User talk:Vacation9/Archives/2013/February

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.

Hi there, I would like to enquire about VoxelBot's sources. How does the bot receive the info it uses to update vandalism info template? (for eg. Huggle, Twinkle reverts marked as vandalism etc.) Also, may I know what that (for eg.) "90/2 according to voxelbot" means and how to get info on no. of reverts per minute. Thanks and cheers!

Sure thing. Let me first say that the source code of VoxelBot is available at our GitHub repository. If you don't want to look through all the code however, the bot scans RecentChanges in the last 30 minutes for reverts. It excludes reverts that were good faith or reverts of unsourced content. It then edits the template in the format (edit count)/(revert count), but averaged to per minute. So 90/2 would mean 90 edits per minute and 2 reverts per minute. There is a live feed of edits flagged as reverts available here. I hope this helped! Vacation9 13:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it just gets the info from reverts by tools like

Kangaroo

13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It searches edit summaries in Special:RecentChanges. Before VoxelBot people used Huggle to update it, as it has a handy statistics view at the top right hand corner. Vacation9 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Youu mean it searches for the word "vandalism" in edit summaries? And I have always never got the meaning of top right hand corner of Huggle interface, is it only can be viewed by Huggle users? Cheers!

Kangaroo

15:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It searches for the word "revert" or "rvv" in edit summaries, but excludes summaries which also include "good faith". Yes, the Huggle interface can be viewed only by Huggle users. Vacation9 15:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So, just to confirm I understood nothing wrong, I will summarise it as "Voxel searches for edit summaries with 'vandalism', 'rvv', 'revert' in them", am I right?

Kangaroo

16:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. It also does checks to make sure its not a good faith revert though. Vacation9 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! ;)

Kangaroo

03:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vacation9/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

It's a

VoxelBot hasn't updated Vandalism information in over 12 hours. Is something going on?

ARGH, not again... I'll deal with this in the morning. It seems WMLabs is experiencing issues once again. Vacation9 04:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I put him at AIV in hopes of getting a faster result to make sure they stopped. It is doubtful any longterm solution will come from ANI, as what can they do with a shared IP? Kids, eh? I was too busy with chasing girls when I was in high school to bother with garbage like what they are doing!

I understand, but remember that the IP actually stopped vandalizing after the final warning. Thus, at least per the final warning criteria, they could not have been blocked from AIV. There were also the additional aspects though which warranted an ANI post. Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasoning! Vacation9 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw your offer to code a bot doing functions of Gimmebot, - please consider Bot training ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, sure. I don't know why he/she made such a bit deal about it... This is only if it is adding the new template, not if it is simply adding a new event in the existing template. Vacation9 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It was also in the edit summaries, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your work on VoxelBot and the auto-updates it makes to Template:Vandalism information. From the day I first designed Template:WikiDefcon/levels back in 2011 to your bot today, the classification of vandalism levels has become less subjective and more reliable. The information is of great use to us all. Thank you! CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 23:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It really means a lot! Vacation9 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

bot training
Thank you for the VoxelBot and for training it to perform the FA functions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, glad I could help! Vacation9 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

vaction studies do show that people crash more with a helmet on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.133.128 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits constitute vandalism and this one is trolling. Please stop your disruptive editing or you will be blocked from editing. Vacation9 02:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes. We have modified the process for adding Nominations , which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected. There is now a Holding Area , where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date. The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics. We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia. The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the Holding Area . Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, talk ) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Hey, you beat me to the page asking for this user to be blocked!! Will have to work on quickening up my typing skills. :) Rocketrod1960 (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being so fast Vacation9 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I really hope this gets through after the issues I encountered over the last few days! :) I am asking for you to reconsider the revision to my December edit on

