Loading AI tools
Hey there. I remember your automated peer review process from when I've had a few article listed there. We've since set up WP:ARCHPR an architecture wikiproject peer review - is there anyway your 'bot'(?) could be used to also provide autmatic suggestions for the articles listed there - it strikes me that some people may only list their articles at ARCHPR and miss out on the good technical feedback your bot provides. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
AndyZ,
Thanks for the automated review. I copied and pasted the comments into my Talk page so that I could create a paper trail of comments and my actions. I am a bit busy right now, but I do plan to consider, and answer, every comment. I asked my colleague, Gary Zieve, to review this (he is a Molecular Biologist) and he made 3 very useful edits concerning factural content.
Bob Plaag 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments! I've tried to take note of them and make changes. One thing though... as soon as I started working on a gallery page, another editor came along and slammed a proposal for deletion, literally within 9 minutes of the article being started. I'd appreciate any comments on whether or not such a gallery should stay, go, or be merged back into the Halfbeak article. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your automated review of the West Indies in England in 1988. Some thought-provoking stuff, thanks. I'll take a detailed look at the suggestions. --Dweller 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think we've tackled all of the issues raised at West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Please will you re-run the automated peer review. Thanks. --Dweller 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's great. I think we're done. Waiting now for the GA editors to approve or otherwise. Are we a long way short of FA in your opinion? --Dweller 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I request one for Paul Collingwood, please? As there's a group of us working fast on this, in time for the imminent cricket world cup, it would be great if you could post the results to the article's talk page. I know... I'm cheeky. Thanks! --Dweller 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!
Delivered by grafikbot 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to retrieve the automated peer review for Joseph F. Glidden House but found it to be non-existent, any help?A mcmurray 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for running the automated peer review of Mendip Hills there are a couple of useful points I've acted on. Can I ask whether the process yet spots geoboxes (rather than infoboxes)? The process suggested I use an infobox but the article already has a more comprehensive (& machine readable) geobox providing the same info - could this also explain the suggestion of getting a free use image when I already have a PD one (of Cheddar Gorge) top right - but it's inside the geobox so may not have been recognised. Thanks again— Rod talk 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Great work on that! I submitted the article Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, and I got the automated; it was very helpful, thanks! I tried to add the script to my monobook, but it didn't work (after bypassing my cache). Could you please tell me what I did wrong? Thanks. · AndonicO Talk 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I noticed it worked on a Macintosh, but I use Windows. Should the code be changed to make it work on my computer, or do I have to borrow my friend's Mac every time I need your PR? I'd appreciate any help, so leave me a message on my talk page after you're back if you can. Thanks! · AndonicO Talk 13:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, that doesn't work either. I replace the url, hit enter, and nothing happens. Oh well. The only two things I got on my friend's computer were the copyediting and date tips though. I noticed that just about everyone had these, so I wondered if they were automatic, and that I shouldn't worry, or if the article needs copyeding and date corrections (which I couldn't fine). · AO Talk 00:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'd just like to say thanks for you and your bot in generating a number of automated peer reviews for me. I have a single comment, it often suggests adding an image to the top-right corner where one already exists, just within an infobox. Any chance you could modify the algorithm that searches for an image accordingly? Pretty much all bio's will have an infobox where the image will exist! Minor point, but one I thought worth making. Thanks again, and all the best, The Rambling Man 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The February 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I can’t work out how to use the automated peer review. Please can you add it to my script page? (I’m not familiar with the monobook page) Thanks. Simpsons contributor 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you. I would like to report a three revert violation of a featured article that you supported a year ago. I would have posted this at the Three revert noticeboard, but it appears there is a huge backlog and the page is too big for me to download. The details of the violation are below. Thanks!
