd prefer it to be at the top like normal. You might want to look at whatever code the bot uses to determine when an RFC is expired. Gigs ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Harej,
I think the date of birth and the date of death are the two basic dates in a person's life that these two should be definitely linked in all biographical articles. This way it could be ensured that the person in question could be linked from the relevant month and day combination article and from the relevant year article.
Thus, I've undone this change. Please make sure that your bot will not do it again in the future.
Thanks a lot for your attention. Adam78 ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I left a comment on the relevant discussion page. Adam78 ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. Why did you revert my correction? GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi James, the bot seems to be running slowly; it doesn't appear to be processing February and it keeps failing for extended periods. Can you take a look at how throughput might be maintained, and also consider halving the deliberate delay (i.e. doubling the speed)? Thanks in advance. Tony (talk) 11:27, December 11, 2009 (UTC) now.
Since you have expressed interest in coming to the DC meetup on January 9, and (I think) are coming from out of town, I wanted to let you know that the OpenStreetMap group in DC is organizing a mapping party event the next day on January 10. We will be mapping the National Mall and East/West Potomac Park areas (e.g. Jefferson Memorial). I'm not sure if you already have booked arrangements to come to DC? If not or your schedule is flexible and are interested, then I hope you can join us on Sunday too. -- Aude ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. RM bot seem to be persistently adding this message pointing to a merge discussion to Talk:Hong Kong, China, at the 2010 Winter Olympics, when it doesn't really belong there since that page is where the discussion is taking place. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a new Template. It seems to have been placed on many pages which actually do have election results (in summary form, giving the number of seats per party).
Example: Template:Azerbaijani parliamentary election, 2005
If this box is intended to mean that there are not seat-by-seat data with candidate names, etc, then I suggest it is misplaced. It is unimaginable that such detail will ever be obtainable for every election in every corner of the globe. If a keen Wikipedian with access to the data wishes to do it, they undoubtedly will. And if that user wishes to match for their country the level of detail available for UK Constituencies, they will need to create several hundred articles for the constituencies in that country etc etc. Basically it ain't going to happen. And to stick a visible box that says in effect "This article is defective" on a perfectly adequate article on an election in a less-prominent country, only serves to discourage those who create these articles.
If there is an obvious place to make this comment, I will do so. A quick look at the template history pointed me here. Sussexonian ( talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Semi-periphery countries? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommended an article for a move, and used the wrong name. I corrected it within a few minutes, but the damage seems to have been done. I fixed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves/current, but I'm afraid the bot will overwrite it. Debresser ( talk) 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what caused this? By the way, thanks for operating all those convenient bots. :) Ucucha 18:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Harej, I think you might be one of the resident experts on the technical aspects of the RfC process (sorry to trouble you if that's not the case), and as such I was wondering if you could answer my question here (you can reply either there, here, or on my talk page). Basically I have a draft user conduct RfC in my userspace which is ready to go, and I just need to move it such that it goes "live" without screwing up the formatting of an RfC. A little tech help would be appreciated if you can spare a moment, or point me in the direction of someone who can. Thanks! -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
'tis the season to be jolly! Have a Merry Christmas, a high-spirited Hanukkah, a Happy New Year, a killer Kwanzaa, a hearty Hogmanay, a smashing Silvester, or even a spiffy Saturnalia as the case may be! And don't forget to spread the holiday cheer by pasting {{subst:User:Happenstance/Dec}} to the talk pages of all your little friends, and even one or two of your enemies too, in the spirit of the holiday, no? Season's greetings, from — what a crazy random happenstance 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
I do realise you're probably busy doing all the things do you, but since you appear to be experienced in the area (with User:Full-date unlinking bot), could I humbly request you implement the change discussed at Template talk:Infobox weather#Shouldn't the template default to metric with your bot-y prowess? It's been half a year since that discussion and the change has not yet occurred; Infobox Weather continues to be the bad boy of the template namespace, flying in the face of policy. A bot would greatly expedite the change, and it would require only one mass run, maybe two depending on how long the first one took. It would be greatly appreciated, considering the great majority of place articles, and the vast majority of new place articles use metric. — what a crazy random happenstance 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! First of all, thanks for RM bot – it really makes the requested move process go much more smoothly. There must be a typo in the source, though – whenever there are any requests in the "Time could not be ascertained" category at Wikipedia:Coordination/Requested_moves, the bot puts the wrong collapse template at the bottom of that category. It uses "collape bottom" (missing an "s"). See this revision for an example: [3]. The result of this is that the RfA/RfB table that is below the RM section on WP:CORD gets eaten by the collapsing table. Thanks! — æk Talk 08:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Per my threat to make the change more elegantly in our last discussion, I have reorganized the closing instructions from top down. The page is now chunked for easier understanding and has a logical flow: People learn whether they should be doing to the close at all, followed by how to determine what decision to make (consensus), followed by the natural order of the moving procedures. I have clarified, condensed, removed redundancy and incorporated your changes.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
strtotime()
in PHP is very flexible. In the meantime, it has to be in the standard way used by Wikipedia.
