User talk:Tim1357/Archive 3
Re:Non Free Images in you User Space
Hi Tim1357. I think writing a bot to remove usage of non-free files from the userspace is a superb idea! However, as a suggestion, you may want to tweak the code so that the bot can differentiate between user talk archives and actual article drafts in the userspace; the bot's notice on my talk informs me that the file was removed from a userspace draft. My work as a sysop revolves around files/file usage and sometimes users don't use ":" when linking to files for reference, leading in the files being displayed. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the reply. I updated the message to include talk pages. Tim1357 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
DASHbot Jan_Hammer
DASHbot posted to my talk page about Jan_Hammer being an UBLP created by me... but I have no recollection of it. Is age finally getting the better of me? Oliver Low (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to the pages history, it appears that you added this article back in 2004. It has grown significantly since then. The goal of the bot messaging users was to remind seasoned users (such as yourself) of the articles they created long ago. There is no pressure to add sources, rather a reminder. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. Hopefully some good soul will see the template at the top and look up some sources. I still can't remember creating the article, which is slightly worrying... ;-) Oliver Low (talk)
Between the flags
Hi Tim,
I was perfectly capable of reading Wikipedia:CSD#G11 already. I would like to know what the content was, and how made it. "Between the flags" googles to be variously a clothing shop, a concept at the beach, and a NSW Health intiative. Would you please temporarily undelete it for me, or email it to me, or at least tell me something meaningful about the deleted content. Agesworth (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I asked an Admin to undelete it for you and he said no. The article text is "Between the Flags (BTF) is a brand of Swim Gear and supplies sold nationaly around Australia, with items featuring the names of Surf lifesaving Clubs whose royalties from the product sales help cover the costs of volunteer life saving." Or something like that. Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Bot BLP warning regarding Kyle McCarter
Your bot left me a little love note saying I created an unreferenced BLP article. I created the page as a stub nine months ago and made one edit immediately after. Despite its being a two-sentence stub, I provided two refs. Since then, someone added information that I tried to make sound less like it came straight from the subject's office. All of this is to say, please either improve how your bot chooses whom to notify or stop it notifying people. The notice did nothing but waste my time trying to figure out how I violated BLP rules, only to discover I hadn't done any such thing. -Rrius (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- That sure is weird. Is DASHbot only looking for {{BLPunsourced}}, and not actually checking for mis-tagged articles (ie, articles with <ref>, or a "References" section that has something in it)? I'm going to stop DASHbot for the moment. Josh Parris 07:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rrius, why did you tag with {{unreferenced}} when the whole time it's had two references? Josh Parris 08:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tim1357, Mr.Z-bot swapped Rrius's tag for {{BLPunsourced}}. I've left a note saying he, like you, ought to be checking for false positives. You both use Python, so it might be wise to share this code. drop him a line. Josh Parris 10:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Feel free to hault the bot for any other reason. : ) Tim1357 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A neat bot and I appreciate the reminder, although it does appear to have its limitations. References that are merely bracketed urls it discounts, I guess? Technically the unreferenced tag is misapplied in such cases, it should say may be unreferenced, or needs more references, or needs a formalized citation style. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Umm right now the bot counts any appearance of ref tags, reflist templates, or a references tag. Sometimes urls are not used as references, so I did not include those. Tim1357 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
DASHBot sends 'Unreferenced BLP' notification to creators of redirects.
DASHBot send me an 'Unreferenced BLP' notification for Rochelle Davis.[1] But I had created this as redirect after deleting a previous article. Somebody else expanded it to an article. In such cases the bot should no send this kind of reminder to the creator of the redirects or rather a differently worded one which is in principle a useful alert to the problem as e.g I can now restore the redirect for Rochelle Davis. Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the bot has trouble with these cases. It is rather hard to determine if a user created a substantial amount of the page. Sometimes articles have weird histories, and the articles 'creator' was someone who moved the page, or in your case, made a redirect. Thanks for the response, Tim1357 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP search suggestions
Ta for the notifications, working on it. Noting all the search assists that have been tagged on - are those images free images or just a Google image search picking up everything? --Falcadore (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- They weren't, but I changed the template so that they were. Good idea! Tim1357 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Seth Hoffman page
Well, I only created the page, and put the list of his work on Prison Break. Someone else put the tidblits of informaton about this life, unsourced, and I deleted them. But if you need sources for the episodes of Prison Break, we have the credits of each episode...Darkcook.