User:AllanBColson reported by User:Jayzel68 (Result:)
Three-revert rule violation on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AllanBColson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
- Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
- Comments
- User is a sockpuppet of User:Derex who has been around at least over a year. I referred to him as Derex at Talk:1996 United States campaign finance controversy and he did not deny this. User led me on a circular discussion over a NPOV tag he added and warned me about the 3 revert rule before he then violated it himself. --Jayzel 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating! I certainly have not violated the 3RR today or ever. I've made several copyedits, some of which deleted extraneous material inserted weeks and months before. However, that's an entirely different beast than a revert. If Jayzel wishes to pursue a complaint against me, I'd ask him to do so at the appropriate forum WP:3RR. The rather large irony behind this is that Jayzel himself quite blatantly violated the 3RR with an obvious sock after having been warned. Having little taste for conflict, I have not reported him, in the spirit of good faith. However, I find this spurious little sneak attack ungentlemanly. I encourage and welcome Jayzel to pursue the matter of this morning's edits at ANI if he's willing to subject his own edits to the same scrutiny as mine. Do you have any idea why he singled you out for attention? AllanBColson 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and though it presumably goes without saying, I certainly haven't violated any WP:SOCK policies either. It would again appear quite clear that Jayzel has. I'm not in the habit of denying whatever mud Jayzel throws my way. He's called me quite a few nasty names, and I haven't the time or inclination to rise to his baiting. So, I find the best course is to simply ignore his incivilities and aspersions. AllanBColson 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was going through random articles and found a victim of vandalism, please don't judge me on the article though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_Wheels_of_Steel
At the bottom someone put editlollollollz instead of editors. Skoalman666 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Couple things I wanted to mention that I thought you might be able to fix.
- Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, Doesn't, Don't --- This is looking inside of "ref" statements. If I have a title of a article that is "Don't buy xxx" we need to keep that the same. So perphaps the script could skip contractions inside of ref statements.
- It also recommended a change of "percent" to "%", which is perfectly fine. However, it was inside of a quotation, which probably shouldn't change.
- Also, what is the minimum size for a image caption in your script. Seems a concise caption is a bit long.
Just thought I would mention them. Thanks for the great script! Morphh (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Peer Review of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod talk 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I found a PR script but. See Our Chalet. With the "1350 metres" in the lead, with the nbsp in it, it tells me to not put an s after an abbrev eventhough metres is not an abbrev. If I take out the nbsp, it tells me it needs it. Rlevse 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to run your PR script with Firefox 2 (with Linux kernel 2.6.17, which probably isn't the problem). The error console within Firefox gives a pretty generic error of "too much recursion" with your script enabled. With your script disabled, it does not give the error. Just in case, I've ripped out all my custom scripts (popups and scripts I've wrote) with the same results. Has this been tested in Firefox 2? -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy, thanks for your PR script, which we use quite often at WP:Chem. I have a suggestion, though, regarding element names. The script suggests that "Aluminum" is the preferred spelling for the metal in articles that use American spellings, but in fact WP:Chem follows international spelling guidelines (from IUPAC) that override local page spellings. After many heated arguments in the early days of WP, it was agreed that all chemistry-related pages on WP should (in theory) use the following spellings, whatever the style of the specific page:
A good example of this can be seen at sulfuric acid, which uses what some would regard as an American spelling for the title compound, but the article in general follows British English. (Interestingly, Al used to be called aluminium in the USA also, until someone made a typo that somehow stuck...!). So I just wanted to ask if you could pick an example that doesn't mention aluminum as an approved American spelling? Thanks once again for a very helpful script. Walkerma 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have History of the New York Giants (1925-1978) currently under peer review, could you please scan it through with the bot? Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Scanned it with the bot myself. Hope you come back soon! Quadzilla99 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidBarron.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 |
<font=3> Thanks again for your comments - List of Pennsylvania state parks made featured list! Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
 |
|---|
The March 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you had done some work at History of New Jersey that had resulted in that article receiving featured status. I have been a principal editor at Plymouth Colony, and seeing as both articles are part of American History, I thought perhaps you might have some interest in hlping to improve that article. The article is up for featured article candidacy and several reviewers have requested that I recruit some other editors to look over the article and make additional changes. I would appreciate if, in your free time, you could look it over, make any changes as you see fit, and also make any comments you would like on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks alot, and happy editing!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I could not get the peerreviewer to work on OSX and Safari on files that I had created or worked on extensively, but have discovered that the combination of OSX and Firefox enables it. It's a great tool. I note the comment above about Linux and Firefox 2. I have Firefox 2.0.0.3. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know you through interactions, but your work with the automated peer review bot is sorely missed. Come back soon dude. Quadzilla99 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked you, I don't think I need to say why. --Michael Billington (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have logged in and changed the password for this user account, and removed its registered email address. - Mark 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assume that our working assumption is that the account was compromised, right? Do you think the registered email address was an old one belonging to the real user, or a new one put in by the vandal? Doops | talk 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The email address looks genuine. I've sent him an email explaining what happened and asking for an explanation to the community. - Mark 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- One could just take this at face value and assume that this was the result of an extraordinarily low strength password and a vandal willing to try the obvious. (Admins: time to add more random symbols to your password!) - BanyanTree 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that the most probable explanation, I'd say, which is why I've kept the new password and not made it gibberish, in case the user turns up and says it was just a weak password. - Mark 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- One could just take this at face value and assume that this was the result of an extraordinarily low strength password and a vandal willing to try the obvious. (Admins: time to add more random symbols to your password!) - BanyanTree 02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The email address looks genuine. I've sent him an email explaining what happened and asking for an explanation to the community. - Mark 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Since my password was already changed, thanks User:Mark) Just got the e-mail (it is genuine): obviously the best password for an admin to use isn't password. I haven't had time recently to go on Wikipedia, with most recent edits anonymous, so apparently my account was compromised and hacked. Sorry for the problems this has caused, and I hope no long-lasting damage has been done. 71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ) 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- {{unblock}} removed, I think it's best to leave this up to Mark. John Reaves (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(finishing the rest of my unblocking reason below so that involved admins don't have to copy a huge blurb if they deny this unblock)
I don't mind if the WP community wishes to wait time before [if?] unblocking me to confirm the security of this account/my identity; I personally am confused and disturbed by the ongoing admin-hacking spree.
Also, I noted that I am editing from my semi-bot account created a long while back. I understand that I probably should not be editing from any logged-in account right now, but I believe this constitutes the best proof I have that I am indeed AndyZ. APR t 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unless the password to AZPR was also "password". Have you e-mailed Mark back? He will know your original e-mail address and will be in the best position to verify your identity. Thatcher131 01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Mark for letting me re-gain control of my account. I am currently changing the password to a much higher security level. AZ t 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back Andy! Ruhrfisch 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- And thank you very much User:Ruhrfisch (both for the welcome and for WP:PR/A)! As a side note, Mark has returned my e-mail and has given me my new password, explaining my edit above. APR t (back on this account b/c I'm still blocked from editing all pages but my talk) 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back Andy! Ruhrfisch 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Mark for letting me re-gain control of my account. I am currently changing the password to a much higher security level. AZ t 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You were just unblocked while I was writing a message about how I was unblocking you. :-) In any case, just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, if you return to active editing after all this, it won't have been all bad. Hope to see you around. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Since everyone else is satisfied that you are back in control of this account, I've restored your op bit. Raul654 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The automated peer review script complained about style problems inside <ref> tags here. It probably shouldn't do that as there is nothing we can do about referenced articles using weasel words in the headlines, etc. Noclip 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad you got your account back, it's just sad it got compromised in the 1st place, all the best for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been working on pipe organ since your automated peer review. One thing that was flagged up was the linking of full dates. Your note says 'this may be due to dates in the <ref> tags'. I think this is the case, but am a bit unsure whether that means that they should still be linked (for user preferences I guess), or that it can be ignored because it is in citations. Before I link them all, can you clarify this for me?
Thanks
–MDCollins (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't done it, so thanks for clearing that up. I don't think WP:CONTEXT applies to references! –MDCollins (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused. I see this edit, but no mention of List of Shakespearean characters, here. AndyJones 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to use the suggestions for Mac Pro, but it was very difficult because of the size of the article. To be more specific, the first comment was about a missing nbsp, but almost all of the units had them so it took me a LONG time to find it.
The second one was easy to use, on the other hand, because the actual term showed up.
The third one I don't even know how I would do. I guess I would open the list of terms in one window and then check in the article for each one in turn? Yikes!
So I was wondering if the 'bot could spit out the entire sentence of the problem, with the problem itself highlighted in red? If it did this, all three of these would take a few seconds to track down.
Thanks!
Maury 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all GA members and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Employee Tour Scheduling Problem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gavin Collins 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you automate a peer review for this article?
Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt
SpecialWindler 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The script has a bug in that it incorrectly turns '20th Century Fox' into '20th century Fox'. To fix this, replace
txt.value = txt.value.replace(/(\d(?:st|nd|rd|th))[ \-]Century/gi, '$1 century');
with
txt.value = txt.value.replace(/(\d(?:st|nd|rd))[ \-]Century/gi, '$1 century'); txt.value = txt.value.replace(/([456789]th)[ \-]Century/gi, '$1 century'); txt.value = txt.value.replace(/(0th)[ \-]Century(.[^F])/gi, '$1 century$2');
It also fails to address links such as 'Twentieth century'. To fix this, add the following line
txt.value = txt.value.replace(/\[\[((?:first|second|third|fourth|fifth|sixth|seventh|eighth|ninth|tenth|eleventh|twelfth|thirteenth|fourteenth|fifteenth|sixteenth|seventeenth|eighteenth|nineteenth|twentieth|twenty[ \-]first))[ \-]century\]\]/gi, '$1 century');
Compare your script with User:Lightmouse/monobook.js. It has other minor details, such as a fix to solve a bug with 'accessyear'. Hope that helps. Lightmouse 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have also improved the year delinking code. So far, it has a better success rate, fewer errors. It is more compact and I believe it works faster. Lightmouse 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... I'm not a user very advanced in programing (the only time I use Cocoa is when I want hot chocolate and the only time I see C++ is on my report card) so for some reason, when I tried to upload your script to my monobook.js file, it didn't work. I cleared my cache, reset my brower, tried two or three times, to no avail... Whats wrong? Thanks! --PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the bot working? --evrik (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod talk 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find any link to the "peer reviw" (to the right of log out) link though i have installed the script on my monobook.js page.
Have a look at my monobook.js page
Plz help. --Siddhant 11:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy, your peer review semi-bot has a bug where it breaks the format for IPA pronounciations. Something like {{IPA|[ˈɑs.kɛɹ dɛ.lɑ.ˈhɔɪ.jɑ]}} would get changed to {{IPA|[[ˈɑs.kɛɹ dɛ.lɑ.ˈhɔɪ.jɑ]]}}. Thanks! east.718 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. There are some automated peer review requests that haven't been actioned yet. Can you help? SP-KP 08:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been applying your "peer review" script and I have encountered some bugs. I will add a message to the tool's talk page.--SallyForth123 05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving, removing EPMG or Episodic Metagames
Andy, I haven't checked in awhile but I have just realized that all the work I did in entering the articles referred to as EPMG and Episodic Metagames has disappeared.
I am astonished to find that these articles were removed since they refer to a very important, if somewhat sparsely inhabited niche in the world of online gaming. The smallness of the arena should not make the importance of this style of gaming irrelevant. I do not understand the arbitrary decision to remove this reference. I must completely misunderstand the purpose of the wikipedia.
Part of the reason that online gaming is so distorted is that the MMOGs have dominated the scene for the last several years. To bring any balance back to online gaming, there must be some effort to create a place for unbiased definition of game types and styles. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that I would ever have to have a copy of the article written for the wikipedia or I would refer you to the concepts that exist in it. I hope you have it archived somewhere. As a game designer specializing and struggling to get recognition for this very distinct, very valid and very definable game style I am very distressed to see our niche marginalized here.
