The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template replacement
Hello, thank you for your offer. {{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} need replacing. I don't know if it is possible, but
the pages tagged AircraftProject could also have the parameter |Aircraft-project=yes added, and the ones tagged with AirportProject could use |Airports-project=yes. Thanks, TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AWB
The latest commit doesn't build.
It gets the errors
The name 'temp' does not exist in the current context
ReplaceSpecial.cs
Line 719
Column 17
WikiFunctions
and
The type or namespace name 'IAWBMainForm' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)
Main.cs
Line 48
Column 43
AutoWikiBrowser
No idea why.
Also, what do you think about integrating wikidiff2 into AWB? (See [1]) It's the code that generates the diffs. The only problem is that it's written in c++, not c#. Can we "translate" it with that site you told me about to translate the custom module code? That would allow us to generate the diffs locally, saving time for users when using AWB and saving resources. Then we can even eliminate the quick save option from the bots list. —METS501 (talk)01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ReplaceSpecial.cs error is my fault. I simplified some code i did, but didnt check it compiled. Commited so it compiles now!!. The 2nd error, im not sure... I usually just delete files like that and reupdate if i get errors like that....
Something like 7-10, I don't know how much exactly. Simply the currently rate of 5/min is slow, since CFD/W is really long many times. And even UCFD, sometimes. You're more expert than me, and you surely know better than me what is the rate that Snowbot need, I think ;-) Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mets501. My bot, NW557Bot, was recently approved for user talk template substitution using AWB. I've noticed a little problem while running the bot which doesn't cause any harm but does result in some unnecessary changes. The vandalism templates {{uw-vandalism1}}, etc. have <!-- {{uw-vandalism#}} --> commented at the end so it can be identified which template was used when substituted. When AWB goes to substitute templates on a user page, it doesn't ignore commented out templates, so it ends up changing <!-- {{uw-vandalism#}} --> to <!-- {{subst:uw-vandalism#}} --> if there are any substituted templates on the page which are listed in the list of templates to be substituted. Because they're commented out, it doesn't really make any difference, but it is an unnecessary change. Perhaps a feature could be built into an upcoming version of AWB that would add an option to ignore commented out templates when performing template substitution (or if one already exists, please let me know). Thanks for your time. --Nick—Contact/Contribs04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MetsBot userbox replacement mistake
I'd like to thank you for having your bot fix links to migrated userboxes; I can recall several instances in which it helped on my userpage. However, I noticed one mistake it made on User:SPKx in this edit, where it incorrectly replaced {{user age|24}} with {{user age|:UBX/24}}, certainly not a valid change. Just thought you should know. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to mention: If you respond, please either respond here or copy this section to my talk page. I like to keep conversations together. Thanks! — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mets501. I reverted a few edits that your bot made while migrating userboxes: specifically, its edits to archive pages here, here and here. Since those pages are a record of discussions about the creation of the userboxes, it's not appropriate to change them to the UBX version. For talk page archives, it's usually better to have a redlink than to change someone else's comment.
