User talk:Magioladitis

Welcome to my talk page, if you want to start a new topic, then click here please! Generally I will reply here, so please come back to check. If I posted something in your talk page you don't have to answer here or post a talkback template. I'll check your talk page for answer.

Archive:
Talk about images
Talk about Yobot until 2008 (report new incidents below)
Archive 1 August 2006-June 2008
Archive 2 July 2008-June 2009
Archive 3 July 2009-December 2009
Archive 4 January 2009- August 2010

Empty sections in ATC code lists

Yobot added a number of {{Empty section}} templates to ATC code lists (e. g. here). The empty sections are intentional, since these subgroups actually are empty. At first I wanted to add {{Bots|deny=Yobot}}, but I'm not sure whether the template additions come from Yobot or AWB, so other bots or humans using AWB would probably re-add these templates anyway. What would you suggest? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is done automatically by AWB's auto-tagger. I don't quite understand why we have empty sections. Give me some time to check it and I 'll come up with a suggestion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the best is if you add: "None" or something similar in the section. To show that someone has maintained it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good plan. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I could help if this could be done (semi)automated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be great! I can't get AWB to run under Win7, for whatever reason. The lists are in Category:ATC codes (excluding its subcats). If you could replace occurrences of

{{Empty section|date=July 2010}}

by

:''Empty''

that would be really helpful. But don't take the trouble if it takes longer than half an hour. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I 'll do that as soon as I finish the current task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Empty sections and See also / Further reading

Can Yobot not tag but remove empty "See also" or/and "Further reading" sections? Tagging them as "please expand" only attracts spammers. Their names are quite standard. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could remove "See also" and "Further Reading" if it's empty. Please reply here or on my talk page since it's a suggestion and not a bug. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please do, it would be much more helpful than tagging them. Their titles are standard, but capitalization of the second word may vary. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I 'll suggest to Rjw. It seems a good idea but we need to leave a message somewhere on that. Adding Empty sections is straightforward since there is consensus on that. I don't know anything on removing empty sections. Anyway, I don't think it will be a problem. We can remove Sections that have only empty section tags quite easily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

PAGENAME and subst:

Hi, re this edit - previously, the {{PAGENAME}} displayed as "Planet of Giants", but now it displays as "{{subst:PAGENAME}}" (see references 2,3,4), so clearly the subst: isn't being acted upon. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could replace {{PAGENAME}} with PAGENAME without substing. I recall this edit since I reviewed it but I thought it has worked. Thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Rjw "that happens only because subst doesn't expand within <ref> due to a MW bug. There is a thing called safesubst, don't know if that's different. Fixing just PAGENAME doesn't really help as all the other templates we subst will still be affected by the MW bug." -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding missing 1= parameter

AWB no longer crashes when |1= is missing from {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, so why are insignificant edits being made to add it? [I do note that for some reason the Plugin isn't putting it within the Shell when 1= is missing] –xeno^talk 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't put them only in the WikiProjectBannerShell case. It still puts them in on the WikiProjectBanners one. :S I just emptied the list anyway. I noticed that an editor wrote to you that they see difference in appearance if the |1= is missing too, or am I wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it being fixed? (In the latter case, if it's the thread I'm thinking of - I think they weren't putting the equals sign) –xeno^talk 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for Reedy to finish the job. I, myself, don't know how to enter regex in plugin's source code (at least not yet). -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. –xeno^talk 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Persondata comment

I noticed that a number of your bot edits of the rugby union stubs I have recently added, have been moving the comment tag: <!-- Goes above DEFAULTSORT/Categories --> above the Persondata section. here] I have simply used the format posted at Wikipedia:Persondata#Position. While I think that it is not a big deal, is there a reason you do this?SauliH (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment is unnecessary. It's only to give instructions where to put the template and there is no reason to add the comment too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can remove them from further stubs I have to create. Thanks.SauliH (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Need so some help

