User talk:CBM/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Harassment has been marked as a policy

Bot

First, thank you, I've found this to be awesome : ) Second, can you switch my target page to the talk page? Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

source for descriptive int

"The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences"

I couldn't find a good way to link to this section, so I posted a screen shot of it at Image:Des-int.jpg. You can see it at Talk:Descriptive interpretation for now. There is probably a better way to do this. I thought this would help explain things. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty Domains

Hi Carl: Thanks for adding those references to Interpretation re: Empty Domains. I remember reading about this in Rothmahler and Hodges both, I was just surprised that it was the Proof Theory that became problematic in the case of empty domains -- nonetheless I'll check those references for my own edification. Zero sharp (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "proof theory" in the most elementary sense - previously valid deduction rules become unsound in empty domains. I found several other relevant papers, including:

A tableau proof method admitting the empty domain. Melvin Fitting, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 12, Number 2 (1971), 219-224.

That paper is devoted to showing how to modify the usual method of analytic tableau to work with empty domains.

I think that that whole section could be rewritten at some point, but I have been trying not to edit the article until I figure out what it's supposed to contain. This may inspire me to improve the empty domain article, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question on WP:BOTREQ

Sorry to bother you, but I have raised a question about copyright on WP:BOTREQ regarding the use of a certain web site for creating hundreds of thousands missing geographical articles for Africa, Asia and South America. The web site in question claims copyright (they all do, don't they?). From what I have understood, they are combining public domain sources with proprietary commercial GIS products, so part of the content appears to be their own work. Since you are active on discussions related to copyright, I thought you might be able to clarify the issue, or at least suggest a better person to ask. Personally I know next to nothing about copyright, so I'm probably just suffering from acute copyright paranoia. The discussion is here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another potential Peer Review bug

Hi Carl, when the bot does the SAPRs, you should be aware that the script by AndyZ chokes on article titles that contain special characters like ampersand. When I tried to get the SAPR on Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games as User:AZPR earlier today, it gave a review for just Mario. What worked was to click on the edit this article link in the peer review - that gave the correct SAPR. I hope this is clear - please ask if you need more details or further clarification. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Most likely the problem is that the script is making a URL for the title, but it not handling the ampersand, which has a special meaning in URLs and has to be replaced by &. Once I get the archiving part active, the semi-auto stuff will be next on my list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - this is an old bug, but I had not encountered it recently and so thought you should know (assuming you will use parts of AndyZ's script). I archived PR about 7 or 8 hours ago and have been archiving it every 2 days or so (sooner if needed), so please let me know when there will be a bot test and I will hold off (no hurry, just thinking ahead). Thanks again for all you do, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When a trial is approved for the PeerReviewBot request, then I will be able to test out the code (it's already written and ready for live testing). So you should stop archiving once that trial is granted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the trial is approved. For the moment, I will run the script by hand so I can examine the edits. Once the trial ends, I will make the script run automatically once a day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great news! I will still semi-transclude reviews over 10 k, if that is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Could you make me a list of the steps you follow when you do that? It's task #3 for PeerReviewBot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How to partially transclude a peer review request:

1) I use your tool here to see which are the largest requests. I usually know which ones I have already semi-transcluded, but the edit summary also tells me this if needed.

2) I open the peer review for editing.

3) The first thing I do is paste <onlyinclude> as the very first thing in the whole peer review, even before the header. So ===[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Moshannon State Park/archive1|Black Moshannon State Park]]=== would become <onlyinclude>===[[Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Moshannon State Park/archive1|Black Moshannon State Park]]===

4) The second thing I do is paste <includeonly>:'''Note''': Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/]].</includeonly></onlyinclude> right after the signature of the nominator (and before any reviewer's comments). Note this does not yet say the name of the article or the archve number.

5) The third thing I do is copy the name and archive number (here "Black Moshannon State Park/archive1") and add it to the notice, so it now reads <includeonly>:'''Note''': Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Black Moshannon State Park/archive1]].</includeonly></onlyinclude>

6) The last thing I do is put a standard edit summary in: Peer review is still open, just not transcluded to save space at [[WP:PR]]

If the bot semi-transcludes, I would make it so that it ignores its own edits for archiving. I also thought that a "nomination only above this line" and/or "reviews below this line" would help a bot placing the semi translcusion cut off.Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ze da vinci barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thanks again for your help at WP:VPT, I was able to do exactly what I desired with your expert assistance. Also, great work with the quick preview script. Keep it up. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

VeblenBot supports for the WikiProject Systems

Hi Carl, I run the WikiProject systems and it's assessment, which I installed a year ago. Now I updated this Assessment structure with fields, with the WikiProject Mathematics as example. I want to ask you, if you could develop similair VeblenBot supports to this renewed WikiProject Systems Assessment.

