User talk:AllyUnion/Archive4
GCOTW[edit]
I'm giving you this message because you have been active on Gaming Collaboration of the week in the past. The collaboration had a bit of a hiatus, but it's now active again. A new article will be chosen this Sunday. It would be greatly appreciated if you visited the page to vote and/or make new nominations and worked on next week's GCOTW. Thanks. --Slowking Man 08:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
re: VfD Old and bot work[edit]
On my talk page, you asked "It seems that all VfD pages are moved to the Old page by the seventh day. If this is indeed true, I would like to assist in automating the copying of text of the Template:Vfd top and Template:Vfd bottom to each subpage on each day when it is moved. What do you think?"
I could see it working but we'd have to completely rewrite the Wikipedia:Deletion process. Right now, we are using the header and footer templates to add a color-box around the discussion so that the people closing them can clearly see which ones have been processed and which ones still need to be closed.
Frankly, I'm not sure what value it would add. You will still need to edit the discussion page in order to record your decision. Using a bot to save typing 40 characters doesn't seem like enough of a savings to be worth it... I'm interested in your thoughts, though. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It would be a small luxury not to have to hand-enter the top and bottom statements (especially the bottom, since I have a tendency to leave that one out), but I agree with Rossami's point about the utility of the color-boxes. Also, if discussions are bot-closed as soon as they're moved to the /Old page, we'd have to make sure that everyone who takes part in the voting knows that articles nearing their "date of move" better get their votes in quick. As it is, there are usually a couple of days after the /Old move for people to get in last-minute statement before a close-down of the debate. Joyous 18:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
A bot to update WP:VFD and WP:VFD/Old would be great. I had thought vaguely about it myself, but I don't have any experience running bots. I commented at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Additional uses to bot (User:Allyunion). dbenbenn | talk 21:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I would be very uncomfortable relying on a bot to make the decision. It might work for very simple votes but I don't think it would be possible to program in the specific scenarios we need. For example:
- How would the bot screen out the sockpuppet votes?
- How could the bot recognize when the circumstances have changed (for example, a string of deletes, an "I just rewrote it, keep" and then a string of keeps)?
- How could the bot decide if there is a logical argument or evidence presented which invalidates the prior votes?
- The problem is that "Votes for Deletion" is not really about "voting" despite the name. It's about laying out evidence (one piece of evidence being community opinion) for the deciding admin. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another thought. You could use the bot to put the bottom template on the discussion thread when the discussion is moved over. A hanging /div command won't do anything but it would save a step which, as Joyous said, is easy to miss. Rossami (talk)
- Once again, agreeing with Rossami. I'd be quite unhappy trusting a bot to work through the sometimes convoluted voting, re-voting, retracting votes, strikethroughs, sockpuppets, etc. Even with a solid string of "deletes," I'd be reluctant to turn it over to a bot, as article deletion can be such a charged issue. Joyous 05:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I waited until a few minutes after midnight, but the bot apparently didn't do its thing. It did create Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 7, but it didn't edit VfD or /Old. So I went ahead and did the extension by hand. dbenbenn | talk 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- AllyUnion here from a public terminal. Yes, I saw that. Must have to do with the script's sleep command possibly. --138.23.125.245 02:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It added a newline that it shouldn't have for VfD, which, if uncorrected, would break it tomorrow. It didn't make Log/2005_February_9. And it didn't edit /Old. It's getting close, though! Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 00:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It did edit /Old. 1 minute after you did it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The pywikipediabot framework has added a lot of sleep and timeout commands... so it's unusually slow. Give it until 00:15 next time. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Recall that the bot is updating three things at once at this time: VFD List, VFD, VFD/Old. VFD List at *:50, VFD at 23:53, VFD/Old at 23:57. If VFD List takes too long, then it may slow both VFD and VFD/Old down. Again, I ask you refrain editing until 00:15... that way, it is completely certain that the bot did not work. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
IRC Alexa Bot[edit]
Personal note to self: Vague_Rant wants a bot to get stats from Alexa in IRC on Wikipedia. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=en.wikipedia.org; Hmm... maybe could use a Wikipedia bot for it too... dunno. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
CheeseDreams[edit]
I couldn't find any recent discussion on the issue on the Administrators Noticeboard - it was covered a few days ago, though. In case there's any doubt, though - articles relating to Jesus are most certainly covered under the injunction. I'm not the only arbitrator who is a) not impressed, and b) thinks Dante might just be off his rocker, with this attempt at Wikilawyering. Common sense is a must. Ambi 08:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration (Robert the Bruce)[edit]
- Hi Ally, I am hoping you will be prepared to discuss your sudden interest in circumcision related matters. This is not just a coincidence is it? - Robert the Bruce 09:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deletion of useless stub templates[edit]
You wrote: I have updated the page... I hope it is clear now.""