I see that you were the only person that asked to keep the Alexis Fields article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields. Once again, Otto4711 is asking for deletion even though the article does meet the first rule in WP:ENT. Can you help me contest this please? QuasyBoy (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. You have to find some references to establish notability. If you can't find some immediately, take your time and re-create the article in your userspace in a subpage then add some references and re-introduce the article. You can also contact Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I hope I helped. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I did just that, I created it in my userspace before I re-created the page once more and references are in the article. QuasyBoy (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

What was cleaned up in this edit? [1] — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I did less than 10 edits to fix spacing in references in some articles the same way FrescoBot did [2]. I want to propose to its owner to do some extra stuff while running. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Space immediately after the <ref> tag is gobbled automatically, though. Look at the HTML source of that page before you edited it:

That's different than the FrescoBot edit where the space actually makes a difference in the output. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. (Code removed to avoid scrolling). -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead living people

According to the article this person is not alive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of death instead of the "was" verb. This person obviously was born in the 20th-century so I though it's better to be on the safe side. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference directly in the article says that this other person died in 2001. I think the "was" in the first one clearly indicates the person is deceased, but in this case it's more concrete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the birth/death categories. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

also this one ϢereSpielChequers 08:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a point after 11. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Otheruses4

I am sure you are aware of the RFD [3] which came out in favor of keeping the redirect and not replacing it with a bot. To quote:

"What about a bot? That discussion has largely staled out, but most here seem unconvinced that doing so would be worth it."

The word "deprecated" means that new uses are discouraged, but it doesn't mean that old uses need to be changed. Indeed, you had said that AWB would do only do some replacement as part of general editing,

But, when I look at the backlinks, I see that the template is almost completely orphaned, which could not have happened by luck. And your contribution history shows runs of numerous removals in a row, which suggests you took part in that inappropriate orphaning. I was very disappointed to see that.

In any case, I've made a list of the mathematics articles that carried the template, and I'll slowly work on restoring it. You can file it under WP:BRD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I recall I ran some months ago, Yobot to move DABlinks on the top. This automatically fixed Otheruses4 to About. In the same way all AWB bots, including SmackBot fix Otheruses4 to About. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, we can combine the threads there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nesbitt's inequality

This edit [4] only changed whitespace. People have been pointing out these trivial edits repeatedly on your talk page. Are you not reviewing the edits before you make them? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably I pressed Save accidentally. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

When you make a mistake like that, you should immediately undo your edit so that people know it was an accident. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out the frequency, here's a list of 20 19 other trivial edits from today's run: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. I believe you when you say these were accidental, but I hope you can see that they look unprofessional even if they are accidents. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

After this run, I proposed 2-3 bug fixes/feature requests to WP:AWB in order to prevent stuff like that in the future (Btw, I remove 1 that was removal of duplicate category). Thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This one [24] you reported for instance is a bug. It should have completely remove the unnecessary piping. I had on mind to report this too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So report it and undo the edit. Since you're editing manually you inspect all the edits already, you can see which ones are trivial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GPRS...No bug to report: piped link uses single l in tunnelling versus double in link target. Rjwilmsi 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Software development is great, but it cannot disrupt the live site. These minor edits are causing disruption. There are outlets like test Wikipedia for testing changes like this. Or you can do what most programmers do and run in a "dry mode" where it previews what would have happened, but doesn't actually make an edit. It doesn't really matter which testing method you use, as long as the current practice of using the live site and annoying people stops. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

