Wikipedia

User talk:The Earwig/Archive 7

< User talk:The Earwig
Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Where is the chart? Puffin Let's talk! 20:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Right here, where it always is. Often there are too many submissions for the chart to transclude properly, so it instead appears in WP:AFC/S as a link. If that happens, just head over to WP:AFC/ST instead. — The Earwig (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bot stopped

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Toolserver status
Last update10:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
MySQL rosemaryup
MySQL daphneup
MySQL yarrowup
Replag s10h 0m 0s
Replag s20h 0m 28s
Replag s30h 0m 21s
Replag s40h 0m 4s
Replag s50h 0m 2s
More statusAvailable here

Hey, just wanted to let you know it seems yon bot has stopped updating the AfC submissions page as of about 6 hours ago. —Darkwind (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be good now. Toolserver maintenance; bot was shut off; had to restart it. Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Earwig, the bot appears to have stopped updating the template again. Although, it's continuing to perform other tasks. Task 2 appears to be running normally, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Could you take a look? Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey; I'm aware of this. It's due to the very high replication lag currently on the Toolserver's s1 (see right), the server EarwigBot uses to get information about submissions. The bot refuses to update if lag is high, because this indicates the server is overloaded and I don't want to exacerbate the situation. Even if I did force it to run, the data on the server is too old to be of use in the template. We'll have to wait until the lag goes down. Unfortunately, in this specific instance, it could take a week or more, according to someone's estimate. There's absolutely nothing I can do in the meantime, but the bot will start working as soon as the situation clears up. Sorry about this! — The Earwig (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize Earwig, can't be helped. Thanks for explaining :) Pol430 talk to me 08:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

UTRS account request

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. — The Earwig (talk)

I've approved your account. Thanks for volunteering. Enjoy!--v/r - TP 01:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EarwigBot

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, query - Is Bot Task 8 still running on the Bot? I'm asking because theres a discussion atm regarding categories on AfC submissions, and I thought the bot delinked them on declined ones, but doesn't seem to have done any since July last year? - Happysailor (Talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Bot Task 1 doesnt seem to be running either? - Happysailor (Talk)
Hey. I know about the issue w/ task 1; unfortunately I've been very busy lately and haven't yet had a chance to finish up the few bits of code that still need fixing. With regards to cat delinking, I'm not sure. It's one of the few tasks I haven't ported over to the new bot framework, so once I have a chance to do that, it should be back to working. I'm not at my computer right now so I can't check to see what the actual problem is, but I'll take a look later and hopefully roll out a quick fix in the meantime before I port it over. I also checked the AfC thread, and my personal opinion is that categories should be delinked only if submissions are declined (which is done by adding a colon like mentioned, and by {{tl}}-ing any templates which transclude categories), which is what the bot does. By keeping pending subs categorized, we invite people to review them. This is only my personal opinion though; I don't recall any project-specific policy about it. — The Earwig (alternate) (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries, anything you can do is great, I know all about there not being enough hours in the day...  . - Happysailor (Talk) 00:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyright Violation Detector

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I see that User:CorenSearchBot switched from Google to Yahoo and is running agin. I was wondering if you had any plans on updating your Copyright Violation Detector. I've found it to be an incredibly helpful tool and much more easy to use than CorenSearchBot in manual mode. Thanks. 64.40.60.41 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your support of the tool  ; I'm glad some people still remember when it worked. Yep, I'm aware of CorenSearchBot working once again, and I got a key for Yahoo's new API from Coren a while ago. I'm in the midst of implementing the tool once again. It's very close to being finished; hopefully I'll get it done within the next two weeks as I have time off from work. — ⊥ɥǝ Ǝɐɹʍıƃ (ʇɐlʞ) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've also stuck an update on the old copyvio page about recent progress, since it hasn't been updated in a while. The new tool will be at tools:~earwig/copyvios when I'm done (currently it has most of the early interface but it doesn't actually check for copyvios yet). — ⊥ɥǝ Ǝɐɹʍıƃ (ʇɐlʞ) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very kindly. BTW, I love the new interface. It looks great. 64.40.57.130 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikimedia events in June and July: bot users, script writers, & template and Gadget makers wanted

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you!!!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Thank you!!!
A volunteer from the chat room asked for your help in correcting my article about The West Virginia Healthy Lifestyles Act of 2005 and you helped right away. Thank you!!! Marcie Walker (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. Welcome to Wikipedia! — The Earwig (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Science lovers wanted!
 
 Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abie Flinstone

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was this deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abie_Flinstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.21.43 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I didn't delete the article (it's right here), but reverted someone else who accepted it (it was accepted prematurely). Unfortunately, the article still has some problems that will need to be fixed before it can be made live. You can read my comments on the submission page, but essentially you need more reliable sources - a Facebook page, YouTube video, iTunes album, and charts won't do. We're looking for third-party sources that discuss her work in detail, not merely passing mentions. This is needed to prove notability and verify the article's information; you can read a bit more about the notability of musicians here. The article is close to being acceptable, but a bit more work needs to be done first. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions. — The Earwig (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much for taking the time to unblock me. I really appreciate it! Muqman 52 (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is unexpected. Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edit question

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm just curious but why did you do this edit? I asked Tim to add it because it is more useful in biographies. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have linked to the discussion/consensus for removal here. You bring up a good point that Ryan Vesey mentioned in the discussion, but before we consider adding it back, we should probably clarify the BLP-restriction and mention the specific situations in which it should be used. — The Earwig (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I am all for having it, and I really did not think that it would get abused as much as it was. I guess we should have a more thorough training and vetting process for reviewers once they express interest in helping us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

EarwigBot

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, The Earwig I just noticed that that EarwigBot's stopped working. It has last updated Template:AFC statistics at 15:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC).--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... there appears to be some pretty bad server lag going on right now. Not sure what's up specifically, but the bot won't edit if the lag is too high. We'll have to wait for it to calm down. Best, — The Earwig (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems to have been resolved... mostly. We'll see how it goes. — The Earwig (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, for informing. I now see the lag's gone.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Stopped the bot (Task 2) due to a boom!!!--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
No, the lag's there.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
That's just happening because there are too many submissions. MediaWiki doesn't like the fact that it has too many templates to render and just stops after a point. Nothing the bot can do about that; it's not malfunctioning, so I've reenabled the task. — The Earwig (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
...actually, I've also cleared the old declined and accepted submissions from the database, so it should be easier to render at the next save. — The Earwig (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2692 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

 
Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you (at least) autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
AndrewN talk 23:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help. The John Austin (songwriter) page should not have been deleted.

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The following article should not have been deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

All of the information contained in the article "John Austin (songwriter)" is factual. John Austin meets the notability requirements, having worked with many artists of notability, and having released publicly documented works for over 20 years. Paste Magazine has written feature articles on John Austin, and JA's album "Busted at the Pearly Gates" received an honorable mention in Paste Magazine as one of the most important albums of 2002. Please contact Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief Josh Jackson to verify.

Please put the article John Austin (songwriter) back up on Wikipedia. Thank you. 98.117.242.142 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Keep in mind that I just judged existing consensus on the articles for deletion page; the decision to delete was made by other users. While you say the subject meets notability requirements, that wasn't demonstrated in the article itself. It had three references, all of which were self-published primary sources, which are not reliable sources. You are welcome to reference specific sources with links that can be verified (you can do it here if you want) that you think indicate notability, and I'll be happy to reconsider the deletion. — The Earwig (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply!

The Wikipedia article "John Austin (songwriter)" has been in existence for many years. While some of the past links may have broken over time, there are numerous sources that can be found with a little more research. (One reason given for deleting the article was that research was difficult because the name "John Austin" was too common!) There are 20 years of references to the work of John Austin from album credits to credible national magazine reviews -- which can be cited legally. The research seems to have overlooked a few obvious sources, including an editorial from Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief, Josh Jackson:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/high_gravity/2008/08/paste-favorites-with-new-records.html

Paste Magazine issue #2 has a feature article on John Austin, and also includes one of his songs on that issue's CD sampler.

www.pastemagazine.com/images/samplersleeves/Issue2.pdf

Another Paste article features an interview with John Austin on his thoughts about late songwriter Mark Heard:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2003/07/mark-heard.html


This article was deleted because the administrators overlooked 3rd party reliable sources that were better actually than the administrator's research seemed to show.