I didn't check to see whether your bot had made changes to other talk page archives, but you might want to. It's not a huge deal, but it'd be better if your bot didn't edit archive pages like that. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I kind of disagree, the reason being that if you checked a user's contributions, they would be to the User:UBX/... page, not the Template:User ... page, as the histories were moved. It's also helpful to be able to actually see where the user's edits are, something that you can't find if you're not an admin who can view deleted revisions. What do you think? —METS501 (talk)16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mets501, when you have a chance, could you comment on [2] (Editing talk pages). I've left a recommendation on the talk of Trentino-South Tyrol, but I'm guessing the User PhJ responds better to Admin advice. Taalo16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mets, would you please take a look at the page history on WP:HAM. MetsBot has changed a template link three times now. This page lists both the old and new locations for the template in question and the bot keeps messing up the listing. The bot really shouldn't try and update the same page multiple times for the same edit. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed what you did with Rfrisbie's userbox archive, and was wondering if you could do the same to mine (if it's not too much work) at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes (a full list is at User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Alphabetical). I've been out of the userbox "business" for a while now, and I recently asked for a name change, so I thought this would be the ideal time to move them all out. Please let me know if you're willing to do this. —Mira08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as your bot did this to several hundred pages (at least) I have sent my bot to fix all instances of it that I could find.--Dycedargж03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User PhJ
Hey Mets, can someone stop PhJ from blanking edits, and doing his line by line censuring? He reported me now for reverting his blanks. o_O Before he reported me for vandalism because I reverted his edits. o_O I don't know what is his agenda.. Taalo19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mets501, on South Tyrol could you maybe help steer us to a solution as well? The polling, to me, is just showing a complete split of opinion. Dare I say there appears to be quite a strong German interest in a page for South Tyrol. I see many people suggest (and I agree as well) to do a split of the article. One article for the province of BZ, and another for the history of the region AA/ST. Anyway, I would rather have an objective interpretation of the talk-page results; so when you have a chance, please take a look over. Really appreciate it! Taalo01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox stuff
Okay, I've read it, but if it's not policy, then it doesn't stand against someone's good-faith opposition, right? Hey, be bold... but don't be reckless! ;) Matt Yeager♫ (Talk?) 06:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that when it's come under protest, yes, it is mildly reckless. Just mildly (heck, it's userboxes =P)... but still. Do redirects hurt? Matt Yeager♫ (Talk?) 06:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I'm fairly sure (could be wrong!) that "redirects are cheap" is part of some policy or guideline or something. That's all. I think this is just a priorities thing--I think it's kind of important for people to type in {{user 1337-4}} which, to me, seems the most natural name for the template. That's just me, though. I get what you're saying, but I've never seen the harm in userboxes in template space, let alone redirects out of template space. Matt Yeager♫ (Talk?) 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had Jooler's userpage on my watchlist for an unrelated reason, and I noticed that you added the nobots tag to prevent your bot from editing his userpage. He already had {{bots|deny=DyceBot,MetsBot}} on his userpage before the last edit by MetsBot, which your bot ignored. If your bot is configured to comply with the bots template in the first place (which is the only case under which the nobots tag would work anyway) than this should have stopped your bot from editing his page. I think you should reexamine your bot's exemption code if it's really supposed to be compliant with the tags. If it's running Pywikipedia there's a patch that works perfectly, that's how I got it to work for my bot. On another note, if your bot is fully compliant with the tags I would recommend you put its userpage in Category:Exclusion compliant bots so people know.--Dycedargж20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo21:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is he up to now?
Assuming good faith of course. Gryffindor is trying to terminate the overall mediation offer by Lar (please see Lar's talk page for his own confusion). Gryffindor just unilaterally moved Bolzano to Bolzano-Bozen. While I agree with this edit, it goes completely against the move request that was just recently closed. This kind of brings some bad memories to what this fellow did on Trentino-Alto Adige back in 2005. Lastly, and I don't know if it is sour grapes, but he keeps deleting the Trentin-Adesc Aut, which is one of the Ladin names for the region. I'll find Markussep's citations and add them to the page. Yup, assuming good faith! :) Anyway, again really happy to have a neutral admin such as yourself watching things. Taalo22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the move. Well, the poll for Bozen-Bolzano to Bozen was actually 9 support, 2 oppose. It wasn't perfect consensus, but it was pretty darn close. I actually prefer Bolzano-Bozen above all, because that is what I usually see on signs in the province. However, Gryffindor simply moving the page out of the blue like this just seems pretty flat out wrong. Taalo22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AWB Updater
Hey,
Get your AWB SVN Version updated and have a look :P
Just wanted to say thanks. These are exactly the type of errors that I particularly have problems seeing on something I have worked so long on. They are things easy to spot on somethign you are reading for the first time, but not somethign you have already read dozens of times. Appreciate the imput. -Waza22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Bot
Hey! I made a bot request here. I know that you'r e good at AWB, so would you find checking it out? I'm pretty sure this request would be useful because as of this moment, there are over 8,000 unsubsted user warnings! Thanks! --TeckWizParlateContribs@00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw another user whose bot's talkpage said the bot will stop if you post here. He was using AWB. Is that automatic, or do I have to enable it somehow? Thanks! --TeckWizParlateContribs@00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. Keep an eye out for the next version of AWB. When you download it, then you can just run general fixes on the talk pages and the templates will automatically be substituted :-). Just keep running the bot overnight, and I'll formally approve it tomorrow morning. —METS501 (talk)02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've filed a request for a flag. You should have it in soon (or maybe a few hours). You might as well run it at about 4 edits/min for now until flagged. —METS501 (talk)02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hairy Pom (cocktail)
I noticed you deleted my Hairy Pom (cocktail) page that I added because you didnt find me to be a notable expert on the subject of alcoholic beverages. How does a new drink get added to the list of cocktails if they are simply deleted when some admin decides the drink is not credible? Do you know of another name for a Pomegranate and Vodka cocktail?
