User talk:Kingboyk/Archive 17

10 12 13 14 15 16 Archive 17 18 19 20 21 22 30 KevinalewisBot I appear to have been approved - thanks - however when I fire up AWB with or without the plugin enabled, being logged in as User:KevinalewisBot it still comes up as "Bot = False" which I assume is the key indicator that I am able to proceed in "Auto" mode. Hope this makes sense. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, you just need the bot account adding to the Bot list on AWB. Reedy Boy 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Didn't I do that? Whoops. I'll sort it. --kingboyk 11:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done. Sorry about that; I thought I'd done it but of course what I'd actually done was add you to the users list. You should be good to go now. --kingboyk 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Steve, its still in the user list. I dont know if this would cause any problems.... Reedy Boy 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC) I thought it had to be in both, but evidently not. I'll run a test after lunch to see if it works - if it doesn't I'd consider that a bug. --kingboyk 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC) My bot and yours are listed in both sections I think. --kingboyk 13:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks, got things working and worked through a few single examples - then set up a "stub" and was mystified to see it "start itself" before I was quite ready. However everything appears to be working fine and I left it to run as it was doing such a good job. Why the auto start though? In know it is an auto run of the bot, but starting on it's own I wasn't signed up for LOL. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC) It shouldn't do that unless you clicked Start. Can you elaborate on exactly what happened? --kingboyk 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Just as a clue I noticed the logging - in User:KevinalewisBot/Logs/220307 $ 1 added the line "22 March 2007 14:11 Bot mode: Haven't heard from AWB in over 10 minutes, giving it a nudge" - does that help at all. KevinalewisBot 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Oh OK, the plugin gave AWB a nudge because it thought it had frozen up. Perhaps that needs to be looked at. --kingboyk 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) PS Edits are looking good. Seems like we won't be needing {{Novelinfoboxneeded}} for much longer :) --kingboyk 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) or {{Novelinfoboxincomp}} for that matter. KevinalewisBot 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Oh yes the logging switch between different runs of the program needs some work - it doesn't pick up the Logging name inserted after the "first run". i.e. the work round is to exit the program and re-start it. Awkward. Otherwise this is really going to speed things up - even make them more reliable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Did you click Apply to apply the new logging settings? --kingboyk 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, I'll try that. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Tried on my last run it should have used the title "1950s novel stubs" instead it used the previous "19th century novel stubs". It might still be something I am doing wrong - but this bit of the tool isn't the most obvious. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) You could always turn logging off, or turn uploading off and upload them manually. I agree that part of the plugin is a bit flaky. --kingboyk 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) It looks like the nudge code will go into AWB, so it's likely it'll get more refined. Good news I think! --kingboyk 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Seems to be going extraordinarily well - don't know what we did without it. Plenty of work found to get on with now - as if we didn't before!. One more thing though in the Logs and on the "Novels" tab the tagging template is refered to as "WPNovels" when it should be "NovelsWikiProject". Please note we have discovered that {{WPNovels}} and {{Novels}} exist as templates as "redirect to "{{NovelsWikiProject}}" which is the true template. Thanks for all your efforts. KevinalewisBot 15:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) We know about the redirects and they're in the regular expression which finds the template ("NovelsWikiProject|Novels|WPNovels") - but you're right to let me know about that just in case. The WPNovels message is only cosmetic but nonetheless wrong, it will be fixed in the next release (just done now, provided CTRL-F is finding everything for me :)). Thanks for the feedback and please let me know that the changes are OK. --kingboyk 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Nudge I experienced that bug now as well. I'd done a run and finished, and was setting up the next one when AWB started. Will have to take another look at the code which turns the timer on and off. Hopefully the AWB devs will add the feature into AWB soon, if they could be "nudged" in that direction it would be one less thing for me to fix! --kingboyk 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) id="toc" {{Template:WPBeatles}} includes {{Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/To do}} {{Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/To do}} includes a DIV with id="toc" The standard Table of Contents on Wikipedia uses a DIV with id="toc" The id conflict breaks {{Template:skiptotoc}} for Firefox users, and maybe other browser, too. I use both Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 where skiptotoc doesn't work unless the To do section is visible, and then, of course, it brings you there, not to the page's Table of Contents. IE6 works when the To do is hidden, presumably because IE6 either goes to the second/last of the duplicates or picks the visible one over the invisible one. So... I suggest that the ID be changed to avoid the conflict with the standard table of contents. I wasn't sure where the id was used, so I didn't change it myself. I am pretty handy with templates, but I decided to heed the warning... John Cardinal 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC) OK. Our template is older than {{Skiptotoctalk}} and I think we copied the code from somewhere. I'll look into fixing it myself or see how other templates older than Skiptotoctalk have got round the problem. --kingboyk 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC) OK, good. Thanks. — John Cardinal 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) It seems that changing the div name breaks the formatting (not too surprisingly). I imagine we could get round that by adding some css style elements but I'm not sure. If we can't, then the other alternative is to ask whoever created {{Skiptotoctalk}} to fix it for us as our template came first and they broke it :) I suspect though that User:Lar will know how to fix it, so I'll pop over and ask him. --kingboyk 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Let's hear what he says. I don't think the issue is {{skiptotoctalk}}. It doesn't define "toc", it references it via something like [[#toc|Skip to Table of Contents]]. That's not an exact quote, but I hope it makes the point. It can't skip to the ToC any other way; that's the ID of the ToC. The conflict is between the ToC code (created by, I presume, MediaWiki) and Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/To do. Any facility that references the "toc" ID will not work reliably; IDs in HTML are supposed to be unique per page. Regarding the formatting, the CSS file for WikiPedia uses the #toc rule to tie the formatting rules to the ToC, and so it's not surprising that the formatting gets broken when you change it. I am pretty handy with CSS, and can fix that part. I was unsure about how the show/hide stuff worked and to tell the truth I didn't even look. Generally speaking, that stuff is not hard to do. Do you want me to give this a go? I'd change the ID, copy the formatting from the WikiPedia CSS, and then figure out how to make the show/hide stuff works. Get back to me about that after you here from User:Lar. — John Cardinal 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I hear what you're saying. If you can fix it, please go right ahead. I'm quite busy at the moment anyway. --kingboyk 16:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ah, such a simple change and all working perfectly. Thanks John. --kingboyk 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) If you all know what to do, I'd say do it. Div is not my strong point, but I thought toc was a style in our css already. I think the onus is on the new {{Skiptotoctalk}} creator to fix what they did. Aren't a lot of other templates going to be affected? everyone and their brother cribbed from our code over the past months. Our fix would need to be replicated a lot, no? Seems bad. