Jump to content

User talk:Trialpears/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cfs full

You're aware that your edits to {[tl|Cfs full}} are throwing some funnies - see Category:Categories for for examples? Le Deluge (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Le Deluge Sorry, some module changes are needed. I reverted and will fix the module when I get home. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Didn't have time yesterday, but now it's  Done. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Msangjunboon2018's Book:wikipediaorg01 Updated (#1)?

Msangjunboon2018's Book:wikipediaorg01 Updated #1: Updating Next On After 31 January 2020, Friday, ~23:59HR SST. (1 week's time) Msangjunboon2018 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Msangjunboon2018, sorry but I'm not sure what you're trying to say or want me to do. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Gasklockan, Gothenburg

On 2 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gasklockan, Gothenburg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Coca-Cola Company proposed painting a gasometer in Gothenburg, Sweden, to resemble a Coke can? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gasklockan, Gothenburg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gasklockan, Gothenburg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

American actress, perhaps

You have asked for feedback about your bot's edits. Most of the new short descriptions are spot on, of course, but this one needed correction. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

John of Reading Thanks! That slipped through my testing. Turns out there are a few others suffering from the same problem which I fixed as well. I would implement a quick fix if I was at home with access to toolforge, but I'm away skiing with an unstable internet connection. I'll keep monitoring the search to look for new bad ones and fix them, but won't fix it until I get home at the end of the week. Since it only affects less than 0.05% of descriptions it shouldn't be a big problem. The alternative would be shutting down the bot until I get home which I could do if you or anyone else want me to, but I would prefer to just get it done. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

PearBOT 5 problem

You should investigate what went wrong here at Alexandra Flood. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, thanks! I found 3 other descriptions that included behavior switches and fixed them. As I said above I'm currently on vacation without access to toolforge where I host the bot and can't modify the code currently. Since this issue only seems to affect roughly 0.01% of descriptions I think it would be acceptable to continue running the bot as is and fix the issues manually as they come up until I get back home at the end of the week when I can patch it. Again, thanks for the report! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Away?

Still on holiday? Maybe on vacation?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dthomsen8, yep and will be until Sunday. I still participate in discussions and such, but can't do any major template, module or bot things. As you've discovered my ENGVAR is horribly inconsistent with me using all the variations regularly without any consistency, guess that's what happens when you see/hear both versions about as much when learning. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PearBOT 5

Just some positive feedback; Kate Fagan (poet), something rather random on my watchlist, was edited by your bot, adding the short description. An accurate and readable summary was generated. Great! Klbrain (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Klbrain Glad you liked it! Now that I have your attention I guess it's as good a time as any to tell you about a potential bot concept to assist with mergers that I've had for a while. One of the biggest problems with the merge backlog is that people don't start a discussion when they tag the article, mostly because they don't know they're supposed to. How about a bot that posts a friendly note to users who add merge tags but don't start a discussion similar to how DPL bot 2 notify users who link to dab pages. Do you think it's a good idea that's worth pursuing? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That might help; I used to do quite a lot of disambiguation, so did sometimes see (and respond to) DPL Bot messages from my talk page. It might be difficult to implement if people don't give an explicit discussion link in their templates, or label the sections for discussion in non-standard ways (there isn't one convention, so identifying these sections might be difficult). So, the number of false positives might be high; so too might be the comeback that but the case is obvious ... which is sometimes true. Klbrain (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Klbrain If I were to do this I would probably use a very lenient criteria for not having started a discussion, perhaps no edits to either talk articles talk page within the last day or 3 hours after placing the tag, no discuss or reason parameters and neither talk page including the word "merge" in case they are just tagging for an ongoing discussion. While such a criteria would generate a lot of false negatives false positives shouldn't be a big issue if the message includes text accounting for discussions located elsewhere or obvious cases by encouraging people to be bold if they expect it to be uncontroversial or start a discussion anyway to encourage feedback. Anyway don't expect anything to materialize out of this soon; I have plenty of ongoing projects both on and off wiki, but if you expect it to useful I will definitively look into it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
A bigger problem is perhaps tagging then forgetting ... can you send a (say) one-month notification if the tag is still in place to the talk page of the account which place it? Klbrain (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Klbrain, you mean something like you tagged Article X for merging a month ago and there does not seem to be any opposition to the proposal. This would indicate that there is a silent consensus for the merger so feel free to go ahead with it? That could be done as well, but I think that would be more controversial then reminding people to give a reason. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That's the idea, although I also agree that it would be more controversial; perhaps insurmountably so. Klbrain (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Undo of revert

Not sure whether it's doable to act on this but it seems the bot added a description again after a revert: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Loai_Deeb&action=history . - Simeon (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Simeon, the problem here is with me trying to run the bot remotely without access to toolforge or my computer while on vacation. The bot crashed this Thursday and I tried to restart it. The problem then was that it started looking at pages it already had added descriptions to, a very small portion of which had been reverted (all of them by me or seemingly by accident). I have now come back home and re-reverted and fixed all the known bugs. Thanks for the report though! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Trialpears Ok, no problem, thanks for the efforts here! - Simeon (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

You recently said, "My guess would be between a week and a month, I'll tell you when it happens." I suggest I do it the first Sunday of March. Even if its a bit early thats OK. Thoughts? ―Buster7  22:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Buster7, no problem with me, just do what you think is best. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again