@
harej 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Harej, if you decide to accept, please transclude to WT:BAG and notify the places specified in policy. MBisanz talk 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so. tedder ( talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re [4] - could we have natural, human-readable dates including day of week restored please? Knepflerle ( talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for running for the BAG. [5] Now get to work. Just kidding, sort-of. Your help is really needed, probably need a couple more members, also. -- IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If there is some reason you have to approve a bot for trials before most editors have even seen the bot, can you at least say why? I don't see any reason this bot was approved for a trial without input from anyone. -- IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, I noticed at Talk:Sinn Féin that a couple RfC tags have been sitting there for two months now. I'm not sure why the bot didn't close them. Shall I go ahead and clean up manually, or is there something else that needs to be done to get the bot to update? Thanks, -- El on ka 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yo harej, noticed you had RFC bot set up to managed WP:GAN. I was just looking at the page and thought that it would be very helpful if {{ GAReview}} linked to the latest review subpage (usually Talk:Articlename/GA1, you know the one) automatically. Is this something your bot could check for and update as required? Cheers, Skomorokh 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The script is deprecated. I've updated WP:HIDEPAGES to reflect this. Both the old script and the new CSS method do not work with Enhanced changes, and there are no plans to do so as it requires a lot more work to do since Enhanced changes uses JavaScript. Gary King ( talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
RM bot just blanked WP:RM (and someone quickly reverted). It may have something to do with today's server issues. Ucucha 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a brain fart when requesting a page move from Boardercross (see talk) to Snowboard cross; I accidentally capitalized the "c" in cross. I have corrected the error (diff) on the linked talk page (as instructed here), but the bot has not picked up the change and it is still listed as Boardercross→Snowboard Cross here. Help, please? (I've also asked at WP talk:RM.) Wine Guy Talk 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Chemistry Book as "redirect"? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at
Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at
New York University;
sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove my request to move the article God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation. It does need to be moved to God's Property (album), that's the correct title. I mistakenly moved the article to God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation in the first place without knowing. Can you move the article to the correct title or at least just stop removing my requests for no reason or without explanation and let an administrator discuss my request. Hometown Kid ( talk) 20:19, January 16 2009 (GMT)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Harej,
As per Wikipedia_talk:Coordination#Request_for_relisted_non-AfD_XfDs, and my thoughts again at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Policy_on_Closing_CfDs, I think it would be a good idea to add a section to WP:CORD linking to all relisted non-AfD XfDs.
Would this be easier if all relisted discussions were transcluded from their own pages (elsewhere I have expressed my preference for deletion discussions to all have individual pages, for the watchlisting benefits).