All manual AWB edits are previewed anyway. The easier fix is to not press "save" on them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I'm going to chime in with a general discomfort with the way you go through these edits: you need to be using your own skip checks or custom module to identify that you are going to make the CHEKCWIKI fix or fixes you are targeting. Running AWB on the article list from CHECKWIKI in the hope that AWB will fix the errors is not quite good enough. I don't think it's useful to revert inconsequential edits after, but you need to be adding in more checks to ensure that your editing is adding value to the articles. Simply saying "AWB bug" or "AWB needs to know to skip" as a general get out answer is not going to get me to help you. AWB already provides enough functionality to ensure that your edits will make the fix you intend. If you're unable to add these checks and don't want to spend enough time on manual review prior to saving then I'm not sure you're the right person to run this task. Rjwilmsi 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't blame AWB for the mistakes. In all cases I reviewed my edits and made corrections before or after pressing save. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you review your "edits and make corrections before or after pressing save. . ." and still make edits that are considered un-necessary, disruptive or harmful, it is clear that you are not the right person to run this task. You do not seem to understand what you are doing and you do not realized that you do not understand. JimCubb (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yobot

Your bot made a very weird edit in June. [25]

{{WPMACAU}} is not equivalent to {{WikiProject Middle Ages}} - exactly how many templates your bot has messed up, I've no idea, but there should be some. {{WikiProject Middle AgesCAU}} does not exist.

76.66.193.119 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how many people "corrected" it to become the Middle Ages project, which some other editor would then detag since it would be the wrong project, or just detag it for being a redlink project banner, but I think there is a possibility that any of these outcomes may have come to pass. But it may result in some articles being tagged with middle ages which are not, or are now missing the tag altogether. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed 2 occasions.. --Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

what was the blank default sort?

I'm seeing various of these types of "fixes" and notice occasionally they seem to change nothing. In particular, in this case can you outline to me exactly what's "blank" about the "blank default sort order"? Smkolins (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The (leading) blank in' defaultsort. There was a blank between double dots and the word. Check error 88 in WP:CHECKWIKI. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in this one at Johann Strauss I. I can't see any relevant material at the link you provided (WP:CHECKWIKI). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you find another one? I bet not. I was much more carefull this time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I recall that I tried to change 1 to 01 in DEFAULTSORT and I pressed save but AWB stalled and reloaded the page. I probably pressed save thinking that my edit was saved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In this same thing. Could it be a false positive? Smkolins (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just the editor who put the "S" couldn't be bothered to add the rest. No reason not to have the full name. That's why I fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Might try to get {{Infobox Candidate}} deleted in favour of {{Infobox candidate}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

News

This may interest you.

Note your administrator status.199.126.224.156 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied. And you are welcome:-)199.126.224.156 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how we should write the policy so that template redirects are exempt? The problem with the policy is the first paragraph. People are continually citing it, so we could insert some words that excludes template redirects.199.126.224.156 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am on vacation atm. I am not planning to start a big discussion during August. I 'll think of your suggestion. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gunga Din

I see where you recently made an edit to the above article. are you happy with the 'other uses of the phrase' section? looks a lot like a list of trivia to me. references to use in comic books, television programs, etc.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

an issue has now arisen over the inclusion of the text of the poem. it is my position that wp is not a literary anthology, and that the external link to the text is easily sufficient. seems to me that this inclusion represents a slippery slope, ultimately leading to server space issues. in theory at least, 'the iliad' is a poem. include the entire text? how about all 22 chapters of 'the song of hiawatha'? 'evangeline'? 'the raven"? all of shakespeare's sonnets? why stop at poetry? should we reprint 'war and peace'?

incidentally, in researching this, it has come to my attention that huge chunks of the 'song of hiawatha' article (which i see you have also edited) are lifted verbatim from the website absoluteastronomy.com, or some other that they too have copied.Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yobot

I see Yobot tagged King of Egypt and the Sudan as dead, but King Fuad II of Egypt is in fact still alive. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

King of Egypt and the Sudan is not a biography of a living people but a general informative article. BLP applies for Fuad II of Egypt. Living=no means "not BLP". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All pages with WPBiography must have set |living= with yes or no to indicate taht have been checked if they are about a BLP or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New Articles

Hey!

New articles are ALWAYS using {{otheruses4}}. Is there any reason this is? If the wikipedia:article wizard uses this, maybe there's a way to fix it:-)

cheers199.126.224.156 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please find me in which subpage is this done and I can fix it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remember the user is banned from editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Pivot of Civilization

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you'd edited the page.