Would you please help us work through the undeletion process?

98.117.242.142 (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the following does appear in Joe Schreiber's Del Rey/Random House, on the pages cited. The book has not been scanned, so what link should be included to cite the source? Joe Schreiber is a New York Times best-selling author (for his book Star Wars: Death Troopers).

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Joe_Schreiber http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Schreiber/e/B001IU0M4K

Appearances in media

As a fictional character

A fictional tribute to John Austin appears in Joe Schreiber's horror novel, "No Doors, No Windows"[1] (Del Rey Books/Random House, 2009): 

   "What are you drinking? " Red asked. "Let me guess: Budweiser with a Jack Daniel's back."

   But Owen didn't answer, and he didn't take the stool next to Red's. For an instant, he seemed conflicted about which way to go, and then he turned and walked up to the little stage in front of the bar, where the three-piece country bands sometimes played on Friday and Saturday nights. Tonight there was just an acoustic guitar up there, property of a local troubadour named John Austin, currently parked at the other end of the bar nursing a Maker's Mark over crushed ice. The singer wasn't even watching as Owen climbed up onstage, but Sonia was, and so was Red.

   "Whoa, buddy," Red said, half smiling, approaching Owen slowly, like an animal he didn't quite trust. "I don't think you wanna do this, do you?"

   Owen ignored him and looked out at the crowd of curious faces gazing up at him. The pool game had paused, and the players were watching with morbid curiosity as Owen picked up John Austin's guitar and leaned in toward the mike.

(ND,NW pp. 180–81)

98.117.242.142 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good start, but I would like to see a bit more first. The Paste magazine article from 2008 covers Austin, but it's only about a paragraph in a short article about two musicians. The article about Mark Heard doesn't discuss Austin himself, but only a few quotes about his relationship/knowledge of Heard. Neither of these strike me as the significant coverage required for notability; the first one might be, but it doesn't really tell us much about him, nor would it work as a citation for many of the facts in the article (his early life, other albums, and collaborations). Unfortunately, I can't review the feature article on Austin from issue #2, but the PDF for the CD sampler you linked to does not seem to be significant coverage.
Also, I wanted to mention that, regarding the appearance in Schreiber's novel, I see no proof that this is in fact the John Austin of the article. Forgive me, but there doesn't seem to be any indication whether this is an allusion to Austin or just a random fictional musician who shares his name by coincidence. As mentioned by others, it is a common name. Do you have a source showing this was an intentional reference? Best, — The Earwig (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the Paste Magazine article, former links were moved and have now been broken. Until the articles are scanned or located again, I have contact information for the editor-in-chief who can verify the feature article on John Austin in Issue #2.

Re: Joseph Schreiber's mention of John Austin in his novel, I can provide contact information for the author himself who will verify that the fictional character is a tribute to John Austin.

Should I publish the contact information here? Would it be better to send you the information via email? The problem here is that there are verifiable first hand sources that are not yet obvious or easy to find online -- but this does not take away from John Austin's notability in the real world, where many national and international periodicals have not yet been scanned for use in cyberspace.

This Wiki on John Austin (songwriter) has been up for a very long time, it seems unnecessary to delete the article when, for example, notable authors (such as Paste editor-in-chief Josh Jackson and Random House author Joseph Schreiber) can verify John Austin's notability.

Thank you for your assistance, very much appreciated.

98.117.242.142 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, it's not enough for an editor to verify a fact by confirming it through an interview they conduct themselves. This would be considered original research, which is not verifiable. You are absolutely correct that offline sources are acceptable, but they still need to be published in some form. Even if a source is difficult to locate (suppose it's only available from one specific library), it's fine provided the source exists in some persistent manner (i.e., it is published), but an original interview is not. — The Earwig (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping this conversation and entry open. Verifiable sources are available and I will provide these references to you asap. Thank you.

98.117.242.142 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Not appropriate ....