Yesterday I tryed to complete the necessary Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Wikipedia 1.0/Structure. And I think I only missed a few spots, see here. Now the main thing that is missing, I think, is the VeblenBot, who will complete the info!?

I hope you can establish this support. Systems science is divided in multiple rather independent fields and the current overall assessment isn't of much help to these multiple fields. With the differentation in fields I hope this situation will improve. This differentation in fields is also helping to get a more complete picture of systems science and its fields. All the more reasons to complete the renewed assessment.

I would really appreciate your help here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article size

I fail to see how anything that I have engaged in qualifies as edit warring. A proposal was made on March 27, 2008 Wikipedia talk:Article size#Proposal. I participated in that discussion -- WHICH IS ONGOING -- and while a consensus has not been reached, the majority opinion opposes that change.

Despite this, User:Oakwillow, who has not previously participated, decides that one argument on the pro-change side is particularly convincing so he unilaterally changes it. User:Bobblehead reverts it, as he should, and then I revert it when Oakwillow does it for a second time. Bobblehead reverts Oakwillows third attempt and I advise Oakwillows of his potential 3RR violation. I then posted the following on the discussion page:

Actually the discussion above focused only on the table and ignored the very first section WP:Article size#Readability issues which first raises the issue of "readable prose". This section has been there well before the change in the table which appears to me have been a logical step to make the article consistent. If it was intended all along, as some claim, to only use the concept of total bytes then the concept of "readable prose" never would have been included at all. There was, and still is, a proposal to change the table. This proposal has not secured a majority of support, let alone a consensus. If you have an alternative proposal, then spell it out and we can discuss it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, this post was followed by considerable back and forth. Despite this active debate, Oakwillow again reverted the text.

My SECOND revert occurred AFTER Oakwillow's fourth revert which violated 3RR -- I was in the process of preparing a request to the administrators when another administrator independently blocked Oakwillow. Why don't you tell me EXACTLY where, in your opinion, I stepped over the line into edit warring -- there is certainly nothing on edit warring policy that is applicable.

I hardly see how reverting a change made that is contrary to the majority opinion in an ongoing discussion constitutes an edit war on my behalf. I consider your warning on my talk page heavy handed and inappropriate -- that is, of course, unless you agree that Oakwillow's actions in ignoring the process of consensus was appropriate. Do you? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PR redesign part 2

Hi Carl, SandyGeorgia has some questions about the bot archiving PRs for articles that are at FAC. The discussion is at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Heads_up_and_a_goofy_idea.

She did not like the idea of splitting PR into a Featured PR and regular PR. I have two more goofy ideas.

1) Would it be possible to have a listing of all the PRs in one central location (like the current TOC is) but have 10 separate pages for the 10 topics? That way you could see them all at a glance, but if it were 10 pages of PR, there wouldn't have to be any partial transclusion tricks to save space. Or could they be listed chronologically and there would be 26 or 52 PR pages a year - just open a new PR page every two weeks (26) or even every week (52)? If this were the case, perhaps there would be no need to archive either (the page would eventually become its own archive).

2) Would it be possible to semi-transclude all PRs from the start (so only the request shows), but have some sort of bot generated info displayed? This peer review has received X edits by Y editors? Again the idea is to make the size of the PR page showing all requests more manageable, while still giving useful information.

I also think once the bot is doing archiving there is no need for the link to edit the article talk page (I had Geometry guy keep it in as it helps me archive). Probably also do not need to transclude the SAPR notice to the WP:PR page if they all get one from the bot right away - as long as someone opening the PR subpage for the article sees it, that would be OK.

Hope these ideas are useful and not too goofy, thanks again for all your help Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:1.0 bot

I'm not sure whether you saw my reply on Oleg's talk page, but yeah, I'm interested in being part of that group. (Mostly for design stuff, because even though I have some programming experience, I don't know any Perl.) I'd also recommend asking Walkerma and Kirill Lokshin, as they were also part of the group that worked on the original implementation of the bot. Dropping a note on the WikiProject Council should generate more interest as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I did see your note on Oleg's page, and was glad to add you to my (short) list of people who have expressed interest. I don't expect to make any movement on the WP 1.0 front until June; right now I am working on a bot for the Peer Review process. I will be sure to advertise the WP 1.0 bot work very widely. M plan is to work on essentially a complete overhaul, which means we have an opportunity to add new features if there is enough demand for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi Automated Peer Review