The article The Pivot of Civilization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page is almost completely unmaintained (only six edits in the six months since its original author was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia), almost completely unlinked (only from Eugenics and Margaret Sanger), completely unreferenced (and unlikely to be referenced in the future; I can't find any articles about the book), and almost completely unread (stats.grok.se says it was viewed about three or four times a day last month). The original author of this article appears to have written it as a way to push their POV that Margaret Sanger was evil. As a result of these circumstances, the article is of very poor quality; aside from its grammatical errors, before my recent edit, it entirely failed to mention the main subject of the book it's ostensibly written about, which is birth control (or, as Sanger wrote, Birth Control.) Given the non-notability of the book, as manifested by all of these circumstances and by the fact that the book has only four reviews on Amazon despite having been published 88 years ago, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever take the trouble to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Magioladitis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 759 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Kostas Kazakos - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FR: #New_alert:_Unknown_parameters_to_Multiple_issues

The action is on you if you want it to happen: New_alert:_Unknown_parameters_to_Multiple_issues. Rjwilmsi 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown parameters from March 2010 database dump

• count parameter 5596 article 3064 expand 1614 date 650 BLPunsourced 623 tooshort 615 refimproveBLP 587 intromissing 494 essay-like 413 introrewrite 177 one source 152 section 119 citationstyle 110 unref 94 do-attempt 68 verylong 49 intro-tooshort 49 BLP sources 45 intro length 33 technical 26 BLPrefimprove 25 nofootnotes 24 gameguide 23 BLPsources 18 research 17 roughtranslation 17 missing 17 in-universe-cat 13 like resume 12 Refimprove 12 BLPunreferenced 11 Unreferenced 10 toolong 10 inline 10 Date 8 recent 8 non-free 8 Orphan 8 BLP unsourced 7 primary sources 7 out of 7 moreref 7 citations 7 advertising 6 uncategorized 6 resume 6 out of date date 6 issue 5 unsourced 5 noreferences 5 intro-toolong 4 unverified 4 morereferences 4 dead end 4 att 4 advertisement 4 Notability 3 links 3 intro-rewrite 3 cleanup-rewrite 3 cleanup-restructure 3 RefimproveBLP 3 Original research 2 wiki 2 verify 2 toofewopinions 2 style 2 ref-improve 2 reason 2 originalresearch 2 notablity 2 no footnotes 2 neutrality 2 intro-missing 2 inappropriatetone 2 footnotes 2 expertsubject 2 expert-subject 2 copypaste 2 context date 2 cleanup-tone 2 cleanup-reorganize 2 categorize 2 auto 2 Wikify 2 UnreferencedBLP 2 POV-check 2 No footnotes 2 Essay-like 2 Cleanup 2 1 1 world 1 unreferneced 1 unrefereneced 1 unreferencede 1 unreferenced date 1 unreferencd 1 unrefBLP 1 unencyclpedic 1 unencyclopaedic 1 uncategorised 1 uncat 1 ugly 1 totallydisputed 1 topic 1 too-long 1 talk 1 stub 1 sources 1 source 1 soapbox 1 singlesource 1 short 1 rewrtie 1 reimprove 1 refimproveblp 1 refimprov 1 refimpove 1 ref improve 1 puffery 1 overlink 1 outdated 1 other 1 orpham 1 original-research 1 original 1 opinion 1 notenglish 1 notabilty 1 nolead 1 neologism 1 move 1 more footnotes 1 misleading 1 magazine 1 longish 1 linkfarm 1 limitedgeographicscope 1 like-resume 1 length 1 issues 1 intro rewrite 1 internallinks 1 informal 1 improve references 1 importance 1 globalize/us 1 gamecleanup 1 gallery 1 for 1 externallinks 1 expanded 1 expand date 1 dubious 1 do-att 1 disuted 1 delete 1 copyvio 1 comics-real 1 cleaunup 1 cleanup-tense 1 cleanup-link rot 1 cleanup-jargon 1 cleanup-biography 1 cleanup date 1 cleanuo 1 clean 1 class 1 citations-missing 1 citation missing 1 category 1 buzzwords 1 buzzword 1 blp sources 1 blp 1 bias 1 attention 1 articly 1 artice 1 all plot 1 accuracy 1 Weasel 1 Very long 1 Unreferenced date 1 Uncategorized 1 Too long 1 Tone 1 TV-in-universe 1 Sections 1 Primarysources 1 POVcheck 1 Orphan date 1 Onesource 1 One source 1 Obituary 1 Notability date 1 Nofootnote 1 Mexpand 1 Issues 1 Inappropriate person 1 Importance 1 Gamecleanup 1 External links 1 Expert-subject 1 Expand 1 Essay-entry 1 Citations missing 1 BMI.com 1 BLPunref 1 BLP unsourced date 1 Article 1 * tone 1 * self-published 1 * rewrite 1 * notable 1 * newsrelease 1 * grammar 1 * expert 1 * copyedit 1 * cleanup 1 * biased 1 * advert 1 * POV