- Well, if you used information from the episode's articles, you can use the references too!Tim1357 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Anja Juliette Laval
I got a note from your bot about this being an unreferenced BLP. Please note that this article, as first created it, was a direct translation from the corresponding article in German Wikipedia. Please also note that this person meets one of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO in that she has won a European porn industry award. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- You may use the references from the german wikipedia, as long as they are reliable and verifiable.Tim1357 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Three unreferenced articles
It's a long time since I wrote those articles, and the subjects no longer interest me. Feel free to delete them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wont delete them. The warning was intended to remind users like yourself who may have not been aware that their article was an unreferenced-blp. What you do about it is entirely up to you.Tim1357 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
DASHBot and Douglas Porch
Please rein in DB... the talk page has a complete list of source from Doctor Porch's own hand (well, via e-mail) as well as several book coveres. I will remove tags. V. Joe (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your bot
User:DASHBot's behavior is becoming spam. It's notifying me about articles that I made some minor edits to years ago. Even worse, it's complaining about an article that has no references, when the article is just a redirect, so of course it has no references! I don't want it to notify me, and from the notes by other users above, lots of other users feel the same way. This should be an opt-in process. I'm raising this issue over at Wikipedia talk:Bots. —Lowellian (reply)
- I have halted the bot pending investigation. Josh Parris 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Ryan_Dusick&action=history shows Ryan Dusick to currently be a redirect. The bot acted in error. Josh Parris 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I stopped it as soon as i got the message, but thanks for looking out for me! Why are we calling it an investigation? Tim1357 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's the English word for when you investigate something. Also known as poking around and having a sniff. Don't worry, I'm not the police. Josh Parris 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I stopped it as soon as i got the message, but thanks for looking out for me! Why are we calling it an investigation? Tim1357 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Lowellian created Ryan Dusick as a redirect; Lowellian should not have been notified as the "creator" of an unreferenced BLP. Instead, the bot should find the first editor since the BLP was transformed into a BLP from a redirect (this will require a full reverse search of the history for the last point where it was a redirect, assuming a BLP could be transformed into a redirect multiple times - my view is, if someone changes it from being a redirect, they "created" the article). Josh Parris 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=David_E._Kendall&oldid=2825973 shows the first version of David E. Kendall was created by you as an article. This is one criteria used by the bot as selecting the user to leave a message for. The other is a history of major contributions, which you do not have: creation of a stub and a small change not long thereafter. This appears to be the bot acting in error. Josh Parris 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Tim1357, how will fixes addressing these problems take to develop? Josh Parris 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I will work on verifying that each user that created the article contributed more then a certian threshold of bytes to the page. Im just not sure what that threshold would be. Tim1357 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
DASHBot's message
Hi -- I don't understand your message to me on January 19, 2010 regarding CONCEPTiCONS. Please explain how I can be of help -- Mig (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, it appears that the page is incorrectly tagged as a biography of a living person. Sorry about that! Tim1357 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Album reviews bot work
Hey there, I was just wondering what the status is on Dashbot for WP:ALBUMS. I saw it was approved for the extended trial, but I don't really know how the bot approval process goes. Is it good to go? When will it be up at full steam? —Akrabbimtalk 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have bug right now and I am trying to fix it. Here is what I've done so far. Ill make it priority for the weekend. Tim1357 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, cool. I was just wondering because someone's question at WT:ALBUMS reminded me of it since I hadn't heard for a while. Is there a way to see the bot's progress, like the number of album articles it has changed? —Akrabbimtalk 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I can have it log for you. I think there is a toolserver thingy that can count them tough. Tim1357 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest moving the 'reception' section to after the 'track list'. For articles with short leads we are ending up with poor looking articles, an example is Footprints (album). I moved it lower on Space I'm In and don't think it takes away from the article. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that WP:ALBUMS#Article body says to put the Reception before the Track listing. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redrose, I appreciate that but believe that this is an instance when WP:IAR should be considered, as moving the section will lead to a much better looking article. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that WP:ALBUMS#Article body says to put the Reception before the Track listing. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest moving the 'reception' section to after the 'track list'. For articles with short leads we are ending up with poor looking articles, an example is Footprints (album). I moved it lower on Space I'm In and don't think it takes away from the article. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I can have it log for you. I think there is a toolserver thingy that can count them tough. Tim1357 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, cool. I was just wondering because someone's question at WT:ALBUMS reminded me of it since I hadn't heard for a while. Is there a way to see the bot's progress, like the number of album articles it has changed? —Akrabbimtalk 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Tim, could you keep an eye on WT:ALBUMS#Reviews in infobox? There is discussion on if we need to change anything about the way the bot is going about this. Thanks —Akrabbimtalk 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, watchlisted. Tim1357 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DashBot Message error
It seems the bot is off, but I got a message saying that a page I created was unreferenced human biography. I didn't actually write, I simply moved the page in question to make it a disambiguation page, and I guess it got turned into an article later. You should probably fix this. Here's the page, and the message is on my talk page. Page: Pooh (comedian)--The Editor1 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! I am working on a fix to that very problem right now. Tim1357 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Cossina
Hello there, I noticed you are adding the section "Cossina" to many taxoboxes. I am wondering though, should that go at the bottom under genus? I really don't think it's a subdivision of a genus is it? Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Ruigeroeland! You are right, there is no subdivision for a genus. However, the template can parse out the parameters, so
|diviso
may come last in the template, but it will be put in the correct spot when the template is called. I hope that makes sense. I will try to put parameters in the correct spot from now on, so contributors such as you self can more easily read it. The thought actually never passed my mind before this. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)- Hmmm.. It might be my lack of wiki-knowledge, but does that mean that it will be moved to another spot in the taxobox? Because I still see it as a subsidivision of the genus, and if it is not, it should not be visible on that spot, but higher in the taxobox tree, shouldn't it? I ussually just copy a taxobox when I make a new species, and I happened to make one today which has Cossina listed in (I think) the right spot, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notocelia_roborana Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You were absolutely right! I was using the section parameter for botany, which has a different definition then of that of zoology. Nice catch! Tim1357 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, great! Glad we figured it out! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- You were absolutely right! I was using the section parameter for botany, which has a different definition then of that of zoology. Nice catch! Tim1357 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm.. It might be my lack of wiki-knowledge, but does that mean that it will be moved to another spot in the taxobox? Because I still see it as a subsidivision of the genus, and if it is not, it should not be visible on that spot, but higher in the taxobox tree, shouldn't it? I ussually just copy a taxobox when I make a new species, and I happened to make one today which has Cossina listed in (I think) the right spot, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notocelia_roborana Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Your request to join BAG
Congratulations, I have closed your request to join the Bot Approvals Group as successful. Go forth and approve bots... WJBscribe (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding minor ranks to taxoboxes
Hi! You seem to be adding minor ranks to taxoboxes in a semi-automated process. Please note that, per WP:TX, minor ranks are normally to be avoided, unless explicitly mentioned in the article, or otherwise directly relevant to understanding the taxon's classification. For example, there would almost never be a need for adding subkingdom information to taxons describing families. Also, you are rearranging the order of some taxobox fields (such as putting "subdivision" above "subdivision_ranks") for no apparent reason, and against the recommendation at WP:TX. Please discuss such massive changes first. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! I was not aware of that! I thought we were supposed to put as much information in there as was relevant. Ill take subkingdom off my list. I reoredered subdivision before subdivision_ranks simply because that is what is the order it is given in the taxoboxes documentation. I changed that. Any other parameters you want me to skip? Tim1357 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The subkigdom was just the most obvious example; in general, you probably shouldn't be adding any minor ranks above the next higher major one for the taxon in question. E.g. for a genus, you might add tribe and subfamily fields (if they are not redlinks), but nothing above family. Note that this is different from the practice at Wikispecies, where all higher ranks are always listed.