Hi Carl, thanks for the update and for your progress on the Peer Review Bot. I just run the script as AZPR and paste the whole result into the correct page - currently WP:PRA/MY08. I do not do any checking or filtering except to make sure that the names match (the ampersand bug I pointed out) and that I did all the ones that needed new SAPRs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carl for doing this. It shaves another few hundred K off the peer review page size, so I think we will be much clearer of the limits now. Geometry guy 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I already have most of necessary API code, so these tasks can be programmed at a very high level of abstraction. I have already switched the PR page to stop transcluding the semiauto notices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you mean your edit to Template:PR/header: peer review postexpand size is now down to 1.45MB now that my expensive code has been removed. Geometry guy 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this was very fast (and the Cogan House Covered Bridge SAPR is linked properly - that's my current PR). User:AndyZ wrote the original peer review script and used to do them. I started doing them by hand and then AndyZ gave me access to the AZPR account. No one else has access to AZPR besides AndyZ and me, and knowing how much work it is to do them by hand, I doubt anyone else would do them, so I would say automate the SAPRs. I always thought it would be great if the SAPR appeared as soon as the PR was listed - give the eager ones something to do. We might want to ask AndyZ about this (I have his email address, if you want me to try contacting him that way too) - he may have some ideas for tweaks. I think having the PR script easily available to any user would be great - lots of folks have trouble installing the script.
There are two potential bugs I can think of: First, there are a few people who hate the SAPRs and do not want them - lately this is one a month at most. I use the SAPR count for the PR number at WP:FAS so I note when there is a no SAPR request at that month's WP:PRA page. Not sure if you want to make opting out an option - they can always ignore it. Second, there are a few articles that get two PRs in a month - London Underground was a recent example. As it is, the newest SAPRs go at the top, so the link is to the newest one. Not sure if this is a problem or not, but I know sometimes things not being single-valued is a problem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Next GAR archive

Could you ask VeblenBot to list Category:GAR/37, the next GAR archive. Thanks, Geometry guy 18:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I added 37, and removed 34 and 35. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bug?

Hi Carl, I was looking at wp:pr/d (which loads much faster) and saw that Pat the Bunny was archived on the 15th by the bot, but it still listed. Not sure what the problem is - both the PR itself and article talk page seem to have been properly archived. If I should have reported this elsewhere (the bot's talk page?), please let me know. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The first few that the bot archived had the wrong template replaced. I thought I had found them all and fixed them by hand, but I missed that one. I'm glad you pointed it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I look through all the PRs every few days to try and find problems and replies to my comments I may have missed. I also fixed a PR that was archived at the PR itself, then just had the notice removed from the article talk page. Should I have left that for the bot to find? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

During the trial, it would be better to leave them for the bot to find. Once the trial is over, and the bot is only running once per day, the page User:PeerReviewBot/Logs/Archive will show any errors that the bot finds when it tries to do the archiving. For a couple days I was running the bot frequently by hand to look for immediate bugs (like the one you noticed), so the log for the first few days wasn't very useful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, do you want me to undo the change? Also do you want me to give you a heads up if I find more of these (so you know and can check if the bot finds it)? I am not sure what all the bot checks, but this one would have been easy to find if there was a check of talk pages of articles listed at WP:PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

help request related to zeteo

Hello,

I have another question I probably need your help with. In setting up zeteo, and adding all references to the database contained in all WP articles, it turns out to be necessary to distinguish between authors which have the same name, but are not the same person.

It is a pretty difficult task to do this without errors, but an approximate idea I had is the following. I want to measure the "distance" of two references by consindering the articles where they are cited and set up a distance of two articles.

My idea is to go up in the category tree and look for the smallest category which contains both articles. To do so, and this is where I would like to ask you to help, I need the following:

- the list of articles including their categories (I already have this from your previous post)

- the list of categories. Along with any category I'd need to know which categories contain this category, so for example [[Category:Geometry]] is contained in [[Category:Mathematics]] which in turn is contained in ...

Could you export such a list (for the moment I only need the 2nd) for me?