I just want to clarify: it was not that I didn't consider you notable, but I didn't consider the cocktail notable. If you can find references for the article based on multiple, non-trivial sources, the article can definitely stay. See Wikipedia:Attribution for more information. Thanks. —METS501 (talk)01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know you said you'd have your bot work on my request, and I don't mean to pester you. I just wanted to be sure you didn't forget, that's all. Thanks again. —Mira01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just to fill you in, the bot says that the estimated finish time is around 3/20/2007 3:27:23 EST, which would be 3/20/2007 07:27:23 UTC. —METS501 (talk)02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like your bot has stopped. I'm not sure if it finished, though, because my name change seems to have gone through around the same time. One thing I do know is that all the userbox pages got moved to my new namespace, so now there are twice as many pages to delete. :( —Mira06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was done migrating as far as it knew, but unfortunately the name change really screwed everything up :-) I'm going to school now, I'll be home later today and will try and fix the rest. —METS501 (talk)11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to make you do work :-). Do you mind going through the templates listed at Special:Prefixindex/User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/ and marking all of them with no more transclusions for deletion? Thanks. It should be most of them, and at that point it will be much easier for me to see what work I have left. If you could also do the same for Special:Prefixindex/User:Mira/Userboxes/, that would be great. Thanks! (you should do the first ones first because they redirect to the second ones) —METS501 (talk)21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I was just going to ask you what I could do to help. It might take a little while for me to get to them, though, I'm just about to call home. —Mira22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to move a few or all of my boxes to go along with Mira's archive, as they are related. Could you set your bot to do this? - ∅ (∅), 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All hell has broken loose at User talk:Betacommand and WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which), and it seems to be about the link removal task he's just been approved for. He was removing Google links, despite my pointing out to him that Google is an official interwiki link. The result was that citations to newsgroup postings were being zapped (hardly the most reliable source, but that's not the point). Also, he was doing it under his own account not the bot's, which was presumably a mistake.
I thought that the approval came a bit quick as he hadn't adequately answered my question about how he was deciding what was spam or not. Either way, I think we should withdraw task approval or risk having egg on our collective faces; he can always reapply when the process has been streamlined and has community approval.
