Misplaced Pages

Dear Erik, thanks for your support in my RFA ϢereSpellCheckers 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great template

I have noticed you are removing the "Rulers known as the great" template from various articles. What is your explanation for doing that? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Community consensus expressed at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_14#Template:Rulers_known_as_.22the_Great.22. Erik9 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed that. I strongly disagree with the decision, and it also seems like 5 votes during a 7 day period seems like a very flimsy foundation for a consensus that concerns edits on this scale. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the TFD closure, orphaning of the template, and its pending deletion, you can contest these actions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I will do that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your bot's editing speed

Would it be possible for you to slow the edit speed of your bot? At one point it made 18 edits in a minute. This seems a bit fast for a non urgent task.--Rockfang (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The nature of the bot's operations described in Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 2 requires that it be manually supervised at all times when running to avoid the processing of names which fall into the exceptions listed at Misplaced Pages:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category - if left operating unattended, the bot could, say, start categorizingsorting talk pages of biographies of people with the first name "Chang", even though Chinese names are generally written with the surname first, resulting in hundreds or thousands of bad edits. Given that I am required to sit in front of the computer watching the bot whenever it is operating, I am running the bot at a target rate of 15 to 20 edits per minute to avoid making the task unduly tedious and time-consuming. Erik9 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a valid reason to ignore policy. If anything, I would think that a slower edit speed would be beneficial to a bot that could potentially miscategorize talk pages. That way you'd have more time to check each edit and it would be closer to following policy.--Rockfang (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy is based on the premise that the bot is operating unattended, and that there is no reason why it could not operate continuously as long as necessary to complete its tasks. My time as a volunteer on Misplaced Pages, however, is limited. Given that there are currently 363,450 articles in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, limiting the bot to the prescribed rate of 6 edits per minute would seriously hinder the completion of the category sorting task. Furthermore, running at 6 edits per minute would not resulting in more accurate operations, but would simply produce operator fatigue. The purpose of using a bot to perform a task the nature of which requires constant operator supervision is to allow the task to be completed at a considerably higher speed than would be possible with AWB usage on my main account, and would be substantially defeated if the bot were limited to 6 edits per minute. Erik9 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for another bot operator's opinion with this request.--Rockfang (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would be somehow possible for you to approve the changes, but for the edit to delay itself to keep itself within a reasonable editrate... –xeno (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can prepare a list of articles to edit, then run the bot unattended on the list no faster than 6 edits/minute. Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you using the maxlag parameter in your API requests to ensure that your bot isn't making the latency worse when the database gets slammed? Wronkiew (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because I don't know how to use it. However, since I will be limiting the bot to 6 edits/minute henceforth, that should resolve the issues here. Erik9 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That works too. Wronkiew (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now using the maxlag parameter when operating the bot at a high target edit rate - see User_talk:Erik9bot#Note_regarding_increased_edit_rate. Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD closing

In most cases, CfDs are supposed to remain open for a minimum of 5 days before closing: see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Categories_for_discussion_page. When you closed this discussion it had not been open for 5 days yet. Also, in general, it's best if non-admins don't close discussions that result in a deletion: see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Good Ol’factory 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_24#Category:Titular_Sees_of_the_Coptic_Orthodox_Church was open for only approximately 4.077 days. I guess I'm WP:IARing and closing it (slightly) early when the consensus is overwhelmingly clear. Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions does say that "Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the account feature to delete pages (that feature is only turned on for admins)", but this rationale doesn't seem to apply to CFD and TFD discussions which require the removal, replacement, or conversion of categories or templates, since the initial discussion closure does not involve an immediate deletion. Instead, deletion is delayed until the removal, replacement, or conversion has been completed - which is why Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Working and Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell have "Ready for deletion" sections. I suppose that Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions may also be intended as prophylaxis against bad non-administrative CFD and TFD "delete" closures which would require hundreds or thousands of edits to reverse the removal of categories or templates. However, I have taken great care to only close discussions with clear, uncontroversial outcomes. Also, if any closure I perform is overturned by an administrator, I will take full responsibility for the restoration of the categories or templates to all articles or other pages in which they appeared. Erik9 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just don't see the point of choosing not to wait at least 5 days, even if you think the outcome is clear. Closing early just creates an opening for another user to afterwards complain about the close or the result. And there's virtually nothing lost by waiting the extra few hours. In nearly all cases, the 5 days is a minimum, not an "average" to shoot for, and this case was far from the "overwhelming consensus" type of case that I would say could possibly justify a variation of the time. But even if it is, why not wait the extra hours? There is no deadline. Good Ol’factory 09:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If we assume that the category in question is in some sense "bad" (which it surely must be, if its deletion is to be justified at all), then the (slightly) early closure improves Misplaced Pages by removing a bad category from articles sooner rather than later, the moment the CFD discussion reflects a sufficiently strong consensus, and has run for a sufficient period of time to justify its removal. Erik9 (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, a bit of a stretch. It's trading a potential headache of complaints and appeals over the close for very minimal "benefits". Yes, the complaints of an early close in such a case may be frivolous, but that never stops anyone from complaining about a CfD close. Many of these go to DRV over issues like this. In my view, it's just not worth the hassle. Good Ol’factory 10:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Early Tfd Closing