- As far as I can tell, the documentation consistently puts subdvision_ranks first, which is also the order they appear in in the displayed taxobox, making editing more intuitive. Hqb (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I used Wikipedia:TX#Complete_blank_template which lists it as such:
- As far as I can tell, the documentation consistently puts subdvision_ranks first, which is also the order they appear in in the displayed taxobox, making editing more intuitive. Hqb (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
| subdivision| subdivision_ranks
- I think that might have been a human error. So I removed everything above superfamily from my list, and reordered subdivision to be after subdivision ranks. Is that all? Tim1357 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's all that I can see for now, but I'm not really an expert either. In any case, an automated taxobox-filling bot is surely something that needs to be discussed at least at Template talk:Taxobox and WP:BRFA to solicit comments from the relevant communities. Hqb (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, It is semi-automated, but if you think this is controversial, then Ill bring it to Template talk:Taxobox. Ill also spam some wikiprojects to see what they think. Believe it or not, as of about 2 hours ago, I became a member of the Bot Approvals Group. If I get consensus from the Wikiprojects, Ill drop at the BRFA page aswell. Tim1357 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's all that I can see for now, but I'm not really an expert either. In any case, an automated taxobox-filling bot is surely something that needs to be discussed at least at Template talk:Taxobox and WP:BRFA to solicit comments from the relevant communities. Hqb (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Bot
Just a "thanks" for your bot's BLP-unreferenced talkpage messages, I've seen many of my articles get tagged "unreferenced" over the years and rarely bothered correcting it (typically articles I started in 2005, before we had such policies) - but having them all in one place like that convinced me to get off my ass, so I went and fixed half of them this week. :) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also working through my list - at about 40% through it, but just one week after this notification has begun I'm find articles being deleted, for example Barry Seton. If edittors were only to be given 1/2 weeks notice prior to deletion, that should been included in the notification. --Falcadore (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The bot's notices weren't warnings; there was a recent spate of Arbcom-refered unilateral UBLP deletions that Barry Seton may have been caught up in - that deletion spree was not directly related to the Unreferenced Biography of Living Person notice you got from the bot.
- On the other hand, they were warnings, as any unreferenced statement in a BLP can be deleted at will, and the administrators in question may have decided that rather than leave a blank page for an article, it was quicker and easier to delete the whole thing. This is, of course, mere speculation.
- Check Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles for an administrator who can assist you in restoring the deleted articles for you to work on. Josh Parris 09:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- [2] Um, sorry, I am responsible for redirecting Barry Seton to user space, Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Barry Seton,[3] it was done in coordination with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australia.
- The list of many of the articles incubated is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Unreferenced_BLPs#Incubated_articles
- Rjanag followed behind me and deleted all of those redirects, that was the largest complaint we had. I was opposed to delete redirects for two days, but I was overruled. Maybe I can replace the redirect with a one week notice to check Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia, which will alleviate this concern.
- Here is a list that the members of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and myself created: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/BLP This is a list of all the articles which were deleted out of process by the three administrators.
- I would encourage you to comment at:
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Collect which is directly on point about these deletions.
- There are 49,000 articles which editors are getting ready to delete. That is why we incubated the Australian articles, to give editors of the projects of interest more time to edit and decide what is encyclopedic and what is not.