I think this would beneficial to the less well frequented XfDs, especially where the regulars are undecided, if it attracted non-regulars to these backwaters. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Harej, thanks for your work at BRfA, and welcome to BAG :D. But please remember that when you approve/deny/expire etc. a bot request, to update the BRfA page, as I've done for you here. Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What a great name. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice to meet you! I hope we work together again sometime very soon. Ikip 03:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I wanted to draw your attention to this edit, in which your bot was trying to remove a category and ended up deleting an entire archived AfD discussion. Oops! Glenfarclas ( talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Token-object reading, the bot left [7] a message saying that instead of discussing the move there, we should discuss it... there. Maybe the bot needs a check to see that target page != current page?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the bot added an odd entry. I've fixed it manually, [8] but it'll probably change it again, so I'm going to keep the manual entry too. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you deleted that, and on the project page someone pointed out the following:
...(Criteria for notability...) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Maynard James Keenan has been in three notable ensembles. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty does have enough notability to have an article. ...
Now, I don't know who the third notable ensemble was, (maybe Puscifer, but even I don't consider them notable), but Tool and A Perfect Circle are. Does that mean this can be remade or is there some sort of process? Still getting the hang of all the protocol and jargon. Thanks! SiriusBsns ( talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
awesome. thank you. i have a couple write ups/references in some old music magazines but they're not exactly Rolling Stone. i'll be sure to read the RS page to make sure they'd be considered a 'reliable source'. thanks again! SiriusBsns ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please respond to the concerns about this hook at DYK. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You're the third admin to close early the Albanian pederasty AfD; the other two self- WP:TROUTed. Obviously a forgone conclusion, but the race to close that discussion is amusing given that the article was up for years. Pcap ping 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you've re-added an RfC tag to Talk:Bivector, but it's not clear why. The tag was added to the article by User:Brews_ohare who subsequently removed it here after the issue was resolved: the problem turned out to be one on his PC. It's now reappeared in the Maths RfC list, signed by Brews, though you've re-added it. It looks like a mistake/old discussion so will probably be ignored; if you want to re-open the discussion perhaps create a new section with an up-to-date description of the issue, though it might be better done on another page.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems to have got stuck somewhere. WP:Requested moves/current hasn't been updated since yesterday. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, you made this edit since, if I understand your edit summary correctly, you couldn't access this reference. The link seems to be working again, so I've replaced the reference and text. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2. SilkTork * YES! 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya Harej, when you get a chance could you take a look at
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion#Inline template wikitext formatting? RFC bot seems unwilling to list it, for some reason.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to understand the functionality of the bot to ask some focussed Qs on the RfC discussion, and so I'd like to scan the source. I am assuming that it is FLOSS. It doesn't matter what the language is (I am pretty fluent in Perl, Python, PHP, C++, a bit more rusty dozen other languages and can understand more). Just point me at the source repository or URL.
I run a couple of mediaWiki instances so I am already pretty familiar with its architecture.
Thanks TerryE ( talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
$transcludes = array_unique( array_merge( $transcludes, $transcludes2 ) );
{{
rfctag|xxx|yyy}}
and not {{
rfctag|xxx}}
{{
rfctag|yyy}}
. I am working on a script that will fix these situations when they pop up.
harej 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I wiki-emailed you a version for you to look at. The thing about computer languages is that there are just so many styles for approaching a problem. There are no correct styles, but more a question of personal preference. I really did it as a fun exercise as a "compare and contrast". However having had this play, I do think that there is still a functional issue that needs to be fixed.
$contents = preg_replace("/\{{2}rfctag(2|-alt)?.*\}{2}(\n|\s)?/i", "", $contents);
I hope that you find this useful. -- TerryE ( talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) As I've just replied to your email, one reason that the bot is fast is because I still had a test line in to limit the pages pulled down to 20 to prevent its (test) execution overloading the server. OOPS! The runtime is dominated by the network and Wikipedia latency on the API calls rather than the cpu load on the system that the bot is running on. The main advantage of simplification is readability and ease of maintenance.
My reason for suggesting the date time stamp (DTS) is a design issue: once we functionally allow multiple RFCs per page then we should find some way of uniquely identifying them -- at least internally to the process. We can't use position in the page since RfC's age and expire and therefore their position in the page can change over time. So we need some practically unique ID to identify the tag and to pair the start and end tags. The obvious thing to use is the same ID that we implicitly use now -- that is the DTS currently used to delimit the RfC.