Please let me know by what process of judgement this important article was removed. Thank you. Please email me at
larry@larrydunlap.com
Larry Dunlap Game Designer
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I wanted to offer to help out with doing the semi-automated peer reviews (as I have on occasion in the past). I noticed from edit summaries that you can do it much faster than I (it takes me about an hour to do 10 to 12 semi-automated peer reviews), so I was wondering if there was any possibility of my getting the script(s) used with your AZPR account? If so, I would make a second account for its use too (just have to think of a clever name). Would it have to be approved as a (semi)bot? I have been doing a few semi-automated peer reviews when people ask for them, but the backlog and the time commitment at my current rate of completing them has kept me from doing more. If you would prefer, you can email me (the link is active on my user page). Thanks and glad to see you are back (even if for one edit), Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the reply, your kind offer, and the barnstar. I would be willing to do this. I have a couple of suggestions for the PR script, not sure how much you want or are able to do with it right now, but if you are interested, let me know. I do not check the email address I give here super often, so if it is a few days before you email me, it is probably better to leave notice on my talk page to check my email. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have tweaked the PR script some, I was going to suggest that it do the following. 1) somehow recognize images in infoboxes, if they are present (but the current wording about images is an improvement and OK). 2) When it searches for additive terms, if a word has the string "also" in it (like "Loyalsock Creek), it reads that as that as an occurence of "also". Would adding a space on either side fix this (i.e. so it searches for " also ", not "also")? Test run it on Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) for an example of this, and test the autoformat on the same article for examples of the next two. 3) It also still finds "...26ft..." in a URL I cite a lot and thinks it needs to have a non-breaking space inserted. Could URLs be ignored? 4) It destroys the {{convert}} template use of "sqkm" and other uses on autoformat. Could it ignore calls to templates (text inside curly brackets)? 5) This won't come up often, but "3 ft 0 in gauge" gets switched to "3 ft 0 ingauge" (run the autoformat on this article verion ).
Now for the questions. If you let me use the AZPR account, would you also continue to use it (assume so)? Is that allowed (multiple users on one account)? Would you want me to keep some sort of subpage log of edits I made? Or make some dummy edit with an edit summary of "Ruhrfisch signing in" on starting to use it and also sign out when done (both to let you know I was using it and to avoid edit conflicts)? OK, sorry to be slow in replying and thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)- Thanks for clarifying that - I will do my best to work through the rest of the PR requests tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Andy, I finally have caught up all the September requests as of now with a semi automated peer review. I tried to move into the August backlog, but ran into two problems. First, the script said to look at the September archive (I had pasted the PRs into the August archive as the requests were from August). Second, Cow & Chicken was goofy - kept trying to go Cow, probably trouble with the ampersand in the script(?). Anyway, I fixed it but only did two August reviews as I had to go in and edit the see review here to point to August. If worse comes to worse I can do the "see semi automated peer review here" by hand like I used to and just use the script to generate the peer reviews themselves, but figured I would ask you first. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that - I will do my best to work through the rest of the PR requests tomorrow. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see you have tweaked the PR script some, I was going to suggest that it do the following. 1) somehow recognize images in infoboxes, if they are present (but the current wording about images is an improvement and OK). 2) When it searches for additive terms, if a word has the string "also" in it (like "Loyalsock Creek), it reads that as that as an occurence of "also". Would adding a space on either side fix this (i.e. so it searches for " also ", not "also")? Test run it on Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) for an example of this, and test the autoformat on the same article for examples of the next two. 3) It also still finds "...26ft..." in a URL I cite a lot and thinks it needs to have a non-breaking space inserted. Could URLs be ignored? 4) It destroys the {{convert}} template use of "sqkm" and other uses on autoformat. Could it ignore calls to templates (text inside curly brackets)? 5) This won't come up often, but "3 ft 0 in gauge" gets switched to "3 ft 0 ingauge" (run the autoformat on this article verion ).
(unindent)OK, I figured it had to be the ampersand - no hurry on fixing it, as it is not a common character in article titles. If you would force it to be Augus, I can catch up on the rest tonight and let you know when it is done, then you can switch it back - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Geography of New Jersey for the article improvement drive. Being that you are a member of the Wikipedia Nj project, your input would be appreciated.--ZeWrestler Talk 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, if you are aware of anyone who would have something to say about this COTW, please point them to the vote. --ZeWrestler Talk 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you've got a list of users who do not want to have articles edited by your bot User:AZPR, but if you do I'd like to be on it. While I appreciate the attempt to automate tedious minor edits, I have enough to keep up with in reading the comments left by actual humans, and I'd rather not have to sift though comments which "might not be applicable for the article in question".
Besides, how am I supposed to reconcile these two bits of advice, offered here:
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
Maybe I'm stupid, because I don't see how these are anything other than totally contradictory. — Scartol · Talk 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is probably picky but....
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Actually, pigs come in pink, black, brown, pink with black spots, and various others, depending on breed, so this example is poor. Maybe "All grass is green"? Which is roughly true enough, if it's alive. Adam Cuerden talk 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Camden Shipyard.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