I like to avoid CFD and TFD... Netoholic has a bias against stub sorting.
- I've noticed! See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:us-geo-stub! Grutness|hello?
23:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You ask me of my opinion on alternative text to the section on time period during which stub template deletion discussion would take place.
- I think you're present wording is ok; I think the wording you put in my talk area is less clear than the wording that you'd put into the draft document. After some thought, I think it is best, as you allude to, not to nail down specifics of how to test for usefullness. If an interested person wants to keep a running census during the 10+ day discussion period - so be it. If not, that is the individual decision of all stake holders. Thanks. Courtland 23:51, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
The ghost of gK[edit]
FYI: When I posted my goodbye at the stub sorting WikiProject I had every intention of kicking back for a couple of weeks and doing absolutely nothing on the Wikipedia. Then I would do one final edit to finish an article that I had been working on (that I had been distracted away from by the dispute at Charles Darwin). However, when I found that the Charles Darwin dispute had gone to arbitration (and I was one of the users that were named in the complaint), I decided that I had to follow through with what I had started there. Now that has been settled, my plan (again) is take a week or two off, and then to finish that one article. Then "gK" will be gone for good from the Wikipedia (for more details see the last two paragraphs in this section [1].
BTW: I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that you had added me to the list of Missing Wikipedians. I want to thank you for that. When I have really finished editing for good, I'll leave you note, if you want, so you can add me back in. gK ¿? 13:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) [2]
- I would nominate you as an Admin, but um, you're not here any more. *cry*. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
VFD/OLD[edit]
Why aren't you deleting the pages that got the result delete on Vfd? You might miss a few of them if you tag all the discussions first. Mgm|(talk) 13:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It's slow for me too. You're just moments ahead with tagging the stuff. Mgm|(talk) 13:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! Let's see how far we can get this cleanup going with the two of us. :) Mgm|(talk) 13:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for the barnstar! VFD/Old isn't really going to be your passion, is it? I love tedious, mindless stuff like that; at work, I love to collate papers. I think there's something wrong with me. I see from the indicator that you're feeling a bit of stress; I hope clearing out VfD entries didn't cause that. I really do appreciate the help, though. When the page gets so full, it feels as though we're constantly swimming upstream against a current of horrible articles. Joyous 12:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. Because I've been messing around the pywikipediabot framework, I think I have figured out a way to create a way to clean out VFD very easily. It would be manually run, bot assisted work, basically. I actually used it recently to help me out adding the {{subst:vfd top}} stuff. It still could stand some improvements, and I was thinking of making it better when I have a little bit of free time. However... cleaning out VFD/Old takes too much of my time. Would you be interested using the manually bot assistant to clean out VFD/Old? You'll have to have access to Linux or some UNIX variant.
- I will need to make a menu that makes the bot better... something like:
Current page is [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article on VFD]]
# Add link on talk page
# Result is delete
# Delete article page
# Use {{merge}}
# Redirect page
# Transwiki
# Block error page
# Insert tally count
# Keep: remove VFD notice from article text
- Hmm... this is how the program will essentially work:
- Check if the text from Template:Vfd top and Template:Vfd bottom is present
- If not, check if subst: was not included. Correct if necessary.
- else, prompt to edit page
- If yes, print out menu
- Options would be: Add link on talk page if not present, insert the tally count (manual), mark result of debate as delete and delete the page, mark the result of the debate as merge (remove VFD text off article) and place merge notice on article(s), mark the result of the debate as transwiki (add to transwiki log), mark the page as undeletable due to block errors (add to block error log)
- If no, skip the page
- If yes, print out menu
- The add link on talk page will check if the link exists, including whether or not {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}}} is used.
- I'll expose my computer ignorance and reveal that I have no idea if I have the capability to run the bot or not. Joyous 23:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
VVAW and WSI articles[edit]
I really do not know what to say on this subject other than there is no possible outcome for these articles other than another edit war. The Anon is unable to be negotiated with, and does not like people making edits to what he views are his articles. I would also remind you that these two articles are full of plagiarized material and past instances have shown me that this user is extremely uncooperative in removing such material. I think the only solution is that the article is blanked and started over again. Articles have been blanked in the past for large scale plagarism and dont see how this is an exception. TDC 13:45, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation#VVAW_and_WSI_articles -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
re: untranscluding long VfD threads[edit]
I'd be happy to do it your way. Since I'm probably the person who does it most often (and even that's only rarely), could you help update the template/instructions that I use? I'd take a crack at it myself but I'm not completely sure what your bot is doing so I'd like your advice. See User:Rossami#When untranscluding an exceptionally long debate. (There's also a /Maintenance page somewhere that we should update.) Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Can you add Template:Vfd to your watchlist if you haven't already done so? Some anon IP likes to vandalize it by changing "blank" to "bugger". A hassle because it gets subst'd in. I'm sending notes to get more people to add it to their watchlists. -- Curps 19:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
re: Postvfd template[edit]
I love it. My only concern is the number of parameters. I think you may have given us so many options that we won't use the template enough. I'll add more thoughts later today on the template's Talk page. Interested in your feedback. Thanks again for taking the lead with this. Rossami (talk) 13:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Continued on Template talk:Postvfd -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Winter Soldier[edit]
Take it to the arbcom is my advice. The insertion of plagiarized material and the edit warring, combined with long term protection, should get them to accept. Snowspinner 18:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
New user list[edit]
Not currently a list of new accounts. Producing one for all wikis as a batch job is currently on my to do list (batch job because it's much more efficient). Account age is also being considered as a possible ranking or highlighting factor in recent changes and watchlists. No ETA for any of this though. Jamesday 08:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
High Schools[edit]
Lists like that are inherently un-maintainable and inaccurate, and in any event I don't see the point in keeping lists of non-notable high schools. A category will list all notable high schools, which is actually valuable and interesting. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mozzerati Answer on High schools[edit]
RE [3] (second attempt; the wiki ate my homework :-). I don't think that categories and lists do the same thing. I think that if schools are to be listed, then the place to list them is in articles about education in a particular region and the reason they should be listed is because they formed part of that. The problem with lists is that they are impossible to maintain; What about Logan Grammar School, Bearsden, Glasgow opened in 1937, closed 1942 due to the war? How are you going to prove it doesn't exist? How are you going to notice that Bearsden didn't become part of Glasgow until much later than 1942? If you do notice it, are you going to keep separate lists for each? An article on education which includes the history of an area can much more easily provide valuable information and in this context insufficiently "notable" school names have a valid place to be included.
Incidentally, I think that quite a few of the schools which get deleted could, in theory, have an article. I've shown that with a little work on Google, I can completely change people's opinion from delete to keep (see Elder High School for an example). However, the biggest problem is verifiability; most of the information never makes it to Google. I think that many of the interesting/"important" facts about schools get lost to the extent that their pupils may not even know them and this makes for bad articles which are always going to stay unencyclopedic.Mozzerati 16:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
- Odd... it's actually the teaching staff that knows more about the school than the students do. Well, the teachers who have been around the longest. But even so... those teachers are at an age where they are going to retire. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
High Schools - Lists vs. Categories[edit]
Thanks for your message. You have a point about lists being different from categories. Categories only specify articles, but lists can include redlinked articles. However, when I think about it, I still don't think lists to that extent are very useful. If we include lists to such a great extent, why not the following? Lists of COUNTRY schools -> Lists of STATE/PROVINCE schools -> Lists of REGION schools -> Lists of MUNICIPALITY schools -> Lists of schools in a BLOCK.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent for lists within lists. If they reworked the Lists of schools in the US to actually include every school in the US, instead of showing links to other lists (by state), then that might actually mean something. However, these lists would be very difficult to maintain, especially if you have two or three different lists to update with every addition of a school.
I'm on the fence on articles about schools (which is why I almost never vote on VfDs about schools). But these lists aren't necessary, IMO. It's too late to change the comment on my vote so it doesn't indicate that categories = lists, but I would have let my vote stand anyways. --Deathphoenix 05:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN[edit]
Nice :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion of useless stub templates and stub categories[edit]
Could you explain to me what you meant by the 10 day thing? Did you mean the tally on the TFD and CFD? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure where I mentionned the 10 day thing. Can you point it out for me? --jag123 23:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I put my response to you on this topic up the page (sorry) at User_talk:AllyUnion#Deletion_of_useless_stub_templates Courtland 23:53, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)