Hi, I came across your closing of this Tfd and wondered why you had closed it after 4-1/2 days, instead of waiting the full 7 days that are expected. These rules were put in place to ensure due process, and they should not be circumvented at any editor's whim -- especially when what is at stake is deletion. WP:IAR should be invoked sparingly, and all the more so with regard to Xfd's. Please give us some assurance that you will take this more seriously now that we have brought it to your attention. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to Misplaced Pages:DPR#Templates_for_deletion_page it seems that TFDs are closed after seven days, instead of the usual five for many other XFDs (why the increased discussion length is in place, I have no idea.) In my defense, there was unanimous support for deletion at the TFD, and a discussion of adequate length to give reasonable assurance that no opposition to the deletion was likely to be expressed. Still, if the community finds closure of a TFD as "delete" after 4-1/2 days to be objectionable, then it shouldn't be done. In order to determine consensus on this issue, I'm going to do something a little unusual, by listing my own discussion closure at WP:DRV. Enjoy :) Erik9 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 1. Erik9 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this yourself to DRV for clarification. While there was no reason to undelete the template, there was agreement that such early non-administrator closures are not appropriate and not covered by WP:IAR. While we try to not be bureaucratic about the times it seems from this and other discussion that I was involved in, they are considered at best unnecessary, may cast procedural doubts on otherwise clear decisions and can at worst prevent a reasonable opinion to be heard. That shouldn't discourage your from NACs, though, but they will be appreciated most where they need to be closed as is your commitment to the follow-up work. Best regards, --Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My bot request

Thank you for all of the help you have given me at my bot request. I'm learning quite a bit about RegExp.--Rockfang (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rmeoving Template:American films

Sorry but there was no real consensu to delete these templates. NObody was notified about it at WP:Films. The "consensus" to delete was based on a decision by people who rarely ever edit film articles ans therefore have a lesser idea of why they were being used. If you must use your bot to delete the templates, I would kindly ask you to add a link in its place linking to the specific year in film. E.g an articles on American Pie add a See also List of American films of 1999. I don't mind the rmeoval of the template as such its just the complete isolation from the films by year which I disapporive of. Can you do sopmething about this? Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will suspend any further removals of Template:American films until you have the opportunity to file a deletion review request regarding Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_5#Template:American_films. I advise you to do so as soon as possible, and to note this fact prominently on the TFD discussion itself and at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell, to avoid having someone else orphan the template in the interim. Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest that you place your request for special procedures in orphaning the template at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell. Since bot operations can proceed very quickly, while I'm coding a method to add see also entries, another bot operator holding a broadly drawn approval for template maintenance could unceremoniously remove all instances of the template. Erik9 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The best thing I think is to add the see also section. You see agree somewhat that the template may often clutter articles especially as we oftnehave director templates/franchise templates/award templates etc. My only concern is indeed that we have one link, specifically to the year in American film which is what the templates were intended for. If the link is there then we don't need the other years linked as once you click the link you ar einto the film by year with the side plate. A lot of people who objected to the template said that the best solution would be a link in the see also so people can brosw years in American film. Therefore I would ask that once you remove the tmeplates than you can get a bot to add see also sections to every film in Category:American films and link to the relative year. For instance see List of American films of 1936. Really every one of those articles listed in it should have the link feeding back to the list. So for example see Ace Drummond (serial). One of the biggest needs for these articles is consistency. If you could use your bot to go through the years in American film and ensure every article consistently links to the relative year in film I would be very grateful and it would seme to solve the problems of the template and of connecting to the years. Regards. Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Substituting BS-daten with Infobox rail line

