User talk:GreenC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year, GreenC![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moops T 03:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

links, rot[edit]

i am collecting links from indo-aryan & dravidian articles. let me know for any changes needed. page is located here. Gunyam (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted, thanks. That is a massive amount of work and time, I can pick away at it when time is available. If possible it would help to know the link counts so I can focus on the biggest sites first. -- GreenC 04:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keeping m:List of Wikipedias/Table up to date[edit]

Could you please take a look at the discussion at m:Talk:List of Wikipedias#Dealing with transcluding subpages and see if you can help? The short version is this: the approach you suggested at m:Talk:List of Wikipedias/Archive 9#Auto table creation, while very cool, results in the numbers being out-of-date almost every time you go look at the table(s) [plural because of subpages like m:List of Wikipedias/Table/vi]. Not just out-of-date because the numbers at Commons are only updated 4 times a day, but even more out-of-date than that. For example, right now as I type this, m:List of Wikipedias/Table is showing the numbers from the 14:27, 12 February 2023 update of the Commons data, rather than the latest update at 20:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)‎. It looks like the only way to keep the numbers as up-to-date in the tables at Meta as they are on Commons is to use a bot on m:List of Wikipedias/Table itself, as described in my last comment at this other discussion. - dcljr (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey there! :) If you're in the mood to start new articles on wargames (or other board games), I have a project going at User:BOZ/BTG reviews noticeboard that I will eventually move to the WikiProject, of finding reviews for games. I have used it so far to create stubs for a number of wargame articles including Dark December (game), Dauntless (game), Battles of the Hundred Days, and Napoléon à Austerlitz, and I'm hopefully just getting started. :) BOZ (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urgent delivery[edit]

The silver medal of logic
Thanks for your calm, logical reasoning at AFD. In response, I issue this gift that money cannot buy. CT55555(talk) 03:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marlon Wayans[edit]

It makes no sense to state they were never married and then follow it up with he never married. It is basically stating the same thing twice and obviously if he never married, they never married. So why does the article need both sentences? (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right I misread. -- GreenC 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice for GreenC bot on Commons[edit]

Please, note that has been closed (see here and here). --Antonio1952 (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imdad Sabri[edit]

Hi, GreenC!. Can you tell me what happened here? It looks as if you added copyvio material to the page from either here or here. Am I misreading that? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess I was lazy because I didn't care about the article that much and someone has been trying to delete it anyway, but yeah that went beyond the pale. If I have the time or interest will try again. -- GreenC 23:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estado Novo[edit]

So, back in 2020 an RfC was held to decide whether the Estado Novo should be labeled "fascist" or not, it always was labeled "fascist" on Wikipedia, but a user challenged that, however no consensus was reached, and eventually it was decided to maintain the status quo. So, unless another RfC is held that ends with a different result, shouldn't the category be restored? -- 2804:248:FBF7:1900:4514:DF54:AECD:F097 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe? Not sure I read it that way, I'll need to look at the RfC more closely. Bring it up on the talk page. Three users have reverted, explain your position and give people a chance to respond. If they don't respond, link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary when adding the category back, after a couple days. -- GreenC 03:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Delete all links, I pointed out that WebCite links Fabrickator (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fabrikator thank you so much for that information you are the first to notice it. Obviously that changes everything. I wonder how long they have been up? The outage was about 1.5 years I think. A good place to discuss this if your interested is the WebCite talk page. -- GreenC 18:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can WebCite archives be archived into other archiving services? Is an effort underway to do this for all the pages which we link to WebCite archives of? -sche (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WebCite built some anti-"theft" stuff into their system which makes that difficult but not impossible. Wayback won't work. is the best bet but need to clear it with them first see how they would want to proceed. There are over 2 million WebCite links across all Wiki projects (non-unique), only around 35k on Enwiki. If someone can figure out a way to generate a WARC file from WebCite it might be possible to work with Wayback to import them because Wayback will be the most reliable long term storage. -- GreenC 21:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup after your nuking bot[edit]

Hello again, GreenC

What do you feel is the most efficient process for cleaning up content and sources after your bot nukes a blacklisted source, such as you did for hugedomainsdotcom? Searching insource:"" yields the result, "There were no results matching the query", indicating a clean removal. What remains as the content and source, or is the content unsourced?

My question applies to the 800+ articles containing healthlinedotcom which is now blacklisted. I have begun removing healthline one by one, but as you know, this is a tedious, long-term job.

Is there a possibility that your nuking bot could add a replacement [citation needed] tag? This would seem to be a common need once blacklisted sources are removed, so may need some Village Pump discussion, for which I could offer a proposal, if you think it's warranted.