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...as there is already an WP:ANI discussion in progress, the unblock should not have occurred (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied on ANI. — The Earwig (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reopen deleted page discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To The Earwig:

In August 2011, I tried to create a page for conductor Peter Tiboris, the founder of MidAmerica Productions in New York City and the Festival of the Aegean in Syros, Greece. An administrator, Paul A, questioned the content of the post saying the article might have violated the copyright. When I responded that I had written the material, Paul A said that I might lack objectivity because I was too close to the subject. At the time, MidAmerica Productions was actively planning for its upcoming season of concerts in Carnegie Hall and Weill Recital Hall, and I did not have the time to pursue this. Our 2011-12 New York season is coming to an end on June 5, and I would like to reopen the discussion.

Additionally, in searching through Google today for any articles about Peter Tiboris, I discovered that the article I had written, which was never published, had been deleted by Gwen Gale because Peter Tiboris was not a notable subject. I was never in touch with Gwen Gale, and I can't seem to find a way to reach her via her talk page. What is unfortunate is that the notation by Gwen Gale about Mr. Tiboris not being a viable subject is posted on Google as something called Deletipedia.

I would like to rectify this misunderstanding and find out how to create a page that will be acceptable to Wikipedia.

Thank you. Dzeidman (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)DZeidman

Hi there! I reviewed the deleted page at Peter Tiboris and it looks to have been created in 2008 by the user MidAmerica Productions (talk · contribs). Not sure if this is you from the past or someone else, but the deleted article text amounted to this exactly (with three external links): "Peter Tiboris (b. October 31, 1947) is a Greek-American conductor, impresario, founder and Artistic Director of MidAmerica Productions in New York City, which is the largest independent producer of concerts in Carnegie Hall." This is quite different from the article deleted at User:Dzeidman/Peter Tiboris from 2011, which is very similar to http://www.petertiboris.com/bio.html (as you've mentioned). In order to resurrect the article text as you had written it, you must release it under a suitable license for Wikipedia, and if you hold its copyright, this is possible. I would like to point out that it may simply be easier to rewrite the article from scratch, so you can avoid complications with permissions and tailor the text to meet Wikipedia's standards well (particularly neutral point of view and verifiability), but if you have your heart set on the old text, then there are two things that you can do:
I hope this information helps. Again, let me know if you have any further questions, and we'll try to figure this out. — The Earwig (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Proposed deletion of Conférence des Directeurs des Écoles Françaises d'Ingénieurs

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Conférence des Directeurs des Écoles Françaises d'Ingénieurs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:Article Titles#English-language titles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (deletion proposed by Dcshank) 80.13.85.217 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bot flag

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You aproved my bot (KLBot2) [1] but it don't have the flag. Can you check it? --Kizar (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't grant the bot flag since I'm not a bureaucrat. One should come by shortly to add it; should hopefully take less than an hour. — The Earwig (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
And you've got it! — The Earwig (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetset Magazine

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Earwig, can you give me an idea of some reliable sources you might see fit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashmoney2012 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Earwig I have added a source from Warner Bros TV and Forbes Magazine, Thanks!

Cashmoney2012 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Welcome back! Glad to see you active again.   — madman 23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to a productive summer. — The Earwig (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

AfC template

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Earwig, I get the feeling you are back for a period of time. I put a support request in at Mediawiki re: your AfC template too large to display include size is too large. I had a test to turn it on and off, but looks like it is going to be permanently too large now. Looks like no easy way out. Ideas? No more sortable list?  :- ) Don 01:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why this is such a large problem. Sure, it's nice to have through WP:AFC/S, but I just use it directly. — The Earwig (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed rights

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can I know that why did you granted User:Collieman1502 confirmed rights?He provided the reason that he wanted to edit a semi-protected page.I thought that generally Wikipedians are not granted confirmed status just to edit semi-protected pages, instead they could use the edit template on talk page.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, er? Sorry if this isn't standard procedure, but I don't usually work in this area of Wikipedia. The user seems to know what he's doing, and I figured that granting confirmed (which he'll get in a day or two and seven more edits) is less work on our part (and his) than forcing him to propose changes on the article's talk page. I'm watching him anyway to make sure that nothing goes wrong, but it's more in the "wiki spirit", so to speak, to let him do it than require others to do it for him. — The Earwig (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, generally a regular admin there does not grants confirmed rights to edit semi-protected page.There's even a template exists that declines the request just make such edits.For example see this revision.[[2]] and [[3]].I am not sure if it's a stranded way, but I asked only because I show such acceptance of request first time.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No, you're probably right, perhaps it wasn't the best idea. I'll keep this in mind if I ever review another request. It would be strange to remove the right now that he has it! Again, confirmed seems so insignificant as a permission (and autoconfirmed is really quite trivial to obtain) that I'm surprised we don't simply give it out to anyone who demonstrates some minimal level of competence. Best, — The Earwig (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MS Office files Secrity