- Barry Seton is now fully restored. Thank you for your concerns, and I am sorry for the confusion this caused. Ikip 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Dashbot
RE: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_move_articles_from_main_space_to_Wikipedia:Article_Incubator Hey!! I was just going to message you about my bot request! I didn't realize you are one and the same as Dashbot. Thanks again for helping with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron indexing of tagged articles. I also note your unreferenced BLP bot. WOW. What a great idea. Ikip 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:325px-Summerbreeze.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:325px-Summerbreeze.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Requested Speedy Deletion Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Kristian Ayre
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Notifying WikiProjects
Hey there Tim. In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#View by WereSpielChequers, WSC suggested notifying WikiProjects of unreferenced BLPs that belong to that project. Any chance we could co-opt DASHbot for this purpose? NW (Talk) 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- that is a great idea, and while you are at it, please notify the wikiprojects of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people too. thanks in advance. Ikip 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, ill take a look. Im going away on a camping trip this week, but Ill make this a priority for next weekend. Tim1357 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea. Power.corrupts (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, ill take a look. Im going away on a camping trip this week, but Ill make this a priority for next weekend. Tim1357 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- A discussion has started on the RfC/BLP talk page about notifying WikiProjects (and editors at large). We could use someone with technical expertise to give us some idea about what bot options might be useful to WikiProjects. Could you help out with that? Could anyone else commenting here help out with that or some other aspect about notifying editors and WikiProjects about this problem? Please take a look, comment and volunteer here [4]. And thanks, Tim, for what you've already done. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, there is already a Bot that does part of what we'd done for the Wikiprojects - you might want to check out user:wolterBot and User talk:B. Wolterding as there's no point reinventing the wheel. ϢereSpielChequers 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, I already notified several of the projects. As we all discussed. I created more or less a full list of all projects yesterday 72 in all. I would be happy to send them to you or post them (probably on my talk page) Ikip 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, there is already a Bot that does part of what we'd done for the Wikiprojects - you might want to check out user:wolterBot and User talk:B. Wolterding as there's no point reinventing the wheel. ϢereSpielChequers 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Question about notability
How many of the 49000 unreferenced BLPs article creators have you notified with your bot? Thanks in advance. Ikip 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rough estimate: About 14400 have been notified. I have about 3000 to go. Tim1357 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- May I assume that is 17,400 authors of those 49,000 articles? ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well there was 23,000 authors of those 49000 articles. However, the author could have been skipped if:
- May I assume that is 17,400 authors of those 49,000 articles? ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article in question had <ref></ref> tags.
- They did not already have a talk page.
- Im dealing with a bit of a bug right now, but do you think it would be appropriate for me to restart the bot, given all the controversy? Tim1357 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it would be appropriate.
- This sounds and feels wrong, I must have missed something. What is so shocking is not one editor who commented on the RFC has had dashbot notify them of a BLP violation. We have all the editors arguing about what should be done with 17,400 editors, and not one is actually going to be affected personally by this rule. I suspect that the vast majority of the editors are new editors who will be affected by the deletion of BLPs. Ikip 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, I think it would be entirely appropriate for you to continue with your bot, as I don't think that anyone on either side of the BLP controversy was objecting to your bot gently reminding editors of unsourced BLPs they may have written long ago. Also just in case anyone is coming to your page because an admin had deleted their article without warning as an unsourced BLP, you could add a big sign saying that the deletion of unreferenced BLPs was completely independent of your bot and that requests for restoration of articles deleted as unsourced BLPs are welcome at WP:SJR ϢereSpielChequers 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Im dealing with a bit of a bug right now, but do you think it would be appropriate for me to restart the bot, given all the controversy? Tim1357 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Notifying active editors who have created unreferenced BLPs and have been notified by the BLP bot already
Tim1357,I am so impressed by your work. 14400 editors contacted only since December 26? Wow.[5]
I went through the dashbot edits two days ago, and I found every editor who after you posted the notice had modified their talk page, showing the most active editors. I deleted all replicas, which comes to 1339 editors. User:Ikip/list I also deleted the 297 editors who have commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people already.
Could your bot contact these editors and let them know about the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people?
I was thinking of:
- Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, you wrote an article about a living person without references. Currently their is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete all 50,000 articles about a living person without references.
- The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person:Editor Jehochman's position
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances:Editor Collect's position
- The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
- Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting your unreferenced article if it is not sourced. Please reference your article to avoid this.
- Thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. ~~
Ikip 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ikip asked me to take a look at this. It's a good idea, but I imagine a ton of the users have stopped doing wiki. It would be cool to just notify people who have made an edit in the past 6 months or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The list includes only editors who have edited from December 26, or later. thanks. Ikip 03:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Its an excellent idea! Each editor alerted to the issue and who can help out is much needed.--Milowent (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Please do! --Cyclopiatalk 10:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest we hold off till the end of the RFC, firstly to see what is achieved by the first wave of notifications to these editors, (which I'm delighted to see is now running again). Secondly that we make the the second wave of notifications via the projects as this will bring some articles by long retired authors to the attention of active projects. However I do like the idea of a follow up at the end of the RFC - by which time hopefully some messages won't need to be sent as the editors will have referenced the articles they created. Also if a Bot was run to inform people of a live RFC it might be considered by some as canvassing. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I came across your bot here [6] (watching the Japan project for old reasons). This editor is dead, somebody had recently posted a farewell, NihonJoe kindly moved it to project Japan, so no harm done at all, nevertheless could look a little silly. Is there any (easy) way to avoid this? All bots are dumb, an error rate is acceptable, in particular under these urgent conditions. IMO the bot is doing highly useful work, just wondered if this glaring problem could be avoided. You should continue testing it small-scale so problems like this can be identified before you go big. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest we hold off till the end of the RFC, firstly to see what is achieved by the first wave of notifications to these editors, (which I'm delighted to see is now running again). Secondly that we make the the second wave of notifications via the projects as this will bring some articles by long retired authors to the attention of active projects. However I do like the idea of a follow up at the end of the RFC - by which time hopefully some messages won't need to be sent as the editors will have referenced the articles they created. Also if a Bot was run to inform people of a live RFC it might be considered by some as canvassing. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your refereed Latifur Rahman and my article is not same. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
All praise to DASHBot!
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
Please accept this Barnstar for all the improvements of articles resulting from Dashbots gentle chidings ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Tim, I was just wondering if perhaps DASHBot could be persuaded to inform wikiprojects of unsourced BLPs in their remit in the same way that DASHBot has been informing authors? ϢereSpielChequers 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree: it is a fantastic bot. --Duncan (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
DASHbot
Hi Tim, it looks like DASHbot added a note to User talk:Encyclopedist. That editor has been banned since 2006. Is it possible to exclude indefinitely blocked editors from getting messages from your bot? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, It looks like the bit of code I had to skip banned users did not work. Thanks for the notice! Tim1357 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Deprecated
Just so you know, for edits like this, the word is actually "deprecated" ("depreciate" means to go down in value, like a house). Not that it's a big deal or anything, it's still clear what you meant; just thought I'd point that out :). Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh jeez. Thanks, I suck at spelling. :-) Tim1357 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct the non-free image bot's spelling
Your bot worked perfectly and left me a message, but I encourage you to check your spelling though. "Non Free Images in you User Space" is the heading that the bot's message was under. PleaseStand (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Spelling is not my forte, Done. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No error but a question
DASHbot removed a non-free image from my userspace subpage:User:Jubileeclipman/(shadow) Quartal and quintal harmony. This was meant as a copy of Quartal and quintal harmony prior to my reducing it to its present (more relevent) state. No problem with the removal itself (I assume the article was also affected); just a question. Should I just remove all the potentially copyrighted images from all my subpages just in case they are non-free? I don't want to get into trouble obviously... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC #9 prohibits the use of non-free images, such as File:Ravel Ma Mere l'Oye Laideronnette.PNG, on any page outside of the main article space. Therefore, using this image on your copy of the article in your userspace is not permitted. The article was not affected, just your userspace copy. Yes, when you're developing/improving an article via creation/copy in your userspace, you should not display non-free imagery. You can leave it as a link, as I've referenced the image above, or replace it with File:Example.jpg while retaining the actual file name in a comment, ala <!-- filename.ext -->. When you 'go live', you can then replace the example image with the actual image you want to use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'll review my pages and remark out other potential nonfree images with a colon. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)