Apologize for the misunderstanding around your block. This edit is fine (the one where you removed unsourced content) but the one I'm concerned about is this edit where you added unsourced content which could also be considered personal opinion. Could you get a reliable source on the same side as yours? Vacation9 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been noticing how much your Talk page has been vandalized by immature trolls with too much time on their hands. Just wanted to wish you good luck with it, and hope you continue to do good work on Wikipedia despite those difficulties. A watchful (talk page stalker), • Jesse V.^(talk) 18:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh... not to mention an autoconfirmed userpage vandal Vacation9 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there- What is happening to this list? I see it getting a FL status then then, lots of code errors on the page. Is it OK??Coal town guy (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was promoted. Along with Hahc21, I'm testing VoxelBot. We're trying to get the bot working. It should be good now. Vacation9 21:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

COOL, I see no Gold Star on the actual page, but I do see a Featured list template in red, can you correct that?Coal town guy (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Vacation9 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Please note that it's not necessary to report usernames to UAA if they've not edited in the past month or so. It worsens the backlog and pushes the more time-critical requests to the bottom. Thanks for your understanding and keep up the good work! Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, got it. Sorry about that! Vacation9 21:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's a pretty obscure guideline, so don't sweat it. Take care and keep up the good work! Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to touch base regarding your new bot task for FL and FA closing. I posted a link there to some documentation I wrote up for the FA-related closes. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate on anything. In the meantime, I will continue to manually close FACs and FARs; drop me a line when you're ready for a test run, so I can leave you something to work with. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit coded out for now; I worked on the bot for a whole day and it's turning out to be more complicated than I thought. I'm taking a bit of a break and will get back to it when I can. Thank you though, that will help. I'll let you know when I have something to test. Vacation9 22:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand; it's a fairly complex task. The manual work is a nuisance but I've covered for the bot several times before, so I suppose it won't be the death of me anytime soon :) Let me know if any step proves particularly difficult; I might be able to suggest a different approach. Maralia (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I have a question: is it possible for delists not to be covered by the bot? I completely forgot about them when writing it and so my current code is modeled around listings. It would be quite a bit of work to modify for delists, especially considering all the stuff that needs to be done and all the codes for ArticleHistory delistings. It would be possible, but it would take a while. Are delists relatively rare? Vacation9 20:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything is finished (delists not implemented) and I'm ready for a test over at FAC. Already tested at FLC. When you can, just let me know when you have an FAC that's closed. Vacation9 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To make sure I'm understanding you: the current code is ready to test for FAC promotions and archivals, and FAR keeps, but not FAR delistings, yes? That's manageable for the short term, since these days we only have maybe 5 FAR delistings per month on average. It can be the next step after you've had a chance to iron out any issues with the current code.

I would expect there to be more closings tonight or tomorrow night; I'll drop you a note if I see them happen. Maralia (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The bot code runs every day, so it should catch it fine. It is possible I can implement delistings in the future, yes. Vacation9 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the progress! Could the bot please say "Article history" also in the edit summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Vacation9 23:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

made my day - you remember my little wish for Christmas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, always glad to help! Vacation9 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that you should take very extreme care when answering an edit request on a caste-related talk page. As you can see in my explanation there, the alleged source that was given to you is never, ever, under any situation reliable, as we know for a fact that a very large portion of their books are just unattributed copies of Wikipedia articles. The reason for semi-protection on most of these articles is because of rampant POV pushing by anons and non-confirmed editors, who very often want to turn pages about their own caste into glorification of their past based on myths and "personal knowledge". Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying, I apologize about this. I was a bit on the fence, but I assumed good faith and made the edit. The edit made sense, but I see your point. Thanks again! Vacation9 05:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please double-check that everything worked as intended when relisting AfD debates - quite a few you relisted today were not removed from the 16th's log. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed there were quite a few edit conflicts for the old log when relisting. I tried to manually correct it, but of course I ran into edit conflict after edit conflict. I'll try to fix it again now. Vacation9 14:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you removed them for me; thanks! Vacation9 14:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look carefully what i did --Greek Transistor (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if they are the same, that's not the way to say so. What you should do is request the page be deleted because it is a duplicate - not blank the page. See

WP:CSD#A10. Happy editing! Vacation9

00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi:) I deleted this page's content and you redid (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SaraKatherinsmile/Sara_Katherine_Johnson&action=edit). I made the page when I was in high school and my account also got blocked because I was being dumb and edited Ashton Kutcher's page as well. Anyways, the page I edited was my personal page. Since I'm getting older and trying to present a better online image I was trying to erase the page. Please let me know what I can do to make this happen. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.173.129 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. The way to request a page to be deleted is not to blank it though, it is to tag it for speedy deletion by author request, which I have done. Thanks again! Vacation9 01:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

i just noticed this error on wikipedia, not my job to "take it to talk page", someone who uses wikipedia needs to correct this blatant error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.158.42 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about articles should be done on the talk page, not on the article itself; that is the whole purpose of the talk page. Talking about an article by adding discussion on the article itself is disruptive. Vacation9 00:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed how the article is mostly un-sourced lists of artists and album releases, with {{

Sorry about that, since you weren't logged in it showed as an IP, and undoing an anti vandal bot removing sections is always a trigger for me. That sounds good! Vacation9 12:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting this up and running. I just looked over the bot's first 2 closings and noted a few issues to iron out:

• The timestamp for closure doesn't appear to be right. It should be the timestamp of the edit in which the article was added to the featured/archive log. Using the Rakoto Frah FAC as an example, the actual timestamp of closure (here) does not agree with the timestamp used by the bot in the FAC subpage closure and in the ArticleHistory.
• The |oldid= was left blank;
• The 'remove featured article tools from the FAC subpage' step was skipped;
• An anomalous extra |actionn was added; and
• Neither article, both of which were GAs promoted to FA, was removed from WP:GA.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help or clarify, and thanks again; really appreciate your taking this on. Maralia (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21 told me that the timestamp for closure could be the time of the bot's edit instead of the time of closing. The latter is much more complicated to implement. He also told me oldid wasn't required, and that would also be a bit of work to implement. Both are possible however. I will implement the remove from GA subpage step, I forgot about that. When I can, I'll take a look at the extra action problem. Thanks! Vacation9 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered that given that the bot runs daily, unlike GimmeBot, that ran twice per week, the difference between timestamps would be minimal. Also, in my opinion, the timestamp is not very important, and after Vacation9 expressed to me how difficult would it be to make it catch the correct timestamp, and considering that we needed a bot as fast as possible, I recommended him to add a new timestamp and overlook the |oldid= parameter. As an FL delegate, I was unaware of the GA thing, as we don't have Good Lists, and we add the promoted lists to

²¹

17:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I implemented the function to remove FAs from the GA list after promotion, and fixed the extra action issue. What's the remove featured article tools from FAC subpage step? Vacation9 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you have to remove the {{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=ARTICLENAME}} things from the FAC subpage. —

²¹

19:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's most of the step; the full language to be removed is shown in the second Note on my FA bot writeup. Regarding the timestamp: surely it is no more complicated to get the associated timestamp of an edit than it is to get the associated username, which the bot is already doing? As for getting the oldid of the version of the article at the timestamp it was closed, there's a user script that may be helpful; check out function manualDate(event). Maralia (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on removing the FA tools. You are correct, getting the old revision time is easy, however converting it to the correct format from the API is a nightmare. Yes it can be done, but it's something I need to work on when I have the time. Also, that userscript is of no use since the bot uses Python, not Javascript. I haven't found pre-written code to convert API time to readable time for Python, so I'll have to write it myself. Vacation9 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I had a closer look at the changes you referred to. I thank you for your attention, I went over the changes I had made and discovered a major error on my part because the Daily Express was not a tabloid until the 1970s. I will amend the details and provide citations or links where I can showing how the headline has been (mis)used. Part of the problem is that many of the comments appear on racist websites or YouTube videos associated with WWII Zerosprite (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know! That sounds good. Vacation9 01:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)