Following you here. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short answer yes it could add though I'm not sure how useful it will be in all conditions, and if 2+ cites exist it would add it anyway. We could make a bargain, I'll do the nuking if you do the cleanup - every edit needs to be manually checked as this work is error prone (hugedomains was about 7% I think). Can go slow ie. 50 edits, pause, etc.. It's a lot less work than 100% manual. As for VP, it will have trouble with consensus, in my experience, particularly when it's a bot vs. human question and there is a high probability of bot error, as in this case. Usually better off just doing it, fix errors as you go, and explain to anyone who raises concerns. The RfC is pretty clear these are deprecated ie should be removed. The manual check of every edit greatly reduces any concerns about automated editing. -- GreenC 01:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for a good solution. I'm ok doing 50 at a time (835 current uses). Because most remaining healthline refs are in a place where WP:MEDRS should have been used, I think the {{cn}} is benign, so please apply it - I'll check, and in many cases will have to find a MEDRS source.
fyi: David Gerard (admin - approval?) and thanks also to Folly Mox for thoughtful input.
Whatever suits you best, we can exchange nuke updates here or on my talk page. Cheers! Zefr (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There will be a section at WP:URLREQ and the edit summary will link there. I need to retool the bot and will ping when the first couple are done. -- GreenC 03:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this. Does the bot leave a comment about what bad site it removed? 'Cos the actual bad claims need checking and likely removal too - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that this crept through the blacklist filter on 16 July. How? Zefr (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably there's no http:// so it wasn't detected as a URL. -- GreenC 18:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Mark Zuckerberg book club for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Zuckerberg book club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Zuckerberg book club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ZimZalaBim talk 16:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


but when will you want to finish canceling my changes?? there is one thing explain to me that annoy my changes?? you know that I can block your changes, I add information on the buildings, it's not that I vandalize the page, but when are you going to finish it with these changes ?? I can do what I want on the Wikipedia page I can fix it or change it, if you write bullshit on Wikipedia I'll edit it like on the tianjin ctf finance center the skyscraper is not 510 m high but 530 m and that's it come on!!! (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's because you are a long-term vandal who occasionally makes good edits but mostly makes bad ones then hide your intentions behind the good edit. Here is an example Special:Diff/1167916821/1167921388 but as you can see here the HAAT is 845 not 85. You are malicious, you do stuff like this all the time. For this reason, myself and many others revert every single edit you make, we don't bother checking if it is good or bad, everything you do is immediately reverted. Now, tomorrow, next month and next year. I look forward to reverting you, and look forward to doing so for months and years into the future. If you have a problem with that, you can open an ANI request and we can draw more community attention to your case. -- GreenC 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greenc you too are a long term vandal who occasionally makes good edits but mostly makes bad ones, so you hide your intentions behind the good edit. Here is an example Special:Diff/1167916821/1167921388 but as you can see here HAAT is 530 metres not 1600. You are being mischievous, always doing stuff like that. Because of this, I and many others undo every single change you make, we don't bother checking if it's good or bad, everything you do is immediately undone. Now, tomorrow, next month and next year. I look forward to restoring you and look forward to it for months and years into the future. If you have a problem with this, you can open an ANI request and we can get more community attention to your case. Then go to ... (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31 § Treasure troves by country on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


on oneta oklahoma what is the joint venture tower? (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert Bluewaters Island[edit]

Hello GreenC, I saw you reverted my edit on the article Bluewaters Island. May I ask why you reverted it? I'm quite new to Wikipedia and don't know all the rules yet. It would help me a lot if you could tell me the exact reason for the revert. Baconbeam20 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Baconbeam20 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because your edit says "grammar" but you deleted a large block of text including all the sources for the paragraph, and related context about other wheels. It looks like vandalism. Not saying it is, only how it looks when the action and edit summary are so far apart, typical vandals try to hide their actions behind benign edit summaries hoping no one looks more closely at what they actually did. The question is why you deleted all those sources and other information from that paragraph. -- GreenC 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, thanks for your quick reply. As I said, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and English isn't my native language, so I'm never sure what to write in the edit summary. I understand your reasons for the revert, and hope it makes me a better Wikipedian.
Baconbeam20 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Baconbeam20 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quill and Scroll[edit]

Do you know much about Quill and Scroll? I came across it in 'random article'. I can see they've been around for a long time but I'm not finding many sources to work off of and I know you know books and stuff Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-robot hints[edit]

Thanks for finding the archive for the URL for Dominika Lasota. I thought I tried both Wayback and and both failed, but obviously, the article is now properly archived.

