Jump to content

User talk:Δ/20101101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Question about your discussion on ANI and your bot[edit]

Aside from some moments of poor judgement that all we humans are occassionally guilty of my personal believe is you have skills that are seriously needed in WP and after reading the comments and history you seem to have made ammends and want to continue to edit. I have a question about yuor former bot and your ANI discussion though that I wanted to ask before I support or oppose. Do you have a listing of the tasks that your bot previously performed (and presumably would again at some point if the restrictions are lifted)? Has any of the tasks previously done by your bot been assumed by others? --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


AfD_parser[edit]

Hi,
FYI, tools:~betacommand/AfD_parser.html doesn't currently work (try feeding it with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Tynan, it time-outs after a while).
Amalthea 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT results table: I note that the number of opinions is not included, as this must be estimated for the percentage results count it would be handy to include (e.g. 100% can mean no opinions actually expressed at the moment). I see that where there are no opinions, the nomination is counted as a delete; this may not be the intention of a nomination as I sometimes raise them for wider discussion after tricky PROD deletion, it does not mean I think the article should be deleted, only that I am asking for a consensus result on delete or keep. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats something Im working on, I had it in the table originally, but it screwed up the sorting, Ive remove it temporally until I can tweak the table to include it without breaking anything else. ΔT The only constant 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you may want to ponder the meaning of 'expired' too. It would be handy to take into account AFD relistings, for example an AFD with 2 options and re-listed twice is probably desperate for a couple of additional opinions. Oh, and the colours, marking a result as red/yellow/green is a bit rash if there are <=2 opinions, perhaps it should be left, say, a neutral black until there are at least 3? Fæ (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Expired" it just uses some basic logic with filed time and the number of {{Relist}}'s (for each template it extends the life of the AfD by a week). Thus it should consider re-lists correctly. If there is a specific AfD where this is not accurate let me know. (this is fuzzy logic that I just implemented there may be errors). As for coloring I just use a basic % scale, anything within certain values get a specific color. ΔT The only constant 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, these are not bugs but areas that are your design choice. Having the columns sortable helps a lot. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re Δbot at ANI[edit]

I see the ANI discussion is going positively. Don't forget that ArbCom must also "endorse" the task before the bot can make any edits regarding the task (e.g. a trial in the BRFA). It's up to you whether you start that request before the BRFA, at the same time as the BRFA, or once a BAGger indicates that only ArbCom endorsement stands in the way of a trial. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:AN discussion[edit]

I have started a discussion concerning 250 edits you made with AWB at WP:AN#Request for blanket rollback permission for a series of erroneous AWB edits made on some 250 articles. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Xeno has asked a key question on the thread: you have an editing restriction which would not normally allow you to tag 250 articles in a row. If you found consensus somewhere to do this job, you need to provide a link to that immediately. When you avoid providing such a link, it appears you violated your editing restriction. Although no notice should be necessary, the site culture unfortunately obligates me to point out that violating your edit restriction in the near future is likely to result in your account being blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop those AWB edits and allow someone else to do it (CBM has offered), or discuss it at VPP first.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that if he will do the AWB edits to changed to BLPsources, that's OK. But extended tagging runs should be avoided in the future, particularly for things that are easily predicted to be controversial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for editing in violation of community-imposed sanctions after warning (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Community-imposed_restrictions), and further to this, for your failure to discuss with community after requests to do so, and instead continuing to edit in violation of your sanctions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kingpin13 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read AN? I was discussing and cleaning up the issue. There was no need for a block. ΔT The only constant 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read the AN thread. What you were blocked for was violation of your community sanctions, by placing these tags in the first place, and then again by removing them. I noted this to you above and yet you continued with the editing without discussing. A bunch of users at AN asked you to address the issue Xeno brought up (which was the sanctions), and you didn't (instead going ahead and apparently violating those sanctions, as well as making pointless changes and editing with an incorrect summary (which was fixed, but these are perfect examples of why you should be discussing these kinds of jobs before starting them, as is noted in your sanctions)). - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Q[edit]

Re this, did I do something to cause the case to be removed before it was actually closed? I renamed it because I found a slightly older account as the master; did that mess things up?  Frank  |  talk  20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is good, The paperwork just got shuffled. You made an edit [1] which involved ""checking" the SPI, when that happens it drops out of the CheckUser queue and back into the generic "open" queue, for non-checkusers to finish up. If you want to keep an eye on all active cases you should look at {{User:Δ/Sandbox}} which is a complete summary. ΔT The only constant 20:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; so I didn't mess things up, I was just impatient?  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just got moved to another subpage. ΔT The only constant 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS note about your sig, you should not be using templates in it. you can just use | instead of {{!}}. ΔT The only constant 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found it did not escape properly in certain places without using the template, instead treating that as a separator for another parameter.  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then use &#124; instead, templates are not allowed to be used in sigs. ΔT The only constant 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I was unaware of that restriction, although I now see it on the preferences page clearly spelled out. I believe it wasn't there when I last changed my sig over two years ago (although the policy might still have been in place).  Frank  |  talk  21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture-by-year categories[edit]