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I was thinking that. Nonetheless the remedy proved ridiculously simple! :) --kingboyk 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, remedy was simple, but lots of things are easy once you find out what to do! :-) I just had to discover that ".toc" was on the same CSS rules as "#toc", and then make sure that the show/hide stuff was not affected. The heading for the To Do list, which includes a title and "Edit or discuss these tasks" looked too small after the edit; no reason why they should have changed but there are a lot of wrapped DIVs and the "<small>" tag is relative, so I changed that in favor of setting the size via CSS to "font-size: small;". If that is not acceptable, let me know and I'll change it. It might be too big now. — John Cardinal 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Don't worry John, if it's broken or folks don't like the look we'll hear the complaints soon enough. --kingboyk 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Your bot request I think you withdrew that a bit hastily. We have a duty to cover all bases, but I'm sure provided the transclusion limits weren't hit it would ultimately have been approved. --kingboyk 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC) If the bot approval process is going to become as pedantic as RfA, I'm not interested. Thanks – Qxz 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC) You're welcome. --kingboyk 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC) AWB learning curve Might you be able to point me in the right direction so I can successfully download the file pages_articles.xml.bz2? Please see here for a more complete explanation of how I am stuck. Thanks. Keesiewonder talk 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC) That's a mighty big file, if you're using something like a web browser or an old ftp client I'd try something more modern like Filezilla. Beyond that I'm not really sure what the problem is, sorry. --kingboyk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Filezilla would probably have done it. I didn't get it to work on my first couple of tries and before I got further someone else suggested flashget which worked! The download appears to have been successful ... and the file is unzipping now. Hope I'm not going to jinx it by saying this ... Thanks --Keesiewonder talk 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Bot request I've replied at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Antischmitzbot. Essentially I'm happy for someone else's bot to do it but it would obviously be more convenient for the wikiprojects (and me as I'm usually the one doing the requests) if we could have the bot. I would appreciate some dialogue as to why the application is unacceptable. thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 2 Whatever happened to that? Abandoned? --kingboyk 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Basically, yeah. It was producing too many false positives (i.e. archive pages, etc.) to be useful at all. —METS501 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I was thinking of having my plugin add {{Db-botnomain}} to orphaned talk pages it finds. As it does WikiProject tagging false positives should be less. However, there's no point wasting my time. What do you think? Just forget it? --kingboyk 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) How would your plugin encounter a non-existent page? Wouldn't the plugin only be directed to articles in a category? —METS501 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Yes but when doing a large job like Category:Living people it still hits (and skips!) talk pages which don't have articles any more. Quite a lot of stuff gets deleted you know :) That said, I don't think I'll bother adding this. It was an old item on the todo list but since your idea didn't work I'll just remove it. --kingboyk 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Recover page Hello Kingboyk, I would like to ask you to recover the deleted page Gay Nigger Association of America, for my curiosity of the controversy. I promise I will not recreate the article or permenantly store it in userspace. You may also send it to me by email user. thank you! Wooyi 01:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Gosh I didn't know that had gone. I don't suppose there's any harm in sending you a copy by email, but please don't post it on Wikipedia. --kingboyk 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) GNAA page Thank you for sending me the copy of the deleted GNAA article. Wow that was long. lol. I will not put it on Wikipedia I promise. It was deleted in the 18th nomination. I can say it is one of the most controversial AFD ever occured in wikipedia. Wooyi 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Yes indeed. I'm glad it's gone - how did I miss that?! --kingboyk 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) $20 Didn't take long - perhaps we can negotiate some kind of future 'good bot-husbandry' credits? I note the generic template requires a few fields to work correctly - I've no problem with the 'attention=' field but the 'needs-infobox=' might cause some upset - I know there's quite a few architecture editors who are really opposed to the idea of infoboxes cluttering up their nicely designed pages so I'd rather not include it - quite a few urban studies articles are about pretty abstract concepts so I'm not sure an infobox would ever be appropriate - I take it my option then is to not use the generic template and to set AWB to skip talk pages already with the {{planning string and then to prepend {{planning}}? --Antischmitzbot 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I'm off to bed, but a quick reply: for tagging with bot mode you don't need attention or infobox parameters. Glancing quickly at your template it seems fine for use as a "generic template". Yes, the other option is pretty much as you say. If you want me to provide a settings file I can do it but not now as I'm knackered :) nite. --kingboyk 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I did a few test using the prepend method on the sandbox and it seemed ok - I just ran it through 10 articles in Category:Urban studies and planning - and that seemed ok too. I'll trial the first 50 edits with this method and then have a look at the 'generic template' method. cheers. --Antischmitzbot 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Beginners goof - I forgot to switch the list to 'talk' for 10 edits - i've reverted the damage, rapped my knuckles and move on a wiser man.....sorry. --Antischmitzbot 02:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Ok, that's my 100 (approx. - there's some skipped) test edits done - I've had it working with both methods and other than the initial goof (above) it seems to be working ok - I'll report this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Antischmitzbot. --Antischmitzbot 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Hey Hey. About to head to bed, but any chance of a block on that SPA troll HarryHasAnEgo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? also, I'd watch for more such trolls. This has happened before, also with Betacommand, at ANI. – Chacor 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Looking into it, thanks. --kingboyk 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC) There's probably something about it in my talk archive 7 and on Ryanpostlethwaite's (sp) talk page/archive. Cheers for the help. Off to bed now, heh. – Chacor 18:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I asked another admin for a second opinion, and he blocked him. --kingboyk 19:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Your concerns about the Guantaamo articles You and User:Crzrussian exchanged a bunch of concerns over the articles on the Guantanamo captives last August. In the discussion when Crz nominated them for a mass-deletion, I think I satisfied your joint concern that they were all "identical". I also told everyone that I was working my way throghh them, further individualizing them from the transcripts from their Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings. I told everyone that I expected to have further individualized all of them by Christmas. I see you are adding those biography templates to them now. Having read through them again now, are there any unsatisfied concerns you care to raise? -- Geo Swan 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, nice to hear from you again. Only my bot read them, and it read the talk pages only :) However, since you ask I'll take a look, but it probably won't be today as I have a bit of a backlog of things to do as well as a bot to keep an eye on. --kingboyk 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC) OK, thanks. as your time permits then... Geo Swan 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Mail Ding! I believe that "You've got mail!" -- Jreferee 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) I thought I heard a beep! Bit too busy to check it now. Since you're here: I've just added the baronetcy parameter and - as a result of my discussion with them - a peerage parameter too. I ran extensive tests in my sandbox but obviously with a major change on a heavily used template I'm still a bit nervous, so if you'd care to run some tests too that would be great. I'll also need some help getting those two projects to look like WPBio workgroups (a la British Royalty and WP Musicians) if you're interested. --kingboyk 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC) When I find some free time, I'll give a hand. The RfA and my other commitments are keeping me busy. -- Jreferee 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Baronets work group That is great. Thank you. Please might we have an image; I suggest [1]. And it would be terrific if a bot could go through all the baronets and baronetcies adding the template. I have no idea how to use a bot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC) I'm shattered, so I'll test that image and attend to it tommorow. Looks good at first glance. Do you have one for WP Peerage too? --kingboyk 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC) I do understand. Maybe the peers would like [2] - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Not sure peerage-work-group is working. See Talk:Charles McLaren, 1st Baron Aberconway - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I set it up to be one or the other, since WP Baronets is a subproject of Peerage. Is he a peer or a baronet? Or is it possible to be both? --kingboyk 14:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC) He is both. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) OK, I'll change the logic later today. Also, you needn't worry about setting up the categories the template has defined, as they have to be set up a special way - I'll either do it manually or write a little program to do it. --kingboyk 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC) The above is all done now. --kingboyk 23:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Please would you cast your bot using Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_the_United_Kingdom and Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_Nova_Scotia and Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_Great_Britain and Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_England and Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_Ireland. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) With pleasure, when my bot has finished it's current task I'll attend to it. --kingboyk 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Please would you embrace in peerage-work-group everybody in Category:Life peers Category:Peers of England Category:Peers of Great Britain Category:Peers of Ireland Category:Peers of the United Kingdom - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Category:Peers of Scotland. --kingboyk 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) What about Category:Peers? Are all the subcategories there suitable for tagging as peerage work group? (I'll need your guidance on this as I'm not an expert on what your projects cover.) --kingboyk 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Partially answering my own question, some of the articles and subcategories of Category:Peerage probably need to be excluded or tagged by hand, so that category isn't suitable for a trawl (but some of the subcategories might be). Maybe best to continue giving me individual categories then. --kingboyk 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) These categories SHOULD embrace everybody. Category:British baronesses Category:Barons in the Peerage of England Category:Barons in the Peerage of Great Britain Category:Barons in the Peerage of Ireland Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom Category:Earls in the Peerage of England Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain Category:Earls in the Peerage of Ireland Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of England Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Ireland Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of Scotland Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of England Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Great Britain Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of Scotland Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of the United Kingdom - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC) OK, and they are all peers, correct? --kingboyk 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Yes. All are peers. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) What about Category:Pre-1876 life peers Yes, Category:Law lords Should be encompassed already, Category:Lords of Parliament Yes, Category:Life peers Yes, and Category:Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales No? --kingboyk 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC) St Albans, St Clements etc are always under S. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I would say royalty is embraced by peerage. But not all peers are royal. So I think the logic is absolutely right. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC) and Category:Representative peers please. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Just doing the last one now (Category:Representative peers, mostly duplicates). Any more, or is that "job done"? --kingboyk 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Preferably peers list-as title, forename, surname, 1st Baron of .... - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) If you have any issues with the listas formatting or want to request a change, please post at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Tools.MakeHumanCatKey. I simply use a function in AWB to add that parameter :) In this case, probably a simple addition of a comma in the code would fix it. --kingboyk 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much indeed. That is extremely useful. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Snowbot Ok, I thought it was ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Not imho, but your edits get hidden as a bot anyway so no real need to mark as minor unless the edit is truly trivial :) Thanks. --kingboyk 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) BAG help I've got an issue I'd love to hear some more on at:Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Another_second_opinion_needed if you have a moment. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC) OTT GA review Are you comparing my review to the one that i got for the Slayer article? The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference - Citations rarely go in the lead, and not for a statement as safe as that. Everybody knows The Beatles had extraordinarily massive success, including even those people who think they are crap. - True, but such a bold claim need a reference even in the lead, i didn't find anything about saying their most successful period was with Brian in the body (direct me if I'm wrong) but information that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced to confirm with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article - Since when has that been needed for GA? - Not a GA requirement but biography articles should have it and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement - Not so much POV as needing a source. - Saying something is highly successful is POV unless backed by a source. and per above likely to be challenged it needs a source as it can be considered POV or OR M3tal H3ad 12:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I'm comparing the first part to that review, yes :) The Beatles were the most legendary musical group of all time, it's totally unquestionable and not a controversial claim in any way. --kingboyk 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Well you need to prove that their most successful period was with Brian, I'm not questioning The Beatles success(whereas this is totally unrelated to the Beatles success) but it says their most successful period was with Brian, all i can see is The Beatles got £25 a week, again i can't see anything in the body but tell me if i missed something. I can let it slide for GA but for FA (which this article is basically ready for) it may come up, and hey at least i didn't fail it because "refs have too many numbers" or "not enough pictures" I'm open to discussion :) M3tal H3ad 12:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Lol, right. You made a good new point at the talk page btw, I just replied there. --kingboyk 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Kingbotk "listas" tagging Moved to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. --kingboyk 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Stats table You may be interested in my post at User_talk:CMummert#Stats table. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Society Barnstar Thank you for your seriously useful hard work on peerage baronetage and other work groups. You and your bot are like the energiser bunny. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks very much! --kingboyk 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Dead people - WP-BIO tagging Hi there. I'm following up the comment you made here about wanting to know about categories of dead people needing WP-BIO tagging. The obvious one is Category:Deaths by year. I assumed you already do regular scans of that one and of Category:Births by year (which would catch living people not in the deaths category). In fact, scanning the births category would catch all the living and dead people who had been categorised that way. I did a brief random look, and discovered several articles without WP-BIO tags, though maybe those are on your list of pending tagging? Anyway, do you need clean lists of those that definitely don't have tags, or is it enough to have a list of those that should have tags, and you (or rather AWB) can somehow detect if it has a tag already, and move onto the next one in the list? Carcharoth 12:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I can indeed filter out those which are already tagged. A list clean of false positives (lists, other junk which isn't biographical) is all I need, preferably with category names so that I can put the category name into the edit summary. No, I don't scan those categories routinely: with over 100,000 articles in Cat:Living people it's a job enough keeping on top of that! :) --kingboyk 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Also, if stub categories are seperate I can apply class=Stub|auto=yes too. --kingboyk 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Don't think the stub categories are there for this, but you could look yourself. Carcharoth 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Well, I don't mind rummaging through Category:Deaths by year to generate a list. I've always wanted to find out if the dead outnumber the living on Wikipedia... :-) Is there an easy way to find out how many articles are in a category and all its subcategories? Carcharoth 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The easiest way is probably to use AWB. Load the contents of the category, and then select the subcategories, right click and select add to list from category. Repeat until you've hit the bottom of the "tree". Expect to get a mighty big list though! --kingboyk 12:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) That is similar to what I do already with Special:CategoryTree. It is the expanding of the categories that is annoying. Is there an "expand all" option in AWB? Carcharoth 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) No there isn't, but you could request it! --kingboyk 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Looking at it, the deaths by year categories seem quite well organised. If you want you can hold off on making a list; I'll take a closer look later and if I can do it without too much fuss I'll generate the list myself. --kingboyk 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Aw. But I'm already up to 47 BC - I'll be stumbling across Caesar soon... :-) I'll keep going for a bit, and see how I do. Carcharoth 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Hehe, no worries. --kingboyk 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) OK. The 'BC' articles are at User:Carcharoth/Deaths by year. Unfortunately, the cut and paste didn't preserve the tree structure, so it is no longer clear which articles are in which categories (the articles in the last subcategory of a parent category will be listed with the articles (if any) in the parent subcategory). I did save an HTML version of the expanded category tree, and that has the tree structure still there. Maybe there is a way of extracting the code so the levels in the tree structure can be parsed to get the list you ultimately want (including the correct category name). There were 935 articles in the Category Tree on people who died in or before 0 BC. If the list is useable, would you be able to tell me how many didn't have WP-BIO tags? Carcharoth 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I'll look at that later then. Bot is currently busy. --kingboyk 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Stupid animal death categories... Category:Racehorse deaths by year. Grr! Carcharoth 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Lol, be a sport and remove them from that tree would you. They shouldn't be in the people categories, of course :) --kingboyk 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) They've been tangled in at the year level. See Category:18th century racehorse deaths, Category:19th century racehorse deaths, Category:20th century racehorse deaths, and Category:21st century racehorse deaths. The nice little template there allows all the year categories to be identified, but its over 100 that need removing from the "X deaths" categories. I don't have the time to do that (don't have AWB). Could you put this on a list somewhere? Maybe create "Animal deaths by year" as well, though I can't think of animals other than racehorses that would be recorded this way. Carcharoth 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Post it as a request for assistance at WT:WPBIO? Or at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people? --kingboyk 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Do you still look at the bio-stubs as well? I came across an article with a bio stub on it, but no WP-BIO tag. Alice Perrers. Carcharoth 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I can't do it all man! :) Bio articles total at least quarter of a million, perhaps half a million! My plugin is available for others to use, so perhaps we could organise some methodical tagging? (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Automation for an out of date page but still a suitable venue.) User:PlangeBot used to help out but alas Plange isn't active at the moment :( --kingboyk 