Someone (maybe you?) told me some time ago about a safer anti-bot protection when there's a need for a note that robots may try to delete, but I didn't store a convenient link to the conversation. What's the recommended alternative to prevent a robot from removing just some small piece of text, such as in this case?

How about something like <ref>{{cite ... |archive-url= |url-status=live}}{{void | this url is unarchivable}}</ref> so that the void template is external to the cite template? Or would <ref>{{cite ... |archive-url= |url-status=live}}<!-- this url is unarchivable --></ref> be preferred/more robust? Boud (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Boud: Hi there! Are you thinking of {{Cbignore}}? GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty: Thanks - I've put that on my user page so I don't lose it :), since it could be useful sometimes, but it's not what I was thinking of. I'm fairly sure there's something even less intrusive - just to protect a small section of wikitext (cite or other), i.e. just one of the parameters with a comment immediately afterwards. I don't want to stop bots updating/checking links. Boud (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I missed seeing your comment earlier. Other than cbignore, you could set the URL to "permalive" at (Manage URL data -> Manage individual URL). It will treat it as permanently alive ie. never assume it's dead thus never add an archive URL. You can also delete any existing archive URL there, in case the archive URL is not working. -- GreenC 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia edition launch dates[edit]

Hi GreenC. I've been working on the List of Wikipedias article to add references, update the list, etc. The NUMBEROF data from GreenC bot is exceptionally helpful. Would it be possible for the bot to also incorporate the launch date for each Wikipedia edition? It would be a lifesaver. (It wouldn't necessarily need to work for the oldest Wikipedias if that information isn't available for every Wikipedia, "n/a" would be fine.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, glad you find it useful, also pinging User:Johnuniq since it was collaborative. I looked into that a long time ago, but didn't have an authoritative source for the dates. I recall some dates kept changing, but my memory is hazy. Basically I don't want to create static date data for the bot, then require updating it each time someone requests. If the list was both human-editable and machine-readable, hosted somewhere, possibly NUMBEROF could have that option. Perhaps a page on meta, or even a Wikipedia article like "List of Wikimedia project start dates". -- GreenC 21:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are launch dates known? I see them at List of Wikipedias where they have been entered manually. Do we know of a central list somewhere? They can't change that often so I would be happy to make a list suitable for Commons structured data where they could be edited (a little painfully). The bot could read that list and I could tweak NUMBEROF to use it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some dates seem to be based on the date of the first edit. Others are based on the date the site was activated. Many of the dates are not well-sourced. I would like to replace all of the "trust me bro" dates with a date that is cited via either a reasonably solid reference or data from Being able to archive references for posterity is also important.
If there are other timestamped events like the first account creation or the first log entry of any kind, it might be worth pulling those separately. It's tempting to just use edit date across the board, but it's dubious trying to make a decision without seeing the data. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked if the information is available at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia launch dates. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly, on meta, the closest I was able to find was meta:List of Wikipedias, which has a link "List of Wikipedias by creation date", which links to Wikipedia:Anniversary, so can't be used as a reference.... Folly Mox (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not just source reliability. Wikipedia:Anniversary only lists dates for 52 Wikipedias. There are 335 Wikipedias. That's why I suspect that the date of first edit (or perhaps first activity) might be more practical for most Wikipedias. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's probably a Quarry query or 335 that could be run, aling the lines of SELECT timestamp FROM revisions WHERE rev_id=1, but I'm entirely certain that the current database schema is not original. For example, here on en.wp, Special:Diff/1 is dated 26 January 2002. Folly Mox (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Folly Mox: Yes, see Wikipedia:Usemod article histories, for example. Graham87 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mailinglist, and bug tracker history are probably the most likely places for a source. nothing authoritative for ALL of them in a single place I fear. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The early Wikipedia launch dates can indeed get extremely hairy; see for example this archived technical village pump thread; also see the history of Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination, which is almost but not quite complete. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The good news is, since there is currently no authoritative source, it's green fields to create one, based on criteria of our choosing. Preferably criteria that is algorithmic and machine-retrievable. Like data from the API. It won't always be objectively accurate, but it's at least a rationale that is consistent. There can be exceptions for manual overrides. m:Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia birthdates or something would be great. -- GreenC 15:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Did you can rollbacker vandal edits from this article – Khanate of Sibir? Bashkir Bey (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jstor URL extractor[edit]