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please let me know, it is possible to protect whole MS office at a time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.44.252 (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about banning and page deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A user named GolfyRolfyGolfy posted a message to me on a User Talk page (or something to that effect; I'm new and not sure how to say what I mean) that I was banned and should not post unless I wanted to face legal action. Then the page was tagged for speedy deletion (I think that's what it was called), and then I saw that you deleted it. Does this mean I'm not really banned and can still edit pages? I haven't done very much and probably won't do a lot as I don't know a whole lot of things that people would want to know that aren't already here, but I'd still hate to be banned, especially when I don't know why. Lawilson2000 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! You're absolutely not banned, you face no legal action, and the user who added the message was simply being disruptive. He is now blocked from editing. I'm really sorry about the confusion, and I hope this doesn't disuade you from other edits. We were all new once :) — The Earwig (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Humanorah

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Earwig--
You recently declined a page I authored, “humanorah,” for the reason that it’s a neologism. I do appreciate your input, but a humanorah in this context is not a neologism. (i.e. “a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.”) It is a very specific symbol, used by a very specific religious/philosophical group (Humanistic Judaism) that encompasses many congregations and thousands of adherents in the US and Israel. The symbol has already been in use for three decades.

I can appreciate that the name of the symbol makes it sound like a neologism. I can also see that such a topic may be beyond Wikipedia’s purview, and hence not appropriate for inclusion. But if that is the case, it should be for other reasons that it being a neologism.

To make the page a little more clear, I have uploaded a low-quality fair-use image of the symbol in question, and added it. I hope with your input, I can make this page worthy of inclusion. (And thank you for volunteering your time--you must get your share of grief from annoyed contributors.)

Best, Aasmith (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can respect that calling it a neologism was a bit inaccurate. Thank you for understanding. I'm not challenging that it's an important symbol within a certain group; the decline is primarily due to a lack of reliable sources. To deserve a Wikipedia article on its own, the symbol would need to be referred to outside of the organization in some capacity, such as by independent newspapers or magazines – it needs to be notable. WP:42 provides a quick summary of this. I did some brief research before declining and I couldn't find any reliable sources, but you know more about the symbol than I do. If some do exist, please add them and resubmit, and it is much more likely to be created then. If not, feel free to merge the submission with Society for Humanistic Judaism and talk about the symbol there. You can also redirect Humanorah to Society for Humanistic Judaism if Humanorah on its own isn't notable enough to be created. Thanks for your contributions. — The Earwig (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sandbox

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Why have you gone and deleted my Sandbox? --Simfan34 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted your sandbox for two reasons. First, it is a blatant hoax. The 44th and current president of the United States is obviously not a man named David James Anderson, Jr. Also, it is a copyright violation of Bill Frist, which you copied content from without attribution. I only deleted it because you had submitted it for review through AFC. I suppose if you agree to not submit it for review and add an attribution notice like {{copied}}, I can restore it to your sandbox, although I really don't see the point. — The Earwig (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I am well aware it is a work of fiction, the sections concerning Frist are due to be removed. Please do restore it. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind saying what you need it for? I can't figure out how this is an appropriate use of your userspace. — The Earwig (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
My own amusement, a work of fiction, which I have seen many of here. perhaps I could add the {{userspace draft}} tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talk • contribs)
Eh, alright. I've restored it and added a {{humor}} tag so no one confuses it for actual work. Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!--Simfan34 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
Good IRFANSANI (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AFCH

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For the case you have time and doing some AFC reviews, I fixed some bugs in the beta script (see the talk page) and I need some feedback. If you do some reviews, please invite also other users for the Teahouse (check the wikilinks to these users) and check the diff after the page got saved. Nathan seems to be confused related to my 'alpha', the new beta, and to the actual gold script and thus I need a bug tester. *g* mabdul 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

related to memo #2 added on the to do list.
related to memo #1 already marked at the WP:AFCH/DEV page, code already on my hdd, but not tested. will do it in a few days hopefully.
mabdul 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. No rush. — The Earwig (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

updated references on audio nerd page

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Earwig,

Thank you for your feedback regarding my previous submission for this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eastwest_studio I have updated the article with citations from art & design publications, published audio magazines, and another published book in addition to the numerous TV, liner note, iTunes and audio website credits I had included previously. I believe you will find the additions point toward current information on the studios themselves, and help contribute to the overall understanding of this pop culture haven. I look forward to your response and thank you again for your advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katprimeau (talk • contribs) 21:02, June 27, 2012

Awfully busy right now. Will take a look in a bit. — The Earwig (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katprimeau (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry about the delay. I've accepted the submission. — The Earwig (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Edit filter 440

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for handling the rest to re-enable filter 440. Since the filter appears to be working fine, I merged it into 345 since they do the same thing. Things should be slightly more efficient with them merged. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. I was tempted to do this but would have preferred someone with more EF experience handle it first. — Earwig talk 18:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BOT question

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

On this page it suggests asking you if we have questions about the BOT that's creating the table that can be sorted by date. Is there a way to do the same for {{request edit}}s here so we can sort requested edits by date and get a better view of them? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Not entirely sure what this has to do with EarwigBot specifically, but I know there exists tables allowing this for protected and semi-protected edit requests by AnomieBOT here and here, respectively. Do you want help making the table itself or making a table sortable by date? — Earwig talk 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OMG YES! How do we duplicate that for COI request edits? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask Anomie, who runs that bot. I'm not sure exactly how (s)he does it, and I'm sure it'd be possible to give that bot task an additional chart to fill out if you ask. — Earwig talk 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Peter Tiboris article

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A new article titled "Peter Tiboris" is in my sandbox. Is that the correct place to leave it? Hopefully, it's an improvement on the last one. Thanks for your help. Thank you. Dzeidman (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've been very busy. I'll try to get back to you soon. — Earwig talk 03:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a cookie...

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Nathan2055 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

...for dealing with my complete and utter lack of JavaScript knowledge. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you, Nathan! — Earwig talk 02:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd behaviour from your bot

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Your bot created User_talk:IP_209.6.69.227 (now a redlink because I belateed it) on task 19. Looks odd, never seen it do that before, though it never posted on IP talk pages before for this particular task. Could you look in to it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It did this because the filer listed that user as a party in the disupute, which was later corrected. I do not think it has anything to do with being an IP per se, but rather the filer's own mistake. Thanks for letting me know. I'll update the bot to make sure it only notifies users who exist. — Earwig talk 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That explains. If you want to go all fancy you could try to notify the filer if the user doesn't exist. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your input is requested in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HostBot 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, The Earwig. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/HostBot_2.
Message added 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 21:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AN

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Parrot (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

re: John Austin (songwriter)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Earwig,

The page "John Austin (songwriter)" has been deleted, even though he is listed as an artist who worked with Mark Heard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Heard). AllMusic has a blurb on his music here: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/john-austin-mn0000809269

Will you reinstate the page "John Austin (songwriter)" with the information from AllMusic (a credible source)?

98.117.241.19 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the Earwigbot doing this correctly?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

here and here. Task=7 which is not on the list. --  :- ) Don 04:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of old code, on my list to be re-written. Currently, the algorithm assumes that the page creator is the reviewer, which evidently is wrong some of the time. Not much I can do now until I write the new task code; perhaps I'll just disable the old code in the mean time. Thanks for letting me know. — Earwig talk 05:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanted to let you know. I was not sure if it was a problem to be worried about or not. With this sandbox submissions, pages are getting moved around all over the place and editors are getting confused and doing strange things. It's getting very chaotic in submissions. --  :- ) Don 06:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN new case status

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There was consensus for the new "failed" case status on DRN (see Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#New case statuses). Earwigbot, which updates the DRN case status chart, may need to be updated with the new case status. Thank you for your help.--SGCM (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Implemented the new status. Thanks for letting me know! — Earwig talk 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the bot? It doesn't seem to be updating anything. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it got logged-out accidentally. Fixed that and the underlying bug. — Earwig talk 03:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DRN bot source code?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I want to look at the DRN bot source code, to see how it handles some issues. It used to be at https://github.com/earwig/earwigbot/blob/develop/earwigbot/tasks/drn_clerkbot.py, but I cannot find it there now. Has it moved? --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It's over here, which is also linked from User:EarwigBot/Tasks#19. — Earwig talk 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN bot

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there...just hoping you can shoot me a link to the BRFA when its live? Thanks again! :) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 13:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just finished filing. It's over here! — Earwig talk 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  The da Vinci Barnstar
For your hard work in building a bot for DRN in such a short time. Thanks for being so accommodating...and sorry for being so difficult. I owe you one. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. — Earwig talk 05:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have some ideas to improve EarwigBot DRN task

  1. Don't re-place the status to open if put to unassesed.
  2. Notify users about a new request of which they are involved even if there is a notice for another section.

These should be easy to be done. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot shouldn't be doing the first as it is, and the second one is a bit confusing to me – could you clarify with examples for the two? Thanks. — Earwig talk 02:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Say User:X has been listed as a party for dispute A. He gets notified. Now, he gets listed as a party dispute B. The bot does not notify him. I think it should be fixed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a problem, but I'm not sure how to fix it without raising more issues. A user is often notified before the bot gets to them. How will it know if the previous instance of {{DRN-notice}} on the page is related to the current case or an old one? Checking for references to the case name within the notice is not reliable since sometimes the bare template is used, and checking for a timestamp in the message is likewise unreliable since one isn't always left. If you have any ideas, I'd like to hear them. — Earwig talk 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The section name could be used, and if the section name changes, the bot will recongnize "Ah, the section name changed from A to B, I'll not tag again" ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That's true, but as I mentioned, it's not always reliable. For example, consider this notice you left (and there are many examples of this – not just you). The bot has no way to tell which dispute this is a notice for, other than checking the signature timestamp, which is rather messy. It can guess, which will be wrong sometimes and right others; I'm just afraid that accidentally notifying a user twice will be prone to more anger and confusion than having them be notified manually when someone notices they haven't participated in the dispute. But I could be wrong about that. — Earwig talk 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The bot could default to if there is no section name, it will not template. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BeanyFans is back, yet again

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The person is now using the name 458Army (talk · contribs). I am letting know since you previously blocked this person before. They also re-created their hoax album article again: Nightclub (album), even after I submitted it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 2. QuasyBoy (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Deleted the article, salted, blocked the user. — Earwig talk 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
He's back again as WooBrown2012 (talk · contribs). Created this, too: User:WooBrown2012/Nightclub (album). QuasyBoy (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Small change to DRN bot

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. There was a discussion at the DRN talk page about an enhancement to the DRN state behavior. After a good discussion, the consensus was unanimous to implement the change. The changes are:

  1. Increase the number of days from 4 to 7 in the test to set the state to STATUS_REVIEW
  2. Change that same logic to set the state (after 7 days) to STATUS_NEEDASSIST (instead of STATUS_REVIEW)
  3. The state STATUS_REVIEW is now obsolete and can be eliminated or used as a spare. In particular, the clerk_review_case function should be merged with the clerk_needassist_case function.