Let me know if you want any amendments to your parameter list before I commit it. Rjwilmsi 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

YoBot's edit

Resolved

why does YoBot adds "untitled" heading inside the archive box templates? as seen here? Gman124 ^talk 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This was back in April. It has been fixed. Thanks for reporting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ok. Gman124 ^talk 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

YoBot: Adding closing brackets

Adding a missing closing bracket to external links makes in my opinion the display much worse. With the bracket missing, the link text appeared in plain view « [http://example.com » ; adding the closing bracket makes it appear as « [26] » which seems less informative to me; see example 1 and example 2. As for {{Fact}} -> {{Citation needed}}: what happened to WP:NOTBROKEN? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a general problem where editors forget to add descriptions to external links. Check Wikipedia:Bare URLs for more. Per Wikipedia:External links is better to close bare links. Unclosed external links are reported as mid priority errors by WP:CHECKWIKI.

The {{Fact}} -> {{Citation needed}} change was agreed by consensus to help editors spot uncited statements. It is part of WP:AWB's general fixes and User:SmackBot replaces Fact to Citation needed in regular basis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything in Wikipedia:External links which recommends to close bare links used as references or listed in "External links". Closing bare links is of course required by Wikipedia:Embedded citations, but the examples above are not those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we should be removing the other bracket as well instead? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor fixes to AWB

Capitalise the {{Orphan}} and {{Multiple issues}} tags when adding them. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

I though Reedy fixed that already. I 'll check the code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

rev 6935, rev 6933. Rjwilmsi 11:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you may like to read Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use 4 about clean fixes like you did here. I had the same issue. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I did a wonderful WP:GNOME edit by removing an extra quote mark in a reference in a good article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, but apparently not everyone agrees and have taken the effort to write out rules. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules are about edits that don't change rendering of the article or done in large scale. I did none of that. These were just some warm-up to see how my bot will work in the following hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing there in the rules about don't change rendering I'm afraid. I removed a left bracket or a blank line, you removed a single quote. All the same. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit to Chebyshev distance that was reverted - Canute strikes again. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

To be fair I think the Chebyshev distance revert was correct. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have just done a rebuild, unfortunately I was more or less forced to modify my source so stuff isn't always up to date - and looks like Tortoise wasn't doing quite what I thought either. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

Birthdate_name

Resolved

Could you correct these edits? I believe it was a problem with one regexp being a subexpression of the other, and having the order wrong. I have no idea how many of these there are. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to fix entries in pages transcluding {{Infobox adult male}} and {{Infobox adult female}} but it turns that all mistakes were already fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The one I linked to was a transclusion {{Infobox male model}}, not the porn star template :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I 'll check it right away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No more problems there neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)