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC) It is a big task, isn't it. How did you come up with your 40,000 list? I suppose some obvious categories could be listed and marked for regular checking. As the numbers increase though, the checking will take longer. Let me know how useful the list I made is, and then I'll see what I can do to help after that. Carcharoth 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I loaded the entire living people category, and then cross-referenced it against Category:Biography articles of living people to remove the articles which already have living=yes. --kingboyk 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I suppose what I am looking for is an entire list of articles labelled with the WP-BIO tag, regardless of whether they are living or dead. What is the easiest way to generate that? Use "what links here" for the WP-BIO template tag (mainspace talk transclusions only), or is there a single category for that? Carcharoth 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) There's no longer a catch-all category, no. The best way would be to use "what transcludes here" in AWB then filter out all namespaces except Talk:. --kingboyk 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Hmm. I'm going to have to take the plunge and get this AWB thingy, aren't I? :-) Carcharoth 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) It would seem so, yes :) --kingboyk 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Of course, some articles have only been created recently, such as Mark Shields (police-officer). Do you tend to allow time for articles to settle, and possibly be AfD'd, before tagging them? Carcharoth 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Nope, that would necessitate checking the page history and it wouldn't be worth the resources. They get tagged, new or old. The only check I perform is that the article is still there - with a big run like Category:Living people it's not unusual to get to an article which has already been deleted since I made my list. In that case the bot skips it. --kingboyk 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I'll probably look at this tomorrow. Just finished tagging peerage/baronetcies, with living people still underway, and would like an evening off :) --kingboyk 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Did you ever get a chance to look at User:Carcharoth/Deaths by year? No rush, but just a polite reminder. :-) Carcharoth 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS. Click edit and use the original wikicode, as that is more list-y. Carcharoth 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Yes I did, and I didn't find it to be in a format which was very useful, sorry (not criticising, just saying how it is :)). I'm actually tagging dead people categories now (Special:Contributions/Kingbotk), building the lists one century at a time. So far so good, the deaths by year categories seem quite well organised. I've also made progress on the racehorses issue, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#Animals_in_the_people_categories and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 8, your comments would be particularly welcome at the bot approval request. --kingboyk 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict!) No problems. As long as the tagging gets done, that's the main thing! Do you have a way of finding out how many untagged articles you tagged in those categories? Hundreds? Thousands? Will the Assessment Drive gains be wiped out (as they should be...)? <evil grin> Carcharoth 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I could have made a note about the numbers as I did them, but of course I didn't :). However, my bot logs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Automation/Logs (except when it crashes, of course!) so you can get a rough idea of the numbers from there. I'd estimate it's a couple of thousand so far, with several thousand more queued up; small beer compared to the 34,000 living people I tagged last month, but bear in mind I haven't got to the more recent deaths yet. (Currently at 12th century, with 13th to 16th queued up). --kingboyk 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Ah, but half those living people will be deemed non-notable after they die (and many before they die) and will be quietly consigned to the wiki-dustbin of history! :-) Though having said that, some of these dead people from hundreds of years ago are hardly any more interesting. I suppose our age, if reliable sources survive for future generations to use, will be incredibly well (maybe too well) documented. And the information overload will only get worse in the future. Carcharoth 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Absolutely. But OTOH, being able to select and filter information is going to be vital for this generation and beyond. --kingboyk 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Looks like it's already over 5000. 19thC deaths has 24,000 articles in it's subcategories, about 3/4 of which so far are getting edited by my bot (476 processed, 112 skipped; 132 of those talk pages were empty (redlink)). I daresay 20th century, which I'm building now, will be bigger. Bear in mind, of course, that 24,000 is a drop in the ocean compared to the 150,000 or so in Living people! --kingboyk 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Finding redirects using AWB A long, long time ago (well, probably only a few months ago, but an eon in wiki-time), I asked someone about whether redirects could be found using AWB (similar to the "what transcludes here", but asking "what redirects here" instead - ie. filtering the what links here by "redirect" instead of "transclusion"). I think it must have been you I asked. Did that ever get implemented (I don't think I ever got round to requesting it)? Carcharoth 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I requested that too, and yes the feature is now present. --kingboyk 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Ah. I was just searching Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual, but only found an ignore option (though that could be inverted quite easily). Is this what you meant, or have I missed something? Carcharoth 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Though I did find something under the notes for version 3.1.2.0 - "New option to add articles to list from redirects." - is that it? Carcharoth 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Dunno, but the docs aren't always up to date. Trust me, the feature is there. --kingboyk 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) OK. That's cool. I've also requested the "expand all" feature and been told it is there! Thanks for all the advice today. I've got a lot to go away and think about. Happy AWBing! Carcharoth 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC) AutoWikiBrowser In response to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser%2FCheckPage&diff=116307634&oldid=116220335 : Here is my User page on Commons: commons:User:ALE! Cheers! --ALE! 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks mate, but you've already been added! :) Enjoy AWB and let me know if you have any questions. --kingboyk 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Reiko Ike Hi! I see your bot has tagged my article on Reiko Ike as a start class. I was hoping that you could add some suggestions at the talk page so that I could improve the article. Thanks in advance for your help. Konczewski 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) My bot isn't clever enough to assess articles, but it would be cool if it was :) The assessment was done by User:Doctor Sunshine. If you'd like to get some feedback on your article, please ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review. --kingboyk 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) {WPB} Hey! Thanks for letting me know about the change t the template. I just charge ahead until somoneone whacks me upside the head! Happy trails! Schmiteye 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Hors de combat ? Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Biography_(baronets)_articles_by_quality_statistics - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Looks like you have some assessing to do :) --kingboyk 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC) article on Tracey Moberly (Sanders-Wood) speedydeleted - why? your summary suggests "not notable" or "article about a person, group, company, or website that does not assert the importance of the subject..." The subject is notable. I was about to expand this entry and add information regarding a lengthy entry on Tracey Moberly in the recently published 2-volume encyclopaedia "Artists in Britain since 1945"[3] also a full page article on TM in the Independent newspaper [4], BBC news website articles [5] etc [6]. A TV programme is also due to be broadcast on BBC3 tomorrow night. Can you reinstate it? Or is it more effective for me to post a new article (how can i be sure that won't just get deleted again?). This is the first article i've entered on wikipedia, i'm new to the process.. / Redart 09:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) There wasn't any clear assertion of notability. Yes, you're free to post again and if you feel she is notable please do. Just make sure you assert notability (WP:BIO) and provide sources (WP:RS). Hope that helps. --kingboyk 11:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Jalabi99 Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what he wants. (I think he is trying to figure out what he wants.) If he does want it restored, DRV is exactly where he'd get directed, if he just wants a personal copy, he can get that off any number of web mirrors. There's nothing personal intended about it, and I certainly hope you don't take it that way, just pointing a new user in the right direction. I'm certainly always glad to see someone ask for guidance rather than disruptively recreating articles or the like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) If you were to give him a userfied copy, accompanied with a stern warning that using it to recreate the deleted list will be considered disruptive, I think that might solve the whole thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Okie dokie, will do. Thanks for your help. --kingboyk 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, I just wanted to interject an apology for not letting you know sooner about this case as I was doing a lot of the talking with Jalabi99. Since anyone can raise an advocacy case to get some help or just someone to talk to, I didn't feel that I should contact you about the case until I had a go ahead from Jalabi99. I hope it's clear that we're just trying to help out and give advice, and that we're try not to let it fall into the state of a complaint forum. I think he probably raised the advocacy case because he thought one of your comments was a little on the snarky side: "Furthermore, what's with adding the list as a "see also" on every article about a person of mixed race hetitage? Why on earth would somebody reading about Mariane Pearl think "you know what, I'd love to read about other people of mixed race"? Is it such a defining characteristic that it's why folks would be reading about her in the first place? Of course not. So now I have to go remove all these red links! --kingboyk 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC) " He may have just been put off a bit, thinking an admin was yelling at him. That's just my take on it. Thanks for giving him a copy of the list though. Hopefully that'll do it. Also, since this is all on topic, I wanted to get permission from you to copy these messages into the discussion section since we're supposed to be keeping records. Thanks and sorry for any trouble or (hopefully only) minor headaches this may have caused. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the message. I understand your position, thank you for taking the time to clarify it. I was yelling, because I had to go remove links which imho shouldn't have been there! :) Perhaps I should have been a little more delicate, but live and learn. The central issue remains - whether or not it was a good closure - but since nobody else has said it was bad - and the topic is at AN - I presume it was ok. WRT to archiving my messages elsewhere, I'd prefer that you didn't, although technically I can't stop you if you comply with the GFDL! --kingboyk 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm very very new to all this AMA stuff and I'm doing my best NOT to act like a lawyer (which is a tad against my nature since I'm studying to become one:-P). In general, I'm doing my best to just point people in the right direction and just get people talking. Personally, I think the AfD was handled properly (if fact I wish some of the ones I participate in would get closed as nicely:-D), so I was more aiming at his complaints about civility since that's easy enough to resolve (although I have another case where someone refuses to say "I'm sorry" for whatever reason) and since there is an established method for handling deletion disputes. So unless Seraphimblade thinks otherwise, I'm just going to write a little closing summary to the discussion and hopefully we're all good to go. Thanks and sorry again for all the irking:-P! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Don't worry about it. I can see you're acting in good faith. I should probably be apologising to you, since my post about it to the admins noticeboard has kicked off a bit of a storm! (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, and my message at User_talk:Seraphimblade#.5B.5BWP:AMA.7CAssociation_of_members.27_advocates.5D.5D) --kingboyk 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Database warning OH NOES!!!1 ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) No troubles Of course not! If there really is widespread dissatisfaction with how things are going, no one is served by that keeping on simmering below the surface. I think there are some problematic issues that need addressing (I already removed a couple of comments from the front page that someone pointed out on AN, regarding lawyers and "not being subject to external control"). That's exactly why we talk about things. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Indeed. This has obviously been simmering away under the surface for some time. --kingboyk 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Looks like I picked a great time to get into the middle of this, hehe. But yeah, no worries all around. We should all just go and get a pint:-P. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Mine's a London Pride. A Wadworths Farmers Glory would be preferable but alas I think they no longer brew it :( --kingboyk 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Just asked Kim as well, but you seem pretty reasonable. It appears the MfD is indeed going to result in shutdown-I'm not sure that's even necessarily a bad thing, a lot of the complaints are well-founded and serious. I was asking Kim, and would like to ask you as well-would you be willing to help with a new proposal that might provide the good effects, while addressing and eliminating the problems raised like lawyering and bureaucracy? I've got a userspace draft started if you'd like to comment or edit away at it. (My pint has to come from here by the way, there's a place down the street that brews their own, best stuff in the world though.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Bot request 2 Please would you change importance to priority in WikiProject Business & Economics. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) and WikiProject History of Science. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC) and WikiProject France. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're asking. Have they all switched to "priority" or do you unilaterally want them to? I have work queued up for WP Bio, and I don't have any code written to do this particular job. If there's consensus to do it, and if it's a useful change (neither of which I'm convinced of at this stage), perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests? --kingboyk 11:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) r842 [7] Why does your plugin need to get the string "Total nudges: "? Shouldn't it need the number of nudges, if anything? —METS501 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Yes it should, but by getting the label I can attach to the TextChanged event, so that I can update the label which used to display the nudge count from my nudge timer. --kingboyk 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, that and constants are good :) --kingboyk 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Username blocks Simontinks (talk · contribs) looked to me to be a play on "Simonstinks", which is why I blocked. Keep the cabal alive! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC) The Grid & GDM Three months late, but I agree with your taking Misty Woods out of the infobox for The Grid. I've given Misty Woods her own article (which at the moment is a mess of redlinks, since as well as her "mainstream" work with the Ju Ju Babies, Dave Ball & Ed Ball she's been involved in some very iffy indie projects on the side). I've not made a separate article for The Grid & GDM yet, as they've stopped touring under that name and are about to change their name (probably to Barebacker, but not yet decided), and it will make more sense to have any article under the new name. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Question "Trolls just like to troll. Wikipedia doesn't have an unfair elite either. In fact, it's ridiculously easy to become an admin and part of the "elite" here. Just follow the rules and guidelines, put some time and effort in, get to know the other admins, and you're in. Piece of cake." Sorry to be naive but I don't understand this comment as it pertains to Arbitration. Perhaps there is a distinction between "Troll" and "Sock Puppet"? And how does the unfair elite come in? Maybe I am not following the postings carefully enough. I'm not understanding your comment. Could you explain it to me? Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC) He was saying that admins get special favour, and also that there's an unfair elite here. I took that to mean admins (it's easy to become one, we're not a closed community). Perhaps he meant arbitrators. I don't know. --kingboyk 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Phaedriel Hey, thanks for cleaning up User:Phaedriel's talk page. I was thinking of doing it but I didn't get around to it. I remember when a left about a year ago, my talk page was filled with messages about orphaned images, newsletters and whatnot and it was annoying. So, thanks and I hope you do that with my page, if I decide to leave again. :) MahangaTalk to me 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, it's depressing to come back to a load of old messages isn't it. Hopefully the cleanup will discourage new messages and reduce the stress on her if she does come back. --kingboyk 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Billy Graham I'm sorry to say that the comic-book artist Billy Graham (comics) has been deceased for nearly 10 years. Please see the quote from his frequent collaborator Don McGregor within the Graham article itself. I've changed this back once with a notation in the edit summary to see the article, so I admit I'm confused why you changed it back. Thanks -- Tenebrae 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC) That's an easy one to answer :) Cheers. --kingboyk 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Kurtis Mantronik After cleaning up and expanding a pretty sparse article (see Talk:Kurtis Mantronik), I was hoping for AT LEAST a "B" grade on the article, yet it was graded as a "Start." Could you please tell me why you believe it is a Start, and perhaps give me some ideas as to how to upgrade the article to the next level (B or above)? Thanks in advance! Sundevilesq 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC) It wasn't me who assessed it. According to the talk page history it was NPswimdude500 (talk · contribs). --kingboyk 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) DEFAULTSORT Moved to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. --kingboyk 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Please don't When running your bot, please don't move the {{reqphotoin}} template to the bottom of the page - this is a request, so it should remain above the "statements" like wikiproject banners. Also, when there's just one short WikiProject banner like {{Project Iowa}}, please leave it on top - when moved to the bottom, it can't be seen, but when at the top, both the WikiProject Biography and the original banner can be seen. (See Talk:Ralph Watts for an example of when the bot did this). --Tim4christ17 talk 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) The only movement in that edit was WPBio to the top, because of the living persons warning. That is the most important template on the page, by clear consensus. The only other movements my bot does is talkheader to top and skiptotoctalk to top. HTH. --kingboyk 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Assistance Would you be able to add a facility for List class per the bio project for the {{HMM}} template and create such a category? Some unassessed articles are just lists and wouldn't qualify for classification. LuciferMorgan 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) If you can't then that's ok, though I'd be grateful for any help. LuciferMorgan 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, been busy (I'm now an AWB dev too!) but, yes, I'll do that for you if you think it's a good idea. Shouldn't lists be assessed like other articles? They can get featured after all. --kingboyk 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I see your point, so I withdraw the request. Thanks for being of help though. LuciferMorgan 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) pls check I have re-initiated the case on my sockpupptry case in admin noticeboard[8] started by some of the victim of the case:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. There is something odd in this sockpupptry decision. Pls check. -- Sundaram7 06:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I don't have checkuser access, sorry. --kingboyk 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I started this discussion with you here because you were involved in a discussion with the user who posted the case in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. The user had provided all the necessary information that you requested for. But after that nobody including you didn't follow-up on this request. Hope that you will get some time to check this item in the [9], not the check user requestWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. Sundaram7 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I guess I'm in good company I noticed you used AFD to comfirm consensus on a speedy deletion. I also did it, but I had misgivings that it was not allowed until I noticed that you did it, and you're more experianced. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Hi, thanks for the message. I don't know if removing speedy deletion tags is allowed for non-admins, but I don't see any reason why not if you replace it with an AFD notice in good faith. As you say, if a CSD is borderline it's better to test consensus than just zap it. --kingboyk 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Persondata Could your bot redirect links to Persondata to the target page? Should be deleted as a cross namespace redir. Saves me 10 minutes. Cheers. --kingboyk 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done —METS501 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Biographies I don't know if there's a guideline page and I don't have time to write one, sorry. Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Biographies, hopefully somewhere than can point you in the direction of some guidelines. --kingboyk 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Succession box Moved to Template_talk:WPBiography#Succession_box. --kingboyk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Bot question What does your bot do with names like O'Byrne, when adding living person template? This is in relation to AWB bug found here Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Defaultsort_and__O.27_names(Gnevin 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)) My bot calls the function Tools.MakeHumanCatKey (or something like that) in AWB's WikiFunctions library, so it'll likely give the same results as AWB. I just finished a big run through Category:Living people, so if you have a look at the bot contribs (Kingbotk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) you may well be able to find an example... --kingboyk 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Canvassing On several XfDs I have been essentially flamed for protesting what I considered to be inappropriate and partisan canvassing. Of course on the AMA MfD but also on a conspiracy-theory AfD (that I can remember). Upon thinking about it, I don't think that people realize that, essentially, any message is canvassing unless it is to a neutral board like VP or AN. Of course users will find out that a page they particularly like is up for consideration on their watchlists, but that is simply a common courtesy. It is entirely frustrating: I wish there were consensus to unilaterally remove such messages. Oh, and if someone comes here to adds flames to this conversation, don't bother replying. Contact me via e-mail if you wish. --Iamunknown 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) My previous comment made it look like I was merely complaining. I did not intend that. I guess I have one question: Is there consensus to remove and enforce removal of obvious canvassing? --Iamunknown 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I'll answer tommorow (it's curry night! :)) but "probably not" would be the answer for now... --kingboyk 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) It's moot now the MFD has closed, but my take is that maneuvers like that would need consensus sought on a case by case basis, probably at WP:ANI. --kingboyk 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Squinty Joe Oh dear Lord, you couldn't have told me that THREE years ago?? Never mind buddy, it's a pain but the end is in sight now - I'm on the home stretch. Only a month or so left and then I'm ditching it forever. Law students, fucking timewasters.--Crestville 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Kingdom of Vestria Just noticed the close of the debate, however, Spanish Wikipedia has a similar article which might have to be looked at. JRHorse 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Do you mean for deletion? I don't speak Spanish nor do I have admin rights there, I'm sorry. --kingboyk 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I already figured out the reason why it's there, and probably will still stay there :) JRHorse 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Lol, yeah, me too :) --kingboyk 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your special assistance The da Vinci Barnstar Through the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, 44,324 articles were assessed, reducing the number of unassessed articles by an astounding 33% - from 135,345 to 91,021. In addition, many of the assessed articles further were linked to the appropriate work groups, significantly improving the chance that these articles will be improved. Without the assistance of the bots/scripts and rapid technical responses by Outriggr and yourself, the assessment drive would not have achieved such significant results. For your enhancement of Wikipedia through your technical work in the assessment drive, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The da Vinci Barnstar. -- 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I think in terms strictly of numbers I hindered rather than helped (due to tagging so many thousands of new articles), but I'll gladly accept anyway :) Much appreciated, thank you. --kingboyk 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Wrong listas parameter for Chinese names Thread moved to and please reply at User_talk:Kingbotk/Plugin#WPBio_Listas. --kingboyk 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Hey, you made the Signpost! You are mentioned in the lead of a Signpost article beginning with Following a comment by kingboyk ... . Wow! And I knew you way back before you became notable! -- Jreferee 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I'm selling autographs for $20 a pop if you're interested :) --kingboyk 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) {{Talkheader}} Oh right, I never knew that. Thanks for imforming me. -- Mattythewhite 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Outriggr's script Thanks for the heads up on this - looks good. It also appears to have a different usage, being more focused on edits done in passing rather than the concerted batch of updates that AWB and your plugin are so good at. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) And as for you... The Featured Article Medal For outstanding service to all esoteric musical things K, including four featured articles, I award you The Featured Article Medal (note the capitalisation of 'The' and count the letters :-) ). --Vinoir 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I didn't reply to this straight away as I had to think about it... but alas I still don't get it. Help me out please! And thanks for the award, that'll sit very nicely on my user page :) --kingboyk 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Surely you can't miss the reference to the number 23! Congrats on the award! Martin Hinks 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Aha! It was capitalisation of "The" which threw me. What does that mean? --kingboyk 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) It was a pointer to the fact that the letter-counting is of the medal's title and starts with "The". But it was oblique. :) --Vinoir 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Hehe! You rascal! Got it now :) Thanks! --kingboyk 18:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Your AWB plugin Hi Kingboyk, is it possible to remove wikiproject tagging using your plugin? If not, can you suggest me another method for doing it? Happy editing, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Possibly, it depends what you want to do. Can you tell me exactly what it is you want to achieve? --kingboyk 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC) :) I have to remove the templates {{Maths rating}} and {{Math rating}} from around 2150 pages. I've been asked to do so by the project, following a tagging against consensus done by my bot on behalf of Parker007 and a discussion (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Tagging_math_articles and my talk page). I hope it's clear now ;-) What I need is to totally remove the templates from the listed talk pages ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) If you were wanting to replace the template my plugin could probably do it. Since you want to remove them, no it can't. However, standard AWB ought to be up to the job. You'll need a regular expression to match the templates you're deleting, and replace that regular expression with an empty string. Please ask at WT:AWB if you need any help with the regex. Hope that helps! :) --kingboyk 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Unwanted changes in The Beatles article Your recent(drastic) rv to The Beatles article was certainly warranted(minus the leftover vandalism that had to be removed). But the same user who keeps tanking the article with mass changes...without discussion....has continued to add/alter content which, by my best observation, slaps concensus and previous discussion. If you have time could you return to that article for review. I've rv'd it already a couple of times this eve(simple V rv's) I will not shade 3RR just to keep it neat n tidy. Ahoy! 156.34.230.161 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Sounds fair enough. I'll take a look later, cheers. --kingboyk 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) No need for bot Unless I'm mistaken, this solved everything, and there was no need for my bot :-) —METS501 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Oic... heh... sorry! --kingboyk 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) No problem :-) —METS501 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC) AWB I have the most recent version of AWB, but I can't find any sort of plugins menu. -- Scorpion 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)