As you may have seen, the architecture-by-year bot request has been archived again. Would you be willing to write such a bot? Moreover, if people won't let you operate the bot, would you be willing to publish the source code, so that someone else can operate it? Nyttend backup (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it would need tested before i would publish, thus catch-22. ΔT The only constant 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, why would it be a problem? Couldn't you ask someone else to run the test? Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not release code that I haven't tested, as Ben Parker once said, With great power, comes great responsibility. Making untested code public never typically ends with good results. ΔT The only constant 23:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I've filed a notice at WP:AN about this, asking that we ignore a rule here. Please don't take any of my words as complaints against you for not helping: I'm well aware that you're as much a volunteer as I am, and I understand that I can't "require" you to do anything. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im creating a list of categories I would like you to review. (Subcats of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States going down two levels) and remove any that you think don't qualify. ΔT The only constant 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Δ/Sandbox 2 for a listing of all cats, if there are any that I should delve deeper into let me know, and remove any that shouldn't be there. ΔT The only constant 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I was looking for the user Betacommand but it redirected me here... Wookie Go Bye Bye (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my old username, What can I do for you? ΔT The only constant 19:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Articles that include images for deletion as of June 2011[edit]

Category:Articles that include images for deletion as of June 2011, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebCiteBOT[edit]

Hello,

I'm glad to see you've taken interest in my WebCiteBOT challenge. Since I don't understand the technical side of this, I would like to suggest that, if you want to work on the bot, you contact the people from this thread and this thread, because they are some of the people who tried to make the bot work and failed. Regards, user:Agradman editing as 128.59.179.235 (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Feel free to tell me when you think the time is right for me to pay on my bounty board post, and I will do so. I do encourage you to correspond with some of the folks at the threads above, because they might have great feedback on how to improve the tool. Thanks. -user:Agradman editing as 128.59.179.214 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webcite on Alice in Wonderland[edit]

Hi. About your Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) edits adding the archive link. You also added "deadurl=no" which is not a valid parameter. So all the refs look as they are dead and are showing the webcited link. Could you go back and remove the "deadurl=no"? I tried to get someone at WP:CITE to add those parameters a while back, but they just told me to comment the archive link out, so that's what I've been doing. Mike Allen 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got a few things in motion that should get that parameter implemented. ΔT The only constant 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thanks. Mike Allen 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation styles[edit]

Hello, equilateraltriangle. While I personally think list-defined references are superior, you're going to run into trouble if you think "cleanup" is an adequate description of an edit changing the entire citation style of an article. Regards, Skomorokh 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually making a lot of changes besides just the reference changes, most of what I'm doing is cleanup, I'm adding archive urls, fixing {{dead link}} locations, dating templates, removing missing/deleted images and fixing other markup issues among other issues. ΔT The only constant 01:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, and if you leave out the unexplained change of citation styles I'm sure you'll get along just fine. Some people (yours truly not included) tend to take that sort of thing very seriously. Best, Skomorokh 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Dutch novels[edit]

I am one of the 4000 most active Wikipedians.

What the hell are you doing?

Varlaam (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished translating that page from Dutch.
Now but it back.
And try learning your job.
Varlaam (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont give a flip if your Jimmy himself, your recent actions are not permitted. ΔT The only constant 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Varlaam (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a fig who you are either. Put my bloody translation back.
Varlaam (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments such as Vandalism? Fuck off. are never acceptable. ΔT The only constant 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a grownup?
Restore the article.
1) You look at who is creating the article.
2) You allow more than 5 seconds before harassing the author.
If you have never done this job before, then let me tell you what the procedure is.
Varlaam (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is my translation back yet? Varlaam (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are enjoying your little power trip. Varlaam (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to review your behavior. Your current behavior will end in you being blocked, please remain civil at all times, I have userfied your article until such time (which I doubt) that it is suitable for mainspace. ΔT The only constant 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your style of self-righteous, self-centred arrogance is precisely what is wrong with Wikipedia.
"The encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to" except when someone such as yourself fails to do is job properly.
I don't need the article userfied.
I have already rewritten and posted it.
Varlaam (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pimbrils, one of Dutch WP's literary users, has finished translating my article for me.
Are we happy now?
Varlaam (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn your job[edit]

  1. You give everyone a chance to organize his thoughts. That's more than 10 seconds.
  2. You look at whether it's an IP user who is making the addition, or someone who is just as experienced as your worship.

Best regards, Varlaam (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care if it is an anon or Jimmmy himself, I judge editors by their actions not their account name, I know of several anons that we wanted to nominate for adminship in the past. Your article also fails the WP:NPOV policy. ΔT The only constant 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check the policies of your dept. because you are in error.
You should learn what NPOV means.
If you want to retitle the article to better reflect its source, it's fine.
All I did was a literal translation on this pass.
Sheesh.
Are we actually disagreeing about anything at all here? Varlaam (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you have so much energy to argue with another senior editor, rather than just doing a little touchup or modification when I'm done?
Varlaam (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, quoth Charlie Brown.
You are not a "senior editor". You are being rude, making personal attacks, and have a history of such inappropriate behavior. Im going to be AfDing the article shortly due to it not meeting inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. ΔT The only constant 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of edits[edit]

Can you please point me to the village pump discussion allowing for the large mass of edits you've done, or to the discussion nullifying the first clause ("before undertaking any pattern of edits") at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

third door down on your left ΔT The only constant 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You might consider adding it to the top of your user talk page to avoid any confusion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Δ/20101101&oldid=1139947782"