 | This user is knowingly a bit quirky. Please do not speedily delete him. |
Welcome to my talk page!
- Please add all messages under its own header on the bottom.
- If you need an urgent response, email me.
- Effective August 11, 2009: If I left a message at your page, respond on your page; I will be watching the page for responses. If you left me a message here, I will respond on this page.
Archives
- November 26, 2004 - August 31, 2006
- September 1, 2006 - November 15, 2006
- November 16, 2006 - January 22, 2007
- January 23, 2007 - April 11, 2007
- April 12, 2007 - July 2, 2007
- July 3, 2007 - September 3, 2007
- September 4, 2007 - April 13, 2008
- April 14, 2008 - February 15, 2009
- February 16, 2009 - August 15, 2009
- August 16, 2009 - November 12, 2009
- November 13, 2009 - Present
[edit] Thank goodness
Thanks to the date-unlinking bot edits like this are possible. Hard to image someone doing this manually. Hekerui (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1,185 full-dates! Thank you for the feedback. @harej 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] GAN tweaks, suggestions and requests
Thanks for all your work to improve the automated GAN page. I just compared the two pages, and the two histories: [1] and [2]. The bot seems to be working well, although for some reason, HMS Inflexible (1907)/GA1 was not parsed successfully. The bot then describes it as "failed" whereas it is actually "on hold".
The main differences are in the edit summaries. The bot's are more reliable, but miss some information. I believe that for new nominations, it would be useful to know the subtopic, and for passes and fails, it would be useful to know the name of the reviewer (I appreciate that the latter involves parsing the signature, which could be tricky). The GAN page edit history is one of the tools reviewers have for spotting reviews out of process and other problems.
Finally, a request. The GAN page is getting pretty large and I think some reviewers would prefer separate pages for each topic (the top level of the hierarchy). One of the advantages of an automated system is that we can have both, without using transclusions. (The problem with transcluding the separate pages is that the GAN page itself would then be static - no edit summaries.) Could RFC bot produce such separate pages as well? Geometry guy 15:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize for not returning this call sooner. The one with the Inflexible has to do with a misplaced template, marked as "failed" because Talk:HMS Inflexible (1907)/GA1 didn't have {{GA}} (or cash equivalent) on it, nor would it make sense for it to be there. This is an isolated incident and not indicative of broader confusion in the process. More informative edit summaries would be a good idea, though I have not yet thought of a feasible way to get that accomplished. And while the subpage system is a great idea, that's another factor in the mix that I will need to accommodate. The easiest way to get this accomplished is to have the bot chop up the full list into sublists based on second-level headers, and informative edit summaries could be produced by difference comparisons already done for the full list. I have time tonight and will see what I can do to make better edit summaries and to implement a subpage feature. @harej 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have the more precise edit summaries working now. For the topic lists, would it be okay if I were to have them in project-space now, as in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists as opposed to User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2/Topic lists? @harej 06:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Harej, good work on the edit summaries. I see no harm in putting the topic lists in Wikipedia space, as this is a proposed new feature, rather than a proposed replacement. We can discuss linking to the new pages at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Before I forget: there may be some benefit in having a dedicated bot account associated with this, e.g. User:GA bot. That way, if one bot malfunctions, the other bot's activities can continue. Also there is no harm in BAG taking a look at what you have done. Geometry guy 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I already have User:The GA robot reserved. I will have a full BRFA prepared by the time the automated list process is ready to replace the current list. @harej 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very good. Geometry guy 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RfC bot seems to have screwed up
Please take a look here. The latest addition (sock puppetry) was formatted differently than the other entries and wouldn't show properly. I reformatted it and it still looked bad. I then figured that something about the italics in the original heading might be doing it, so I harmonized them, but it's still not working. Please take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- It looks fine now. @harej 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Educational GARs
Thanks for the prompt response to my requests for reviews! FYI, I am the course leader, do let me know if you have any questions about the course or the assignment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the deadline for the course grading of the articles is Dec 8th. Hopefully the students will be done with getting a GA status by then. Still, some may not be very active till the last few days... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The review is on hold until they fill in hundreds of years of history. I will be withholding promotion until they fill in that gap. @harej 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly a good idea. Btw, something to check (I do it as much as I can but more eyes...): potential copyvio/plagiarism problems (as seen here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Proof that copyvio/plagiarism is not an isolated problems. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Surely the plagiarized articles are very easy to grade. @harej 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a section along those line in every syllabus - but it doesn't mean some people ever read it. Then there are the well meaning freshman who simply never heard the word plagiarism. And one has to try to distinguish between students (in the same group) working hard and those who don't. For example, I just found one problem here - but the work of others in that group seem fine (with regards to copyvio issues). Hopefully this issue will be fixed soon... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that, Harej. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oy gevalt. @harej 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you clarify for students that they can resubmit it (and how) (re: this)? I anticipate a lot of "are we doomed" questions :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Bot speed
James, I see that the bot has been stopped for more than a day. Is it not possible to leave it running unattended—say, overnight?