I agree 100% that we should make this system as easy to use as possible and as robust as possible. For this reason, if we do change the rfctag syntax then this must be done it such a way that the existing user process works without change. This is why I suggest that the bot simply rewrites the tag adding the DTS. What I will do (prob tomorrow because its now the early hours for me) is upload a new V4 which
How does this sound? -- TerryE ( talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You've just been talking to the real YM YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
My question to you, a Wikipedia admin: If you "mean well for those who deliberated upon the topic", as you say in your carefully worded Oppose in this RfC, perhaps you can explain why a Wikipedia admin sees fit to place a bogus 'Om box', clearly designed to cast discredit on the RfC, at the top of the page in its opening hours? I'm sure many besides myself will find your answer of interest. There is also now a specific section regarding this issue in the RfC, and this question is also asked in your 'Oppose' #21. Awaiting your reply, which I hope you will answer on the RfC page in question, Jusdafax 06:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I was led to this thread from a link at the CDA RfC, and I would like to make a request of harej and Jusdafax.
I ask that you try to reconcile and put the matter behind you. Misunderstandings take place, mistakes occur, and assumptions and comments are made in the heat of the moment; it is not, however, difficult to work past them if there is a willingness to do so. Failing that, I would ask you to retract the objectionable portions of your comments and to put the matter to rest. Regardless of why the om box was added, it has been removed; as long as it is not re-added, the issue is effectively moot and there is little potential for constructive discussion in this direction.
I would be grateful if you would seriously consider my request. Thank you, --
Black Falcon (
talk) 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
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. |
Thanks to the date-unlinking bot edits like this are possible. Hard to image someone doing this manually. Hekerui ( talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work to improve the automated GAN page. I just compared the two pages, and the two histories: [1] and [2]. The bot seems to be working well, although for some reason, HMS Inflexible (1907)/GA1 was not parsed successfully. The bot then describes it as "failed" whereas it is actually "on hold".
The main differences are in the edit summaries. The bot's are more reliable, but miss some information. I believe that for new nominations, it would be useful to know the subtopic, and for passes and fails, it would be useful to know the name of the reviewer (I appreciate that the latter involves parsing the signature, which could be tricky). The GAN page edit history is one of the tools reviewers have for spotting reviews out of process and other problems.
Finally, a request. The GAN page is getting pretty large and I think some reviewers would prefer separate pages for each topic (the top level of the hierarchy). One of the advantages of an automated system is that we can have both, without using transclusions. (The problem with transcluding the separate pages is that the GAN page itself would then be static – no edit summaries.) Could RFC bot produce such separate pages as well? Geometry guy 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look here. The latest addition (sock puppetry) was formatted differently than the other entries and wouldn't show properly. I reformatted it and it still looked bad. I then figured that something about the italics in the original heading might be doing it, so I harmonized them, but it's still not working. Please take a look. – Brangifer ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response to my requests for reviews! FYI, I am the course leader, do let me know if you have any questions about the course or the assignment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I mispoke earlier – the assignment ends on 11th, not on 8th. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
James, I see that the bot has been stopped for more than a day. Is it not possible to leave it running unattended—say, overnight?
It was cleared to do 70,560 edits per week but we haven't even managed 10,000 yet. If it were a little slower than the approved rate, I wouldn't bother you, but less than a seventh, which might take years to clear the backlog, appears unsatisfactory.