Hi, please would you help me understand why you are replacing the original "BS-daten" template on my German railway line articles with "Infobox rail line". The new template has a number of major disadvantages: first it doesn't dovetail into the route diagram but displays as a separate box; second, it is often a different width; third, it introduces a different colour scheme and fourth, it is a hassle when translating articles and adds a lot of time to the process. There are a lot of railway line articles to go so this is a real factor for me.

The overall visual effect is messy and definitely worse than before. Have a look at the Haßfurt–Hofheim railway article and its de.wiki equivalent or what was my budding "B" class candidate, the Hof–Bad Steben railway and its de.wiki opposite number.

I am sure that Infobox rail line has its utility, but would be grateful if you could revert your changes to the German railway articles. Many thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:BS-daten was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_15#Template:BS-daten. While I will not seek the deletion of your recent recreation of the template, you should know that an administrator could speedily delete it per csd g4. If you wish to have the template permanently reinstated, you should request that the TFD outcome be overturned at deletion review. If the TFD closure is overturned, I will restore the template to all articles in which it appeared. Erik9 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am new to this stuff. I suppose the ideal solution would be to have one template which combines the best features of both Info rail line and and is clever enough to interpret the German field names when BS-daten is imported. Technically possible, but I'm not expert enough to do that. How should I take this forward? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, thank you for pointing me in the right direction for reinstating this template. I'm sorry if it's caused you some bother, but it was prematurely deleted. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

List of American films

The "See also" section is for articles are things that are similar to, or connected to the actual article but are not fully discussed there. They are not for generalized links that would appear on every page, specifically when something like "List of American films" already appears (or should) in the article's category section at the bottom of the page. Please do not add links to those types of pages to the "See also" section of film articles anymore.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the editors participating in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#list_link_being_added_to_all_pages.3F seem to find the List of American films (year) links useful. Since you have chosen to blatantly misuse the rollback feature in what is clearly a content dispute, I have asked that your rollback privileges be revoked. Erik9 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware that controversial use of AWB is contrary to Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use, and that, since I am now aware of the controversy at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#list_link_being_added_to_all_pages.3F, I cannot continue to add the links to articles in a mass, semi-automated fashion until the matter is resolved. This in no way, however, justifies your misuse of rollback in what you clearly knew at the time was a content dispute. Erik9 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi sorry you had to encounter this absurdness. Now you can see how much difficulty I get on here with these American films. People FUSS and FUSS even with a single link to the relative year in film. They provide far more information than the categories and also e.g Category:1926 films IS NOT specifically American films either for that matter. Hopefully we can come to a consensus, I appreciate your help thanks. Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagging BLPs

Nice work. :-) Your efforts are very much appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

blocks and protection

Done. Usually it would get done sooner, but not that many admins seem to be around tonight. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

vandalism

re: your fighting vandalism on the Arthur Mullard page. I've filed an AIV report for the comments made against you at User talk:Hoppytroffy. Perhaps it is their userpage, but calling a vandal fighter names doesn't sit well with me. — Ched ~ /_© 14:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

... and... blocked for the day. (I'd have given him a week myself .. lol) Thanks for your work by the way. — Ched ~ /_© 14:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV report

Sorry about that. It is hard to figure out what is just misguided and what is in bad faith and, IMO, it is better to err on the side of good faith. Let's give twiddlebug a shot at figuring it out. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I like to err on the side of quickly removing tabloid-sourced slime from biographies of living persons, and rapidly ejecting the slanderers from the project by any available means. Protecting the reputations of living people is, IMHO, far more important than retaining the hypothetical future contributions of the editors defaming them. Erik9 (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)