In Beta's defence he did clean up the mess; this isn't about censure but about recognising that we've got a bot approval wrong. Agree or not? --kingboyk22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the application, having just realised he's a newbie I gave a conditional approval to, added to your comment that the spell checking isn't ready for automated use. Is that OK? --kingboyk01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't see where the request was withdrawn by betacommand. From what I see Tawker approved it. Can you explain the reasoning behind denying it? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) —— Eagle101Need help?00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the huge controversy surrounding Betacommand's removal of external links, I have withdrawn the approval for his bot. I've edited the request to make it clear that I am withdrawing the approval; he is not withdrawing the request. —METS501 (talk)00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, I don't think this bot is the same thing. I don't understand how the two are related. Why the backlash (as in removing approval for unrelated task)? As far as I understand this bot only edits under WP:WPSPAM space ('WP:WPSPAM/Something'), and is totally unrelated to removal of links. —— Eagle101Need help?00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly he was doing it an automated fashion, and it leaves us looking incompetent if we allow it to continue. Let the dust settle and he can reapply. He should consider himself lucky that's the only consequence, really. --kingboyk01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. For me, I have serious issues understanding Betacommand when he writes, and it looks like that task is open ended, almost to the point of "can I do whatever I want with regards to spam?". I don't think it's a good idea to have him be able to do whatever he wants with regards to spam as of now with the whole controversy. If he wants to do any more specific tasks, he can request them again, hopefully trying to write clearer. —METS501 (talk)01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The point is that WP:BAG needs to appear decisive and on top of the game; whether or not this approval was specifically about what Beta was doing doesn't really matter. It's all part of the same process, a process which the community isn't happy about. As I said, let the dust settle and it can be revisited. For now it's game over. --kingboyk01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there is a clone bot named Vulpinebot, that is running the same task. The task is simply keeping track of links that are checked by anti-spam members. The bot only edits under WP:SPAM space. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VixDaemon 4 is the clone. If the bot operator is not betacommand, is the bot idea acceptable. (it seems to have been determined as that on the original BRFA). —— Eagle101Need help?01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine, but I still think this action is a little err... punitive? Regardless its not my bot, so I'm sure betacommand will figure it out :) Though I'm going to be bluntly honest, I fail to see the relevance between what betacommand did today, and this bot request. The bot in the request never did remove any links. In either case I am going to go work on cppwiki (C++ wiki framework), so we can make some C++ bots! —— Eagle101Need help?01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. We're technology fans or we wouldn't be on BAG. Tommorow's a new day and we can start again; for now, beta overstepped the mark, his proposal shouldn't have been approved so quickly in the first place; and we have a duty to listen to the community. Punitive? Perhaps, but it wasn't meant to be. Damage limitation was more like it. See you tommorow :) --kingboyk01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got an edit conflict. Probably there's no connection at all between what beta did today and the other bot requests. It is however evening or night in the northern hemisphere and I'm off to bed, so let's sort it out tommorow :) Good luck with the programming. --kingboyk01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is BAG involved in this? BCbot's third task is purely a statical and record keeping task. BCbot had no part in link removal and wont until a BRFA goes up for that. I left the exact details of the stats out because we are still figuring out what we need as far as stats. as I said before it only edits sub pages. if you want i can give you the code. I think this action was made in bad faith as it has no relation to my personal actions. you should reconsider your choice as that task has been operational for several weeks and there have been ZERO issues. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)02:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly disagree with the merits of Mets501's decision if you wish (I don't have a view one way or the other), but to say it was made "in bad faith" is uncivil and not appropriate. Newyorkbrad02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what exactly was that request for? That is, what new was being requested in that task? I will reverse my withdrawal if you can let me know. To respond to your other question about the involvement of the BAG, the bot approvals group is generally responsible for the bots that are currently running on Wikipedia. They do more than approvals, so the name is really misleading. If there are serious bot problems, the blame partly goes to the person who approved the bot. —METS501 (talk)02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there are no serious bot problems with that particular tasking. As beta said, there have been 0 complaints. (I'm back as winsock is annoying me :), can't wait to be back on linux. ) —— Eagle101Need help?02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra's bot is just a clone because I have internet connection issues (my default connection is 26.4kbs) and hosting a bot on that connection is not a easy task. in regard to what the origional request was as doing linksearches of identified possible spam tracking those linksearch results on a subpage and maintaining that data. that is what is currently operational. I left the exact stats from the task as I was/am hoping to develope other stats also and wanted to be able to incorperate the stats in WP:WPSPAM subpages also without having to file more BRFA's BCbot's task is limited to data collection and recording. Kyra's bot is the exact same but hosted on a better internet connection Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm understanding correctly, the new bot request was just to add more data to the spam recording page? What kind of data would that be? —METS501 (talk)02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually BCbot has no approval for any of the spam pages. I have been running the bot while awaiting approval. I am asking for that approval. the only other data that might be used it already gets would be just tracking the reports better and figuring out what the data it has means. but as that hasn't been coded Ill settle for getting the current code up. and file a new BRFA for new stats when they arise. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)02:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand the tasking, it is the whole idea of the statistics to start with. He has just been running the bot in test mode for quite a while with no complaints. —— Eagle101Need help?02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