What do you think of the idea of creating a bot to extract from Jstor links in CS1 templates the stable link, place that into |jstor=, and then purge |url=, |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |url-status=? Something similar for URLs to WorldCat also seems prima facie reasonable. Ifly6 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this is definitely in the domain of User talk:Citation bot who might already do this. Check with them first. -- GreenC 18:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given some of the not-particularly-responsive responses to various, I think I see why you've been so reluctant to bring anything up. It does not seem easy to convey the actual issue – redundant and useless archive links – in a comprehensible manner: one person thinks I want to ban all of Jstor, one person thinks I want to ban all archives, and one person thinks I want to ban all URLs. Ifly6 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought your main/best/initial point concerned the availability, or not, of the check box in the IABot tool. It's tempting to see the "big picture", but it's too complicated with so many branching issues. When faced with complexity, the solution is to break it down into manageable pieces. A precise question is should we allow the Check Box on enwiki, and if so, under what conditions such as rate limiting, permissions, guidance. This question has come up repeatedly but no one has expressed it before as well you did on the Link rot talk page. If you were to RfC it, your challenge would be to keep on-point, avoiding all this other derailing discussion. The question should be simple, black and white, avoid the temptations of larger issues and getting it all done in one big step, which is a dead end. (BTW this is also how politicians get legislation done over many generations, small pieces at a time that people can agree to when the time is right). -- GreenC 04:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for bot-filling WebArchive links[edit]

I have never made such request so please bear with me and feel free to teach me the correct procedure. I want to request your bot to auto-fill the WebArchive links in the citations of articles created by me, namely Sayuri Ogawa and Eito Suzuki. Peace. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to the History tab of the article, at the top is "Fix dead links". It will take you to another website where you Allow login. Then choose 'Run Bot' then 'Fix single page'. It will run the bot on that page. -- GreenC 20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Success! Thank you very much. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Semi-lurker lurking.) @Sameboat: It is not necessary to add archive links for live URLs, which your recent IA Bot edits triggered (1, 2). The check box, which has the description Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional), does not create or update archives. It merely adds the already-existing archive URLs into the article mark up; if those live links became dead the bot would automatically fill in the archive links anyway. Ifly6 (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can the bot fix this[edit]

"Wayback Machine". This seems to be a lot of these. (The star is evil) Also, stuff like*/ AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed a lot of the single-stars are in {{webarchive}}. Tracked it back to here, which I did 7 years ago during conversion of the old template, when the date field was missing. The old {{wayback}} template didn't support most of those parameters, it's a GIGO, my bot ignored them and did the best it could. The webarchive template supports the '*', it says in footnote #2 "archive index". I could just go through and add the earliest archive available, but, there are cases where people do this intentionally, I don't want any trouble. There are about 2,600 cases of single star, I have ignored them, not worth the trouble too much context sensitivity. Possibly most of the webarchive cases could be converted since they were most likely done by my bot.
The | is caused by reFill converting a bare archive URL to a cite web. I've been fixing them for years but they just keep coming. If I had a way to locate them I can run the bot on those pages. Extract the source URL and move into the url field. Move archive URL to archive-url. Add archive-date. Delete | - feel free to add this to Citation bot also.
The trailing '*' is another context sensitive thing it's best to work around it and leave in place. Same with if_ and other types of tags. I've had too much trouble with people complaining when they are removed. I save these flags then operate on a clean link without the flag then restore the flag later. -- GreenC 04:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

thanks for your work in raising awareness in wikipedia's problems Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I actually did not know that "fraudster" was as controversial on Wikipedia as it is. I appreciate you pointing me to the talk page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know either until the discussions at Elizabeth Holmes and recent discussions at SBF. The problem is the word has 2 senses, one is objectively true as used in this sense, someone who was convicted of fraud. The other sense is slang and derogatory, like the fraudster pizza delivery guy forgot the cheesy fries. People see that second sense most often in their lives and when they see it on Wikipedia it doesn't ring right to them. I tried fighting to Keep fraudster at Holmes but was ultimately overwhelmed by those who consider it too derogatory, or at least mistaken for being derogatory. Since other solutions exist, the consensus discussion was to remove it. -- GreenC 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't even think about the slang form of it (though I have long known that it exists), and the consensus is quite understandable when taking that into account. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expansion of short to full url[edit]