Would it be possible to establish a completion date? The logic of the bot permission is that the completion date should be 65 days from when permission was given (650000 edits at 10080/day). I'd have thought two months was quite enough for this task. Tony (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You removed an "expired rcftag" tag less than a couple of hours after I place it on the above article. I think one of us did something wrong... Can you investigate? Thanks. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You should probably consider halting the bot while this request for clarification is looked at. – xeno talk 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
I hereby award this Barnstar to harej for creating and seeing the FDUB through its teething stage. As a result, WP will have a considerably improved reading experience through fewer distracting low-value links. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
I was going through and cleaning up bad mfd templates and I came across something weird that happened with one of your mfds. Check out Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Pittsburgh_Steelers and Template:User_Pittsburgh_Steelers_Fan and Template:User_Steelers. Looks like maybe this was an improperly done multi-nom? Gigs ( talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! @ harej 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, the RM bot is pretty cool – saved me a lot of work doing a multiple move request just now. Nice one!-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the RFC list, several of the talkpages for the discussions listed have been archived, which probably means those discussions have wound down and can be safely removed from the RFC list (and indeed the current instances have wound down). Perhaps a new rule to add to the bot's logic? -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I recently placed an RFC at the Liquid Crystals talk page and within a few minutes the RFCbot came along and removed the tag at the top of the discussion page telling people there was an RFC. Is it supposed to do this or is it malfunctioning? Chhe ( talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Vatsan34 ( talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Requested_move 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose, the latter with "Weak oppose: I have to qualify my vote by saying that I don't know much about Mongolia. ". More support at Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Naming. The article was a long time at " Provinces of Mongolia" and the individual articles and the Category:Provinces of Mongolia, per WP:UE use the English translation too. Could you please re-count? TrueColour ( talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Curious, other items on the Pol RfC list are listed in multiple category lists (IE: RfCs on Federales and Mark Levin), why not the RfC on Golan mountains? -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
rfctag|xxx|yyy}}
, where "xxx" is the first category abbreviation and "yyy" is the second category abbreviation. See
Template:Wider attention for a full list of abbreviations.
@
harej 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)If you are still intending to edit the above article, please add the notice to Wikipedia:Good article nominations under the computing section. If you are not, I would like to take it over. Please note: With all due respect, after a certain amount of time (reasonable) I will start to edit, if you have not replied to this. -- MWOAP ( talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears that a semi-protect of User:Full-date unlinking bot/manual override may be in order. – Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes GA nominators withdraw their nominations, e.g., Jungle Strike today. The bot recorded this as Failed Jungle Strike, which is inaccurate.
A simple solution may be to follow {{ Article History}} and describe the outcome of a GAN more straightforwardly as "listed" or "not listed". Geometry guy 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh really cause i blocked your mother real good last night!! brian moore ( talk) 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves/current -- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 13:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
the article, semi-periphery countries has been renominated for good article. -- D.j.weingart ( talk) 03:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated 88 Fingers Louie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/88 Fingers Louie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wuh Wuz Dat 15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The RFC bot keeps removing my rfctag as "expired". We had been drafting this RFC for a couple weeks before taking it public. I put the RFC tag into a section, but that pushes it below the TOC so I'd prefer it to be at the top like normal. You might want to look at whatever code the bot uses to determine when an RFC is expired. Gigs ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Harej,
I think the date of birth and the date of death are the two basic dates in a person's life that these two should be definitely linked in all biographical articles. This way it could be ensured that the person in question could be linked from the relevant month and day combination article and from the relevant year article.
Thus, I've undone this change. Please make sure that your bot will not do it again in the future.
Thanks a lot for your attention. Adam78 ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I left a comment on the relevant discussion page. Adam78 ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. Why did you revert my correction? GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi James, the bot seems to be running slowly; it doesn't appear to be processing February and it keeps failing for extended periods. Can you take a look at how throughput might be maintained, and also consider halving the deliberate delay (i.e. doubling the speed)? Thanks in advance. Tony (talk) 11:27, December 11, 2009 (UTC) now.
Since you have expressed interest in coming to the DC meetup on January 9, and (I think) are coming from out of town, I wanted to let you know that the OpenStreetMap group in DC is organizing a mapping party event the next day on January 10. We will be mapping the National Mall and East/West Potomac Park areas (e.g. Jefferson Memorial). I'm not sure if you already have booked arrangements to come to DC? If not or your schedule is flexible and are interested, then I hope you can join us on Sunday too. -- Aude ( talk) 07:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. RM bot seem to be persistently adding this message pointing to a merge discussion to Talk:Hong Kong, China, at the 2010 Winter Olympics, when it doesn't really belong there since that page is where the discussion is taking place. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a new Template. It seems to have been placed on many pages which actually do have election results (in summary form, giving the number of seats per party).