Thanks for nice message

I've just noticed and reported another mistake here

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Indonesia#Wrong_GDP_PPP_per_capita

GDP PPP per capita for Indonesia

This time I am not changing anything, as you noticed I corrected few times before and someone accused me of vandalism, which was ridiculous, cause I am here for correcting actual mistakes not trolling. At least you noticed my good intentions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.54.46 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

The editor you nominated has received their Award. Thanks again. ―Buster7  15:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages using link language with cat-lang requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request PearBOT 7

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 7 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 20:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

21:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Brojam: I request it be restored it has considerable additions. Valoem talk contrib 23:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, saw that it was restored and it seems to be substantially different from the deleted version. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

19:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing merge templates bot

I wonder whether you think it might be possible to have a bot that will add missing merge proposal templates; or is this possible with Twinkle (I haven't found it, despite trying to look for it)? At the moment, I'm finding quite a few pages where we have merge to or merge templates on one page, but they're not present on the other page. Formally notifying in both spots might help to drive discussion, but also to ensure that interested parties are informed that a merge is proposed. Klbrain (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Klbrain I am currently the least active I've been in a long time due to just how messy the last few weeks have been. I can't start working on it right now, but I think it's a good idea and some discussion should probably be started to gain consensus for such a bot. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a difficult time; hope that the world can come through this soon. I'll look to start a discussion. Klbrain (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

15:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

17:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

22:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information

Stop editing wrong information about actors.They are humans too. Brishti21 (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Brishti21 I'm unsure what you're talking about. I see that my bot made an edit to Anangsha Biswas describing her as an "Indian film actress" which seems to be accurate. I don't think we have edited any of the same pages otherwise. I also think it would be a good idea to assume good faith with regards to the people reverting your edits there. They just want to make sure nothing false come in there by making sure everything has a proper source. Imagine if we didn't do this and someone pretending to know her came along and said that her birthday was 15 July 1985 instead. That would be a lot worse then her not having a dob in the article at all. I have also added a template stating that you are connected to her since you are claiming to be her sister, feek free to read our conflict of interest guidelines if you want to know more. If you want help to improve the article feel free to ask me! Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft specs template swap

Admire the effort put in but you may find it useful to use the |endurance= and |time to altitude= parameters in the conversions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, yeah I should probably put more effort into cleaning up custom parameters. I do it occasionally but most of the time I have just been looking to conserve all the information. Some regular expressions have now been added for endurance, time to altitude and fuel capacity parameters and I will make sure they are converted in the future. Thanks for calling me out on this! It will make the conversion better. --Trialpears (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If it makes your editing easier that's good. Fortunately several parameters (eg the |[parameter] note= and the armament parameters were 'inherited' from the older aircraft specifications templateGraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Uw-npa1

Looking at your deletion request at Template talk:Uw-npa1 and your closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#Template:Uw-attack1-default is faulty. I see a consensus to delete Template:Uw-attack1-default as it replicates {{Uw-npa1}} which should be kept. Cabayi (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi I assessed the consensus to be for deleting {{Uw-attack1-default}}. There was definitely not a consensus for deleting the frequently used {{Uw-npa1}}. The reason this was tagged for speedy deletion was due to me forgetting to tell XfD closer to only tag {{Uw-attack1-default}} which I'm very sorry about. I maintain that my consensus determination was a good one however with three people being in general agreement about what to do with the template. I know this is a weaker consensus than is expected at most other venues but this is perfectly regular for TfD with our lower participation numbers. Thank you for removing the speedy tag, I will make sure not to make this mistake again. --Trialpears (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-archive

Template:Uw-archive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Template help

Hey. Hoping you might be able to take a look at this. Basically, I'm changing Template:Blockchain notification to be a wrapper around Template:Gs/alert. But when I try to pass the sig param, it kinda messes up (see Template:Blockchain notification/sandbox). That's the same subst trick you used I think, but for some reason when I do {{subst:Blockchain notification/sandbox|sig=yes}} it just turns into a mess. I've tried removing the very first safesubst to see what it's outputting, and it does output the correct syntax ({{Gs/alert|cry|sig=yes}}), so if I were to subst this again manually it'd work fine, but somehow turns into a complete mess when doing recursive substitution. What am I missing here? Thank you! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, not really familiar with the Gs templates, but I'll take a look! --Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me figure out why this is happening. It seems like it's somehow treating "cry|sig=yes" as the first parameter even though it contains a pipe. I've tried everything that I could come up with and read quite a lot of documentation but still can't figure it out. I suggest asking at WP:VPT. --Trialpears (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Trialpears, seems like it's a weird, pesky little issue. Thanks so much for taking the time to look into it :) -- will post on VPT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Wikiwings
For all all your work in converting aircraft type specifications to the newest template. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Hopefully I'll be done with {{Aerospecs}} today or tomorrow. {{Aircraft specifications}} is more complex, but has fewer transclusions. Perhaps in a week.... Your help converting them and your aircraft expertise has been very helpful and you should know that you can ask me if you want help with any template work in the future! --Trialpears (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"Credit where credit is due" - you have done a ton of work there! - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)