I understood the rationale of expansion of short to full url for but I noted it may create a mismatch in the archive date parameter (see example Miss Grand Singapore 2023). While this might be one off, is it possible during the expansion for the bot to check the archive date of the archive url and update the archivedate parameter at the same time? Appreciate the bot and your work. Thanks! JASWE (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No because the process is running on 100s of wikis and it's not aware of the endless variety of templates and date formats in use, which is needed to modify the dates. The date mismatches is a separate problem that requires a different kind of bot. WaybackMedic is capable of and often does fix them on enwiki, but it's not designed to run full-auto unattended, I would need to make a new bot for that. BTW my bot didn't "create" the date mismatch, the date mismatch already existed, my bot made it more visible by expanding the URL shortening (one reason we don't use URL shortening it hides problems). -- GreenC 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted on the technicalities and huge varieties of the cite templates and henceforth the limitation of the bot. Yes, the bot did not "create" the mismatch, I should have said "expose" the mismatch. Thanks on the explanation! JASWE (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot idea - Trove[edit]

I regularly make minor edits like this, mostly prompted by your bot's good work on User:Certes/Backlinks/Report. The errors are caused by faithfully copying imperfect citations from Trove. For example, please follow the first citation in that diff: and click "Cite" (second icon in the left column, below "A". A left sidebar should appear; scroll down to "Wikipedia citation". It contains a link to The Herald, a dab, but our article on that source is The Herald (Melbourne). Anything in that very specific format, {{cite news}} with |newspaper=[[The Herald]], |location=Victoria, Australia and |via=National Library of Australia could be fixed automatically with minimal risk. Dozens of other Trove sources have similar mistakes. Some of the bad links are disambiguation pages which gnomes will detect and fix, but a bot could be more accurate and save them a lot of trouble. Others are articles on a different topic which are harder to spot and may go unfixed, e.g. Arrow for The Arrow (newspaper). I've made a draft list of the latter in User:Certes/Trove/fix. I can easily create a similar list for the dabs (it's basically those entries in User:Certes/Trove where column 2 is a dab). However, I may need to remove a couple of ambiguous cases where there were multiple newspapers in the same "location" (AU state) with similar titles (or, for extra credit, we might distinguish them by date). I'm not sure it's quite ready for BOTREQ yet but does this look like a suitable job for a bot? Certes (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that I have an unused Toolforge account and most of the skills to write the bot myself, but would probably need a mentor. I know from bitter experience of training others that holding my hand might take an experienced bot-herder longer than just writing the thing themselves, but it could be a useful investment if you're short of people to write other bots in the future. I think the algorithm should be pretty simple, and efficient as we need only consider pages which link to the offending page and have changed recently. Certes (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SBF and Death Editor[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi User:Certes and User:GoingBatty: Toolforge is discontinuing the GridEngine very soon so I am moving the reporting tool to my home server. I know that sounds sketch but it should be more reliable than Toolforge has been. I run other infrastructure stuff. I don't want to copy the data cache over, it will generate the cache from scratch. This will require two runs, since it requires two copies of the backlinks data to compare for differences. You may see some odd results. Any problems let me know. Thanks. -- GreenC 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I saw the GridEngine notification and have been looking at other tools which need to move away. Certes (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Certes if you want any suggestions for automating the copying of files from a local computer up to Toolforge, I finally figured out how to do this. I run the tool process locally, and copy the output to the ~/toolname/static directory where it's visible on the live web (html files, data files). An rsync command that mirrors local directories -> toolforge. -- GreenC 16:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; that's a good idea. I've got my Toolforge login enabled (though not running any tools yet), so that might give access to rsync too. As for the backlinks, yesterday's was suspiciously short and today's has a second entry for Julius Caesar at the bottom (both have valid links), but otherwise everything appears normal. Certes (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, say you have a local directory /home/user/rosebud which is your application, and you want to mirror the contents of this directory on Toolforge in /data/project/rosebud for the tool named rosebud. The local rsync command is:

rsync --progress --delete --delay-updates -F --compress --archive --no-owner --no-group --rsh='/usr/bin/ssh -S none -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -o UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null -E /dev/null -o LogLevel=error' --rsync-path='sudo -u tools.rosebud rsync' --chmod=Dug=rwx,Dg+s,Do=rx,Fug=rw,Fo=r /home/user/rosebud

The --delete means delete any files in the Toolforge directory that are not also in the local directory, so the directories stay in sync. The --progress is optional it shows what files it copies/deletes. I really like this method for some tools. I can continue to post HTML pages on the web via Toolforge, but the freedom to run the application locally.

Hopefully backlinks settles down after a few runs. Maybe the greater distance over the network is causing some API requests to time out and thus data is missing? Not sure about Julius Ceaser if that keeps happening let me know. -- GreenC 17:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of WP:BLPN item[edit]

Hello. Wanted you to be aware of this request for more eyes on the disagreement taking place at Emmanuel Lemelson. I hope wider community input can help us resolve the issue. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]