Example: Template:Azerbaijani parliamentary election, 2005
If this box is intended to mean that there are not seat-by-seat data with candidate names, etc, then I suggest it is misplaced. It is unimaginable that such detail will ever be obtainable for every election in every corner of the globe. If a keen Wikipedian with access to the data wishes to do it, they undoubtedly will. And if that user wishes to match for their country the level of detail available for UK Constituencies, they will need to create several hundred articles for the constituencies in that country etc etc. Basically it ain't going to happen. And to stick a visible box that says in effect "This article is defective" on a perfectly adequate article on an election in a less-prominent country, only serves to discourage those who create these articles.
If there is an obvious place to make this comment, I will do so. A quick look at the template history pointed me here. Sussexonian ( talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Semi-periphery countries? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommended an article for a move, and used the wrong name. I corrected it within a few minutes, but the damage seems to have been done. I fixed it on Wikipedia:Requested moves/current, but I'm afraid the bot will overwrite it. Debresser ( talk) 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what caused this? By the way, thanks for operating all those convenient bots. :) Ucucha 18:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Harej, I think you might be one of the resident experts on the technical aspects of the RfC process (sorry to trouble you if that's not the case), and as such I was wondering if you could answer my question here (you can reply either there, here, or on my talk page). Basically I have a draft user conduct RfC in my userspace which is ready to go, and I just need to move it such that it goes "live" without screwing up the formatting of an RfC. A little tech help would be appreciated if you can spare a moment, or point me in the direction of someone who can. Thanks! -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
'tis the season to be jolly! Have a Merry Christmas, a high-spirited Hanukkah, a Happy New Year, a killer Kwanzaa, a hearty Hogmanay, a smashing Silvester, or even a spiffy Saturnalia as the case may be! And don't forget to spread the holiday cheer by pasting {{subst:User:Happenstance/Dec}} to the talk pages of all your little friends, and even one or two of your enemies too, in the spirit of the holiday, no? Season's greetings, from — what a crazy random happenstance 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
I do realise you're probably busy doing all the things do you, but since you appear to be experienced in the area (with User:Full-date unlinking bot), could I humbly request you implement the change discussed at Template talk:Infobox weather#Shouldn't the template default to metric with your bot-y prowess? It's been half a year since that discussion and the change has not yet occurred; Infobox Weather continues to be the bad boy of the template namespace, flying in the face of policy. A bot would greatly expedite the change, and it would require only one mass run, maybe two depending on how long the first one took. It would be greatly appreciated, considering the great majority of place articles, and the vast majority of new place articles use metric. — what a crazy random happenstance 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! First of all, thanks for RM bot – it really makes the requested move process go much more smoothly. There must be a typo in the source, though – whenever there are any requests in the "Time could not be ascertained" category at Wikipedia:Coordination/Requested_moves, the bot puts the wrong collapse template at the bottom of that category. It uses "collape bottom" (missing an "s"). See this revision for an example: [3]. The result of this is that the RfA/RfB table that is below the RM section on WP:CORD gets eaten by the collapsing table. Thanks! — æk Talk 08:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Per my threat to make the change more elegantly in our last discussion, I have reorganized the closing instructions from top down. The page is now chunked for easier understanding and has a logical flow: People learn whether they should be doing to the close at all, followed by how to determine what decision to make (consensus), followed by the natural order of the moving procedures. I have clarified, condensed, removed redundancy and incorporated your changes.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
strtotime()
in PHP is very flexible. In the meantime, it has to be in the standard way used by Wikipedia.