Thank you very much,

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. I'll send it to you this evening or tomorrow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I don't know if it is easier or more difficult for you not to glue together all pages into one huge text file in the end. I you somehow do glue them into a single file in the end, please do not do it, but leave it in some smaller pieces (no matter what number), because it is a bit cumbersome to get the file into manageable pieces. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are two files with the information, in bzip format: list of categories, category membership entries. Neither one is very large compared to the files I made last time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, it says the files are not found...? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I typed them wrong. I fixed the links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review bug

Hi Carl, not sure if you will see this since you are traveling, but the SAPRs are not showing up in the Peer Review by date page. The most recent one to have it is the PR for New York State Route 32. I checked and it is not on the individual page either. I can use the script to add notices if worse comes to worse, but hope this is just a glitch. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the bot has not run since the 19th and PR needs to be archived too. I will archive, then add SAPR notices using the AZPR account. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also note twice recently someone has listed a PR for an article that is already at PR - first was Evolutionary history of plants, second was Kristallnacht. I deleted the second request in each case, but would there be some way to not allow duplicates? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I will put in the SAPR links via AZPR until you return. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Odd problem - Wikipedia:Peer review/Siege of Lal Masjid/archive1 was not properly archived. The article talk page was archived correctly, but the template was left on the PR page itself. Then an editor doing cleanup moved the PR archive tag on the talk page and the PR was listed a second time on the PR page. Again if there can be some check that an article is not already listed once at PR this would be avoided. I have properly archived the Wikipedia:Peer review/Siege of Lal Masjid/archive1 page so it should be OK now. Hope this is clear, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a reply to several comments.
- The bot was not running while I was gone. This is a disadvantage of the "trial" system. Once the bot is approved I will make it run automatically. Thanks for making the links by hand during its absence. I had been running the bot by hand each day until May 21st, there were simply no peer reviews that needed to be archived for a few days up to that point.
- I don't know any way to prevent an article from being listed twice, any more than there is a way to prevent an article from being on AFD twice simultaneously. In those examples you gave, was the talk page template actually in place on the article talk page? If not, I can make the bot detect that error.
- I can also make the bot detect the error where the article talk page is archived but the peer review itself is not archived. This and the previous item will need to be a third "bot request" task, and I will work on this code in June. At the moment the bot doesn't try to fix these errors, it simply makes a note that something is wrong and skips that peer review page.
— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

- Thanks and welcome back - I assumed initially that the bot ran automatically, thanks for running it and for clarifying that. For the first two examples (Evolutionary history of plants and Kristallnacht), there were two PR request templates in place on the talk pages. The Siege of Lal Masjid error would have been prevented had the archive been properly done. I notice some people just delete the PR template on the talk page instead of changing to the oldpeerreview template. The other thing is that some people don't archive the PR with {{subst:PR/archive}}on the PR page, they just add "This Peer review has been closed".
- I did the SAPRs and put in the notices with the AZPR script - I have not archived in about two days, so I will let the bot / you do that, if that is OK. Just a heads up, I will probably be offline for much of the coming weekend. Thanks again for all you do - I was trying to give you info on bugs / problems, not being critical (and hope I did not come across that way). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I ran the archiving script just now, which found 3 pages to archive. When you link to a semiauto review, can you add Category:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews to it? My bot needs that know that a link is already present. You can use {{subst:PR/semiauto|date=May 2008}} to generate the note and category link at the same time (that's where the script gets its message from). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    - OK, thanks - I did not know that. I did the links as AZPR because that is a one click process (clicking on the edit link for the PR automatically adds the link to the SAPR). I will go back and add the categories to the ones I just did. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      - Well I see you have already done them all - thanks very much. Here is a link to the Kristallnacht talk page showing the two open PR requests at once (I deleted the more recent request). The Evolutionary history of plants PR is more complicated - I can not find a diff showing both reviews on the page. It looks like Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolutionary history of plants/archive2 was created as page by itself?? I deleted it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PR archiving error?

Hi Carl,

PR was getting full so I semi-transcluded above 8 kB. I then checked the three oldest PR requests and found two of them that should have been archived but were not:

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Wilberforce/archive1 was opened April 8 and has not had an edit since May 19, so it is over a month old with no activity in the past two days, but has not been archived. revision history

I also note that Wikipedia:Peer review/Treaty of Axim (1642)/archive1 was opened April 29, and the last non-bot edit was May 12, so it should have been archived. However, PeerReviewBot made an edit May 19, so my guess is this is what is keeping it from being archived. Could the bot ignore its own edits? Could they be flagged as minor and it could ignore all minor edits (or all bot flagged edits)? revision history

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked these. For Treaty of Axim, I agree it would be better for the bot to ignore its own edits, and I plan to add that functionality, it simply isn't written yet. I have to fetch the revisions in a different way to make that possible, since currently only the most recent revision of each page is known. When I implement this, I will also make the script ignore minor edits and bot edits.

For William Wilberforce, the issue is that you archived and unarchived the page on May 12, so the script thinks the peer review is only 16 days old. I don't have an easy way to fix this at the moment. But it will help once the bot ignores bot edits and minor edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations - after I archived Wilberforce User:Slp1 asked me to undo my archiving so I did. I can archive it by hand. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Attribution/Header has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives