User talk:A930913: Difference between revisions

BracketBot/ReferenceBot Archives

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

User:A930913

Page: Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases

Diff: [1]

Comment/question: The bot shouldn't notify about broken links in pages with the "foo/testcases" name, because it doesn't matter if those pages include non-working references, they are just there to test a template not for their content.

eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good suggestion. Pages in the categories "Template test cases" and "Template sandboxes" could be safely ignored. I routinely ignore them when checking the Template namespace for citation errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you fill out User:ReferenceBot#Opting_out. I know it is exclusion compliant from the BRFA, but you should provide that info. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that such information should be provided, I wonder why anybody would want to opt out from a bot with virtually zero false positives. Huon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just dont want to be bugged by bot notices, and it is a requirement to post such information if one operates a bot that is exclusion compliant. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth: It was not intentionally exclusion compliant, rather a feature of the library used. Can you show me this requirement? 930913(Congratulate) 22:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you stated it in the BRFA, the first bullet point of WP:BOTCONFIG would be the relevant section of policy. Since you declared that the bot was compliant, its just good practice to post that information. If for some reason you wish to change that status feel free to request an amendment from BAG, but until then the bot was approved as exclusion complaint and should honor that status. Werieth (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth: As you said, it's good practice, not a requirement. I'm "encouraged to", and "may wish to implement" it, but with the false positive rate as it is, I'm yet to hear a reason why to opt out wouldn't be in bad faith. For the record, the reason why BracketBot has the opt out is that the false positives give legitimate reasons like due to editing many mathematical articles which have unpaired greater and less than signs. 930913(Congratulate) 03:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already stated that your bot is compliant, and thus you should publish the opt-out process. If you want to push this and be difficult, Ill have the policy clarified to make it more than a nice phrasing. Your bot was approved with an opt-out, and that should be published on the bot user page. If you had gotten approval while stating that you where non-compliant this wouldnt be an issue, but since you are compliant it needs to be published. For related discussion see Wikipedia:VPP#RfC:_I_do_not_want_to_be_bothered_by_editing_bots_any_more Werieth (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth: By all means, if you want to clarify the consensus on the policy, go ahead, but bear in mind that my time spent opposing (for reasons you yourself stated) could be better spent on more useful things. Note that if your stance is indeed the consensus, then I will try reBAGging it first. 930913(Congratulate) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bot still actually exclusion-compliant? If so, I don't really understand why you are reluctant to provide the instructions. If not, you definitely should run it thru the approval process again or seek the advice of the BAG member who approved it. –xeno^talk 11:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A930913, can you either re-file for approval or list opt out instructions on the user page please? Werieth (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Werieth: 2 suggestions as A930913 (talk · contribs) does not seem to be responding to this good faith request: (1) boldly add the instructions yourself and/or (2) modify {{Infobox Bot}} to have the words "Exclusion compliant?" link to instructions on opting out of exclusion-compliant bots. –xeno^talk 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xeno: given his failure to meet the basic requirements for being a bot operator (addressing good faith issues) I am questioning if I should request that his bot approvals be revoked. Given that this is a fairly small issue that I am requesting redress for what would happen if it was a more serious issue? Werieth (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were more serious, probably a block would be issued on the bot. I'm really not sure why s/he doesn't want to put the instructions, or why s/he isn't responding here (or even where this "pending consensus" discussion referenced in the "Opting out" section is happening). –xeno^talk 15:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werieth and Xeno: There is no requirement for an opt out explanation. There are three ways of getting me to add one. These are listed from quickest to slowest:

1. Provide me with a legitimate, good faith reason that someone would want to opt out with.
2. Provide me with a consensus that says ReferenceBot should have an opt out (explanation).
3. Change the requirements from shoulds to musts and then hope that reBAGging fails.

Naturally I would prefer the first, because that is the least time consuming and gives a real use for opting out, and would consider the third underhand.

As for my response times, due to real world workload, I don't always respond to non critical messages immediately. Bear in mind that this talk page often gets more traffic than some pumps. 930913(Congratulate) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll pick 1) they receive more than one false positive report from your bot and no longer wish to help you bug fix it. –xeno^talk 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted there is more credence to be given to this scenario now that we have our first true false positive report as of last week, but I reject this for a number of reasons. Firstly, the chance of this happening is like lightening striking twice in one place, were they wanting to opt out I would explain how to them personally, and the chances of a true report for a given editor remains much greater than chance (unlike BracketBot).

Indeed, were false positives to become a more common occurrence for some reason, this could become an acceptable reason, but until then, it is not. 930913(Congratulate) 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the goalposts just moved. –xeno^talk 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given how frequently that lighting hits here. The same place has probably been hit thousands of times. Either add the needed information or Ill seen revocation of your BRFAs Werieth (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Page: Enhanced Fujita scale

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_Fujita_scale&diff=600155053&oldid=600115267

Comment/question: I was told to leave a message here if BracketBot misinterpreted an edit. So I made the above edit, using the chevrons as they are used in mathematics: to indicate a quantity greater than a given value. The brackets were not intended for use in formatting.

TornadoLGS (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't notify me about missing ref fields. The bots can take care of that. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami, human editors fix this and other errors that ReferenceBot and BracketBot notify editors about. If the error was fixable by a bot, a bot would do it instead of notifying editors. In your case, another editor fixed the article in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixable by bot. I've seen it hundreds of times. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to learning from your experience. Please provide an example of a bot edit that added a reference list to an article that was missing one. I based the above statement on the information given at Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_refs_without_references#Proposals. That page is linked from the posting that ReferenceBot makes on editors' Talk pages when they cause this error on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one where there was no ref section, and here's one where there was no ref template in the ref section. Both were in response to the info box generating an unsupported fn. I've seen other bots do the same, though I don't recall which they were. User:PotatoBot, maybe? — kwami (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Xqbot (and probably others) can add the missing references section, it's good form to not break an article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Xqbot just fixed one of mine.[2] Given the thousands of these I've generated, and the time it would have taken to fix them manually, it seems silly not to let a bot handle it. Maybe Refbot could add them to Xqbot's working list? — kwami (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Did ReferenceBot warn you for that edit? No, because Xqbot had fixed it. Pending another bot that fixes them all, I think it to be in the wiki's best interest for you to fix all the large red errors you introduce, or even better, not introduce them in the first place; we wouldn't want the large red errors in articles for the prolonged time between your edit and a bot's, would we? 930913(Congratulate) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the kind of thing bots are for: To prevent the waste of time of fixing things that can be automated. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Saab 29 Tunnan Saab 32 Lansen Saab 35 Draken Saab 37 Viggen Saab JAS 39 Gripen

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saab_29_Tunnan&diff=prev&oldid=600911127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saab_32_Lansen&diff=prev&oldid=600911180 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saab_35_Draken&diff=prev&oldid=600912517 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saab_37_Viggen&diff=prev&oldid=600912263 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saab_JAS_39_Gripen&diff=prev&oldid=600912179

Format intended as to keep the notes accurate.

BP OMowe (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BP OMowe: How does keeping the notes accurate depend on there being one closing parenthesis before the notes and one after them? References should come after punctuation; I have modified the articles accordingly. That said, you may want to re-check the references you added. It seems you added a Gripen-related source to the other articles. Huon (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note and reference strictly concern the translation of the names, with no relevance to the rest of the sentences, hence I tried to make apparent by placing the notes accordingly. Not sure how else to do it, got any suggestions? BP OMowe (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BP OMowe: They don't also serve as sources for the Swedish name? In that case you may want to move the references within the parentheses, but not in between two closing parentheses. Huon (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, which is why you found Gripen-related links in the other articles. I'll see how to fix it. BP OMowe (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913

Page: The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series)

Diff: [3]

Comment/question: It wasn't my edit that caused the error. It was someone else's edit.

Nandaro (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, this is indeed an incorrect notification, the first from ReferenceBot I've ever seen. A930913 will want to check this out. Anyway, I've fixed the reference. Huon (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime ReferenceBot watcher, I agree that this appears to be a false positive, the first I've seen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my todo list 930913(Congratulate) 16:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yay! :) Danielasaldes (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you can help. I'm interested in A. T. Bartholomew, who has a page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Theodore_Bartholomew

At the foot of the article is a link to an article entitled "Love in the Library: Charles Sayle, A. T. Bartholomew, and the Making of Gay Bibliography." The website where this was originally uploaded no longer exists, but I would very much like to get at the article. I notice you added a link to Charles Sayle in the main article; might you know where or how I can access the 'Love in the library' piece, or have a copy of it yourself?

Liam Sims (Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, UK - email ls457@cam.ac.uk)

@131.111.184.102: It took a little effort, but ultimately the Wayback Machine remembers. I have updated the link in the article, too. Huon (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913

"Link or URL errors detected on "the crossing church Minnesota) for references.""

Diff:

Ran error check, no errors found... What are the next steps to remedying this?

Johnjurohill (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot linked to the wrong edit in its posting on the editor's Talk page. It was the next edit that caused a URL error.

The URL error has been fixed in a subsequent edit by another editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Page: Old English phonology

Diff:

Historical linguistics articles frequently use < to indicate "derives from" and > to indicate "produces, results in". Every time I modify a page that uses these conventions, BracketBot complains (wrongly). Can you get rid of the complaints? In general, all uses of < and > in this fashion are surrounded by spaces, which should be a hint that these aren't any sort of bracket.

Benwing (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing: See User:BracketBot#Opting out. You can either mark certain edits as "not to be patrolled" or, if you commonly edit such articles, opt out of BracketBot notifications altogether. Having the bot ignore certain brackets may have unintended side effects. Huon (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Page:

Diff:

Comment/question:

Nill91 (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many distinguished people from what was formerly known as Ceylon received knighthoods and other British honours before independence in 1948, and indeed up to 1956. Lalitha Rajapaksha (or Rajapakse) lived 1900-1976. Whatever you think of the British honours system, I don't think BracketBot is to blame in any way:-) : Noyster (talk), 12:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it

User:A930913

Resolved

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Hotel

"On the The Blue Hotel page, your edit caused a missing references list."

Diff:

Comment/question: Have never heard of The Blue Hotel and have never edited any Wikipedia page.

Fixed in a subsequent edit by another editor. This IP editor has only two edits: The Blue Hotel and this talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Page:

Diff:

Comment/question:

Martyn.w223 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC) I have finally corrected the error. What must have happened was l might have deleted one of the closed brackets by mistake cause in the sentence regarding Valley Lines' DMU fleet, there was a missing word (and) in it, so l've decided to add it to make the sentence more understandable.[reply]

User:A930913, User:Dru_of_Id, User:Legoktm, User:Bgwhite

Page: Daniel G Clodfelter . Added Link about Charlotte Observer articl.

Diff:

Comment/question:

Dan704 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Can you show me how it should appear ? Thanks.[reply]

User:A930913

Page:The_Mystery_of_the_Leaping_Fish

Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602289592

Comment/question:The diff provided is not a reference. It is a plainlist within an infobox, and appears to be correctly formatted. Thanks.

Jay Dubya (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]