It was cleared to do 70,560 edits per week but we haven't even managed 10,000 yet. If it were a little slower than the approved rate, I wouldn't bother you, but less than a seventh, which might take years to clear the backlog, appears unsatisfactory.
Would it be possible to establish a completion date? The logic of the bot permission is that the completion date should be 65 days from when permission was given (650000 edits at 10080/day). I'd have thought two months was quite enough for this task. Tony (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The bot has random moments during which it breaks down. I have been trying to fix these problems and I have had some degree of success in doing so. Once I resolve this predicament I will leave the bot running 24/7. @harej 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions
You removed an "expired rcftag" tag less than a couple of hours after I place it on the above article. I think one of us did something wrong... Can you investigate? Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your attention this. The help is much appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You should probably consider halting the bot while this request for clarification is looked at. –xenotalk 18:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 | | The da Vinci Barnstar |
| I hereby award this Barnstar to harej for creating and seeing the FDUB through its teething stage. As a result, WP will have a considerably improved reading experience through fewer distracting low-value links. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
[edit] Old MfD on userbox
I was going through and cleaning up bad mfd templates and I came across something weird that happened with one of your mfds. Check out Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Pittsburgh_Steelers and Template:User_Pittsburgh_Steelers_Fan and Template:User_Steelers. Looks like maybe this was an improperly done multi-nom? Gigs (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to merge. @harej 22:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] TUSC token bbd052fec7083c90eb1acbfda594f071
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! @harej 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RM bot
Hey, the RM bot is pretty cool - saved me a lot of work doing a multiple move request just now. Nice one!--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Self-maintaining processes for the win! @harej 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RFC bot suggestion
Looking at the RFC list, several of the talkpages for the discussions listed have been archived, which probably means those discussions have wound down and can be safely removed from the RFC list (and indeed the current instances have wound down). Perhaps a new rule to add to the bot's logic? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'll consider some title-matching. In the past, I have not really considered it an issue because surely an archived RfC is destined to be delisted. However, after seeing the bot run for a good two and a half years, I'm having some second thoughts on that notion. @harej 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RFC bot question
I recently placed an RFC at the Liquid Crystals talk page and within a few minutes the RFCbot came along and removed the tag at the top of the discussion page telling people there was an RFC. Is it supposed to do this or is it malfunctioning?Chhe (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- RFCs expire thirty days after the first comment. Based on the position of the tag, the bot figured that the first comment was made on October 2 and therefore the RFC had to have been about two months old. However, what really happened was that you added the tag long after the discussion started. I would add the tag later in the section, or I would create a new section so you could give it a new timestamp. @harej 04:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.Chhe (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Happy First Edit Day Harej
Vatsan34 (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yay! I'm 5!
[edit] Provinces of Mongolia
Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Requested_move 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 weak oppose, the latter with "Weak oppose: I have to qualify my vote by saying that I don't know much about Mongolia. ". More support at Talk:Aimags_of_Mongolia#Naming. The article was a long time at "Provinces of Mongolia" and the individual articles and the Category:Provinces of Mongolia, per WP:UE use the English translation too. Could you please re-count? TrueColour (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, since when are such discussions decided by vote count? I don't see any consensus in the discussion, I see Truecolour and Chanheigeorge arguing for "province" because of UE, Vmenkov and me arguing for "aimag" because of COMMONNAME, Latebird arguing against "province" because of NOR, and one guy who just left his signature. The guy who said "I have to qualify my vote by saying that I don't know much about Mongolia." at least was familiar with Owen Lattimore, which (no offense!) seems to be much more than could be said about Truecolour and probably Chanheigeorge. I wonder how this constitutes wp:consensus one way or the other. Yaan (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to start a second discussion or something. @harej 20:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RfC listing removal
Curious, other items on the Pol RfC list are listed in multiple category lists (IE: RfCs on Federales and Mark Levin), why not the RfC on Golan mountains? --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- You can add it into another category if you wish. Putting an RFC in two categories is done like this: {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category abbreviation and "yyy" is the second category abbreviation. See Template:Wider attention for a full list of abbreviations. @harej 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are still intending to edit the above article, please add the notice to Wikipedia:Good article nominations under the computing section. If you are not, I would like to take it over. Please note: With all due respect, after a certain amount of time (reasonable) I will start to edit, if you have not replied to this. --MWOAP (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you really want to, you may do it yourself. @harej 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will do it then. If you want I would love to hear your comments on it after my review. --MWOAP (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