@
harej 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Harej, if you decide to accept, please transclude to WT:BAG and notify the places specified in policy. MBisanz talk 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so. tedder ( talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Re [4] - could we have natural, human-readable dates including day of week restored please? Knepflerle ( talk) 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for running for the BAG. [5] Now get to work. Just kidding, sort-of. Your help is really needed, probably need a couple more members, also. -- IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If there is some reason you have to approve a bot for trials before most editors have even seen the bot, can you at least say why? I don't see any reason this bot was approved for a trial without input from anyone. -- IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, I noticed at Talk:Sinn Féin that a couple RfC tags have been sitting there for two months now. I'm not sure why the bot didn't close them. Shall I go ahead and clean up manually, or is there something else that needs to be done to get the bot to update? Thanks, -- El on ka 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yo harej, noticed you had RFC bot set up to managed WP:GAN. I was just looking at the page and thought that it would be very helpful if {{ GAReview}} linked to the latest review subpage (usually Talk:Articlename/GA1, you know the one) automatically. Is this something your bot could check for and update as required? Cheers, Skomorokh 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The script is deprecated. I've updated WP:HIDEPAGES to reflect this. Both the old script and the new CSS method do not work with Enhanced changes, and there are no plans to do so as it requires a lot more work to do since Enhanced changes uses JavaScript. Gary King ( talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
RM bot just blanked WP:RM (and someone quickly reverted). It may have something to do with today's server issues. Ucucha 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a brain fart when requesting a page move from Boardercross (see talk) to Snowboard cross; I accidentally capitalized the "c" in cross. I have corrected the error (diff) on the linked talk page (as instructed here), but the bot has not picked up the change and it is still listed as Boardercross→Snowboard Cross here. Help, please? (I've also asked at WP talk:RM.) Wine Guy Talk 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain your rationale for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Chemistry Book as "redirect"? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at
Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at
New York University;
sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove my request to move the article God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation. It does need to be moved to God's Property (album), that's the correct title. I mistakenly moved the article to God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation in the first place without knowing. Can you move the article to the correct title or at least just stop removing my requests for no reason or without explanation and let an administrator discuss my request. Hometown Kid ( talk) 20:19, January 16 2009 (GMT)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Harej,
As per Wikipedia_talk:Coordination#Request_for_relisted_non-AfD_XfDs, and my thoughts again at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Policy_on_Closing_CfDs, I think it would be a good idea to add a section to WP:CORD linking to all relisted non-AfD XfDs.
Would this be easier if all relisted discussions were transcluded from their own pages (elsewhere I have expressed my preference for deletion discussions to all have individual pages, for the watchlisting benefits).
I think this would beneficial to the less well frequented XfDs, especially where the regulars are undecided, if it attracted non-regulars to these backwaters. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Harej, thanks for your work at BRfA, and welcome to BAG :D. But please remember that when you approve/deny/expire etc. a bot request, to update the BRfA page, as I've done for you here. Best, - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 08:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What a great name. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice to meet you! I hope we work together again sometime very soon. Ikip 03:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I wanted to draw your attention to this edit, in which your bot was trying to remove a category and ended up deleting an entire archived AfD discussion. Oops! Glenfarclas ( talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Token-object reading, the bot left [7] a message saying that instead of discussing the move there, we should discuss it... there. Maybe the bot needs a check to see that target page != current page?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the bot added an odd entry. I've fixed it manually, [8] but it'll probably change it again, so I'm going to keep the manual entry too. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you deleted that, and on the project page someone pointed out the following:
...(Criteria for notability...) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Maynard James Keenan has been in three notable ensembles. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty does have enough notability to have an article. ...
Now, I don't know who the third notable ensemble was, (maybe Puscifer, but even I don't consider them notable), but Tool and A Perfect Circle are. Does that mean this can be remade or is there some sort of process? Still getting the hang of all the protocol and jargon. Thanks! SiriusBsns ( talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
awesome. thank you. i have a couple write ups/references in some old music magazines but they're not exactly Rolling Stone. i'll be sure to read the RS page to make sure they'd be considered a 'reliable source'. thanks again! SiriusBsns ( talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please respond to the concerns about this hook at DYK. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You're the third admin to close early the Albanian pederasty AfD; the other two self- WP:TROUTed. Obviously a forgone conclusion, but the race to close that discussion is amusing given that the article was up for years. Pcap ping 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you've re-added an RfC tag to Talk:Bivector, but it's not clear why. The tag was added to the article by User:Brews_ohare who subsequently removed it here after the issue was resolved: the problem turned out to be one on his PC. It's now reappeared in the Maths RfC list, signed by Brews, though you've re-added it. It looks like a mistake/old discussion so will probably be ignored; if you want to re-open the discussion perhaps create a new section with an up-to-date description of the issue, though it might be better done on another page.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems to have got stuck somewhere. WP:Requested moves/current hasn't been updated since yesterday. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, you made this edit since, if I understand your edit summary correctly, you couldn't access this reference. The link seems to be working again, so I've replaced the reference and text. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2. SilkTork * YES! 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya Harej, when you get a chance could you take a look at
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion#Inline template wikitext formatting? RFC bot seems unwilling to list it, for some reason.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to understand the functionality of the bot to ask some focussed Qs on the RfC discussion, and so I'd like to scan the source. I am assuming that it is FLOSS. It doesn't matter what the language is (I am pretty fluent in Perl, Python, PHP, C++, a bit more rusty dozen other languages and can understand more). Just point me at the source repository or URL.
