User talk:Nn123645/2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you willing to do it? No prob if not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Nn has been off-wiki since 27 July. I've sent a tickler email. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Related conversation at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah sorry guys, I got a bit side tracked and kind of put this on the back burner (as tends to happen alot with me). I'd be happy to post the source I have so far if anyone wants it, and if no one has taken it on I'd be more than happy to finish the project. --
Thank you so very much. I had thought you may have retired. Yes, if you could post the source, or work on the project, or anything that moves this forward, I woud be very thankful. I keep running across dead links and they are growing exponentially and I have been very concerned that WebCiteBOT has been down for over 9 months. Thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Source is nn123645 (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I am very grateful. I just want to double-check, may I post a link to your source code at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent so that others may work on it? Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just knowing that something is happening is a big comfort. If the error logging can simply be piped to a journal file or some such that would make it readable and searchable we could perhaps get some collaboration on identifying issues. Just a thought. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That should be doable, I should be able to run everything on the toolserver and log it to a user database then code a tool to query to that database. I was going to concentrate on just getting the WebCite part up at the moment so we have an archive, as we can always go back later and edit the articles. As far as posting the code, it is licensed under CC-NC-BY-SA. You are free to post it anywhere or do whatever you want with it provided you adhere to those terms, if you have a need for different licensing terms feel free to ask. (NC-BY-SA isn't compatabile with CC-BY-SA or the GFDL, so you can't post the code to Wikipedia directly, only link to it.) --nn123645 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Nn123645. I posted a note at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That should be doable, I should be able to run everything on the toolserver and log it to a user database then code a tool to query to that database. I was going to concentrate on just getting the WebCite part up at the moment so we have an archive, as we can always go back later and edit the articles. As far as posting the code, it is licensed under CC-NC-BY-SA. You are free to post it anywhere or do whatever you want with it provided you adhere to those terms, if you have a need for different licensing terms feel free to ask. (NC-BY-SA isn't compatabile with CC-BY-SA or the GFDL, so you can't post the code to Wikipedia directly, only link to it.) --
- Just knowing that something is happening is a big comfort. If the error logging can simply be piped to a journal file or some such that would make it readable and searchable we could perhaps get some collaboration on identifying issues. Just a thought. Thank you, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much. I am very grateful. I just want to double-check, may I post a link to your source code at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#WebCiteBOT still down, replacement growing more urgent so that others may work on it? Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"personal analysis"
No idea what you are talking about. Disambig pages are certainly supposed to explain the notability of the persons it lists, and my changes to Radulf do exactly that. There were probably 100,000+ 12th century monks; Radulphe is infamous to this day for a specific reason. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- That may very well be the case, but the wording is inherently not nn123645 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of a disambig is to get users to a page as quickly as possible Exactly, and if all the reader knew beyond the basics was that Radulf/Radople was a religious figure in the late Middle Ages he'd have to check 2 other articles first before finding the one he was looking for, since he shares a name with a bishop and an abbot of the period as well. Neutrality isn't really an issue as this is a plain case of WP:SPADE; not many 12th century monks get written about in the Jewish Encyclopedia. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I still think the mention of murder is too judgemental. The objective is to clairify the difference, murder or suprmicist is pretty much a nn123645 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good point; "killing" might be more exacting. Thanks for clarifying what the bot was up to. Rants about Judaism are probably common among vandals as well, but as long as the bot isn't going to make a habit of chasing me around whenever I pop thru to clean up the articles I maintain on interfaith relations without logging in, I'm a happy camper. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
- One of the statistics it uses is if the user has been reverted for vandalism before, but that is about all the chasing around it does. The bot is set up to automatically exclude logged in and anonymous editors (the logged in edit threshold is lower) that have over a certain number of contribs, so if you were logged in you would not have been reverted at all, assuming of course that you are above the limit. --nn123645 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, yeah my home IP did recently change (I even accidentally {{welcome}}d myself). A script-assisted human just did the exact same reversion on me on Rudolph so the bot at least passes the Turing Test on this one. OK, must log out before I glance at my watchlist or else I'll be here all week. :) -- Kendrick7talk 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- One of the statistics it uses is if the user has been reverted for vandalism before, but that is about all the chasing around it does. The bot is set up to automatically exclude logged in and anonymous editors (the logged in edit threshold is lower) that have over a certain number of contribs, so if you were logged in you would not have been reverted at all, assuming of course that you are above the limit. --
- Good point; "killing" might be more exacting. Thanks for clarifying what the bot was up to. Rants about Judaism are probably common among vandals as well, but as long as the bot isn't going to make a habit of chasing me around whenever I pop thru to clean up the articles I maintain on interfaith relations without logging in, I'm a happy camper. -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
- I still think the mention of murder is too judgemental. The objective is to clairify the difference, murder or suprmicist is pretty much a
- The whole purpose of a disambig is to get users to a page as quickly as possible Exactly, and if all the reader knew beyond the basics was that Radulf/Radople was a religious figure in the late Middle Ages he'd have to check 2 other articles first before finding the one he was looking for, since he shares a name with a bishop and an abbot of the period as well. Neutrality isn't really an issue as this is a plain case of
lol, know the feeling. Huggle also excludes editors who have over a certain number of edits, fairly or not anon editors are treated with much more suspicion than logged in editors. In addition most of the edit filters that exist are setup to exclude any autoconfirmed user. Because of this you may want to try creating an alternate account (within the limits of
- No thanks; I've made a few pernicious frenemies in my time and know that would never word out well. Besides, I like seeing how the other half lives; it's the only way I can continue to steer the project towards the openness it originally envisaged. I'm a zealot, at heart! -- 146.115.187.76 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)