User talk:Vildricianus/Archive6

User:TempBot

How often do you re-run all of those substitutions? Do you have them scripted, so that they run once a month or week or something? --Connel MacKenzie 09:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I run them as I feel it's necessary. Like, now :-). I've been fairly busy doing other things, so pardon the delay (although there's not much to subst: right now). I see there's also been a new dump, so I should get to run the scripts on it sometime soon. — Vildricianus 12:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

SeeAlsoBot

Did you have a look at my data for this? I've just finished a new version from the new dump. — Hippietrail 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll need to acquire more Python skills in order to get it working. So far I don't think I can auto-upload them. — Vildricianus 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For GutenBot, I had to go through the painful operation of building a script that called "$python replace.py -page:..." for each of the 1000 entries. The escaping sequence is different for regex vs. replacement string, so it got a bit complicated.

I'm still curious about the HT scripts. Are multiple SEEs also being corrected, if they have only an incorrect partial list? --Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading a python manual the entire day, but it's pretty hot here. Perhaps I also understand what I'm reading tomorrow.... stay tuned for further developments. — Vildricianus 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• An unrelated question, has the bot finished? I ask because I still find some manual disambig see alsos. If it has finished I can try to analyse what's left so you can make a new regex. — Hippietrail 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have to re-run it on the new dump. Tomorrow probably. — Vildricianus 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I found a few more exceptions that I previously didn't find. If you find any more instances untreated, please report. — Vildricianus 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

transitive and intransitive templates

What's happened to these templates? See climb up for example. SemperBlotto 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken stuff in Template:italbrac, probably due to software changes. Blame Davilla. I'll try to look into it but I think we'll just need to rollback to earlier decent versions. — Vildricianus 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Tim's changes to the parser code, but he left #wikimedia-tech right after releasing the changed code. We probably should use this as an opportunity to drastically simplify the templates in question. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed. I've been saying this for weeks. I didn't think it would break this easily, though. I guess it is the entire {{foreach}} mess that is breaking the stuff now. I'll take a look at it now. — Vildricianus 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Documentation update

Could you please revise the various Transwiki: documentation, if we really are going ahead with the sysop-only transwiki method? Thanks in advance. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK then. Tomorrow, too. — Vildricianus 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

one bot per task

[dragging this thread back out of your archive; hope you don't mind]

...the previous bot request died because you asked to "wait to hear from some others". AFAIK, there is no "others" when it comes to such discussions, especially since Eclecticology is absent. I think it's a pity this excellent opportunity passed away. — Vildricianus 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the previous request had gotten one support and one oppose before I asked that, and none after, while the second request got six support and no oppose, so I'd say that's progress! :-)

I, too, would like to get the wt:en bot policy clarified, but evidently this wasn't such an "excellent opportunity" after all, because the discussion withered. We'll try again. —scs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion I just started at Wiktionary talk:Bots.

I've been pretty busy lately and it seems I'll stay busy for a while. Please remind me if I don't respond this week. — Vildricianus 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ping! —scs 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! — Vildricianus 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, * '''Support.''' --~~~~. --Connel MacKenzie 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

admin talk page protection

Please don't protect my talk page. Visitors from Meta:, Commons:, and Wikipedia: need to be able to reach me, before the several day and several edits "confirmed user" thing kicks in. Especially when, as in the past couple weeks, my e-mail craps out. --Connel MacKenzie 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek Index

I had an interest in an index for Ancient Greek similar to the Greek index and was wondering if that would be appropriate. If so, would you be willing to teach me how to construct this and how it works? Thanks. Cerealkiller13 01:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How to accuse people of being sockpuppets on Wikipedia

I noticed that you added the text "[[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wonderfool]]" to Dangherous's and Brandnewuser's user pages on Wikipedia. This is not an effective way to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. There are two ways to do this properly on Wikipedia. The best way is to follow the procedure at w:WP:SSP. The other way is to file a CheckUser request at w:WP:RFCU. When filing a CheckUser request, the burden of proof is on you for why the CheckUser is necessary. CheckUser requests are routinely denied when the cases are extremely obvious or the requestor has failed to show that CheckUser is necessary. Tagging userpages with sockpuppet categories or sockpuppet tags will not get an administrator to investigate the problem, and only serves to warn users and admins that this account is a possible sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer and should only be done after the investigation and block. Jesse Viviano 04:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot one more method. If it is extremely obvious and the sock is committing vandalism at the same time, report the sock at w:WP:AIV instead of requesting a CheckUser or a sockpuppet investigation at w:WP:SSP, and tag the userpage of the sockpuppet. Jesse Viviano 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't merely accusing anyone, I was notifying the Wikipedia community about a fact. They're not suspected, they're confirmed. I posted a message to the sysops at the Admin's noticeboard, but it got archived pretty quickly, so I figured no one cares. — Vildricianus 09:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It got archived quickly because the administrators' noticeboard on Wikipedia is not the right place for sockpuppet accusations. Accusations like that are much more effective at WP:SSP because few administrators like to investigate sockpuppets, but one (w:User:Kilo-Lima) makes it a point to do so, and he or she patrols that page quite often. Please follow the procedure there to make an accusation. It is lengthy, but it works. Jesse Viviano 17:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WRT this

I'm from WikipediA, where banned users and vandals are usually tagged as such on their userpages so people who are checking their contributions out can see as much (Ref: Primetime's English Wikipedia userpage). 68.39.174.238 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. We don't have such customs here. — Vildricianus 09:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox/Do not edit this line

Cute trick!

When you moved the text, you dragged along some user sandbox experiment, not obvious because he was trying out <noinclude> ... Robert Ullmann 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was some kind of interwiki stuff. Didn't realize that. Cheers, — Vildricianus 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

rfc-date

This model looks complicated, but ok. Kipmaster 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How? At least we can keep track of the lifespan of an rfc nomination. — Vildricianus 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, could we add a note on the {rfc} template that would say to use {rfc-date|date=blabla} for those who don't know? Kipmaster 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Mind, I've just started it today, so still evaluating it. — Vildricianus 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)