Some of the source code involved is: 

 def check_for_review(self, case):
        """Check whether a case is old enough to be set to "review"."""
        age = (datetime.utcnow() - case.file_time).total_seconds()
        if age > 60 * 60 * 24 * 4:
            self.update_status(case, self.STATUS_REVIEW)
            return True
        return False

BTW: Thanks for maintaining these bots. I know it may seem like drudge work, but the rank-and-file really appreciate the work you do! --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. I made the change a bit quickly and without testing (kinda in a bad mood right now, but the wiki needs editing!), so let me know if any issues come up. — Earwig talk 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel that way a lot also, but I don't tell anyone :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

question about an article

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm a long time reader, but only recently ventured into the community. However, this morning I read perhaps the least unbiased article I've seen on wikipedia, and I'm not sure whether to leave it alone or flag it somehow. The article is David F. Case, the novelist. And it reads as if the president of his fan club wrote it. It's way too long for me to edit, and I have no idea how I would re-write it. But it seems there should be a disclaimer at the top stating "the following is unchecked for accuracy" or some such message. Sorry to bother you with this. If this is something I can learn to do myself, I will keep notes in a DIY file! Best, Chris Cjm900 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Obviously the best thing you can do is go out and edit the article. Remember, it's great to be bold and just go ahead and fix a problem when you encounter it. Of course, I can accept that you don't have the time or desire to, so we have templates you can add, like {{POV}}, to tag something as needing improvement. The tools provided by Twinkle make this process easier (it'll automate the tagging, you just have to say what it needs to be tagged with, and it gives you a list of tags). Thanks, and best of luck! — Earwig talk 03:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN bot messes up the DRN case status table

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! When the EarwigBot comes across the case with a wikilink in the title, it messes up the {{DRN case status}}. I'm not particularly sure that this problem should be solved in the bot (and not in the script behind the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request page) though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. I'll note that the Manual of Style recommends against linking within a section header; if I recall correctly, this is due to accessibility reasons. Nonetheless, it's a common practice within Wikipedia. I'll see if I can do anything about it in the bot, but I've been very busy lately (with the start of classes) so it might be a while. — Earwig talk 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The headers are generated by the script, so they end up being text, wikilinks or even bare URLs. In the latter case I manually fix the header and notices, but wikilinks are not all that bad, so I thought the bot could tolerate them if possible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Holy cow, I didn't know that links in section headers were discouraged. I do that all the time. Will take some time to reset my habits, but I'll work on it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I do a fair amount of work in this area, and I'm always looking for useful tools. MRG reminded me of this tool, which I had used before, but vaguely remember it as down for some time due to some terms of service, which I believe have since been resolved.

My particular interest is in a tool which would exclude mirrors and forks; MRG thought that was the case. Can you confirm?

I also tried it on Slepian–Wolf coding, which came up mostly clean. In light of Slepian-Wolf_coding, I don't think it should have. I don't want to jump to a conclusion on one test, but do you have any insight on why that site wasn't found? (It just occurs to me, if you are attempting to remove mirrors and forks, maybe that site was excluded?)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The tool excludes mirrors and forks, including those listed on subpages of WP:Mirrors and forks as well as User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions. Also, it's not perfect; right now it's more of a proof-of-concept than anything because I have to improve some stuff, which is why I haven't "released" it (i.e. told people about it) yet. Specifically, it's not perfect at stripping wikicode from text when searching, so instead of looking for "The Slepian-Wolf theorem deals with the lossless compression of two or more correlated data streams (Slepian and Wolf, 1973)" as it should, it looks for "The <strong>Slepian-Wolf theorem</strong> deals with the lossless compression of two or more correlated data streams [[#Slepian1973|(Slepian and Wolf, 1973)]]". I'm not positive, but my testing shows that it would have detected the violation had it searched for the right string. These are all things that will be fixed soon-ish in the future, whenever I can find free time to do it. For example, just last night I perfected the removal of <!-- comments -->. Links should come next, followed by formatting. — Earwig talk 16:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's great news. Sorry for trying it out a little too early. I now see why it missed what looked like an obvious hit. I fully understand the time pressure, so no rush, but I'll be a major user of the tool when completed. We have roughly 85000 articles in various CCI, most of which are old enough that they get a lot of mirror hits. Doing them manually is tedious. This tool, once working, would be a big help. If I may, I'll throw out a naive suggestion, feel free to ignore it if I'm missing something important, ass is likely. I can see that the wikicode complicates the search, so what would happen if you used the printable version, which strips out most Wikicode? I see that this option still leaves footnotes, but that's either not a problem, because there are still sufficiently long strings, or if a problem, would be easier to strip out than trying to strip all forms of wikicode.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2692 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
 

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig/Archive_7&oldid=1151051799"