I run a couple of mediaWiki instances so I am already pretty familiar with its architecture.
Thanks TerryE ( talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
$transcludes = array_unique( array_merge( $transcludes, $transcludes2 ) );
{{
rfctag|xxx|yyy}}
and not {{
rfctag|xxx}}
{{
rfctag|yyy}}
. I am working on a script that will fix these situations when they pop up.
harej 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I wiki-emailed you a version for you to look at. The thing about computer languages is that there are just so many styles for approaching a problem. There are no correct styles, but more a question of personal preference. I really did it as a fun exercise as a "compare and contrast". However having had this play, I do think that there is still a functional issue that needs to be fixed.
$contents = preg_replace("/\{{2}rfctag(2|-alt)?.*\}{2}(\n|\s)?/i", "", $contents);
I hope that you find this useful. -- TerryE ( talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) As I've just replied to your email, one reason that the bot is fast is because I still had a test line in to limit the pages pulled down to 20 to prevent its (test) execution overloading the server. OOPS! The runtime is dominated by the network and Wikipedia latency on the API calls rather than the cpu load on the system that the bot is running on. The main advantage of simplification is readability and ease of maintenance.
My reason for suggesting the date time stamp (DTS) is a design issue: once we functionally allow multiple RFCs per page then we should find some way of uniquely identifying them -- at least internally to the process. We can't use position in the page since RfC's age and expire and therefore their position in the page can change over time. So we need some practically unique ID to identify the tag and to pair the start and end tags. The obvious thing to use is the same ID that we implicitly use now -- that is the DTS currently used to delimit the RfC.
I agree 100% that we should make this system as easy to use as possible and as robust as possible. For this reason, if we do change the rfctag syntax then this must be done it such a way that the existing user process works without change. This is why I suggest that the bot simply rewrites the tag adding the DTS. What I will do (prob tomorrow because its now the early hours for me) is upload a new V4 which
How does this sound? -- TerryE ( talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You've just been talking to the real YM YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
My question to you, a Wikipedia admin: If you "mean well for those who deliberated upon the topic", as you say in your carefully worded Oppose in this RfC, perhaps you can explain why a Wikipedia admin sees fit to place a bogus 'Om box', clearly designed to cast discredit on the RfC, at the top of the page in its opening hours? I'm sure many besides myself will find your answer of interest. There is also now a specific section regarding this issue in the RfC, and this question is also asked in your 'Oppose' #21. Awaiting your reply, which I hope you will answer on the RfC page in question, Jusdafax 06:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I was led to this thread from a link at the CDA RfC, and I would like to make a request of harej and Jusdafax.
I ask that you try to reconcile and put the matter behind you. Misunderstandings take place, mistakes occur, and assumptions and comments are made in the heat of the moment; it is not, however, difficult to work past them if there is a willingness to do so. Failing that, I would ask you to retract the objectionable portions of your comments and to put the matter to rest. Regardless of why the om box was added, it has been removed; as long as it is not re-added, the issue is effectively moot and there is little potential for constructive discussion in this direction.
I would be grateful if you would seriously consider my request. Thank you, --
Black Falcon (
talk) 06:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.