User talk:Primefac

Task approved

Your bot task has been Approved. Given the large scale of this task, please run it with an appropriate throttle (e.g. wait a day or two after an initial run of ~10,000 pages to see if anyone notices a bug). Thank you for your work. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a bug, but this edit doesn't seem to be right :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's different. Rolled back, {{nobots}} placed on the page. Thanks for the heads up! Primefac (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you run this mainspace-only to start? That's where the changes are unambiguous and most urgently needed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, Magic links bot is running through mainspace already. It's about halfway through now, with maybe 20 days of work left. I suppose Primebot could start from the end of the alphabet.

One nice thing about having the bots run through mainspace first is that a handful of edge-case articles are left behind, unfixed. Human editors are needed to clean up these ISBNs embedded within a template on the page, embedded within square brackets, or (when no ISBN link is present in the page's wikicode) transcluded within a template that causes the category to be assigned to the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Silent Hill: Betrayal edit - Primary sources

Hi there

Thank you for your comment on my Silent Hill: Betrayal draft. You mentioned there are way too many Primary sources, although I have seen wiki pages with far less sources that me. I've been reading through what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are in the wiki docs, but I was wondering if you could guide me as what would be the best type of sources to use? Maybe with an example or two. Would it be sites referring to the interviews, rather than the interviews themselves? I'm trying to wrap my head around how best to get this article approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowolfdg (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Shadowolfdg, the easiest way to put it is that if the author of the book wrote about it, talked about it, or was otherwise directly involved with the content of the reference, it's a primary source and thus discouraged. This means his blog, and any interviews he gave. As a note regarding those "other pages" - every page is judged on its own merits. If there's a bad page out there, it should be improved or deleted; it's not an excuse to create another poor page. Primefac (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Rev/del

Hi Primefac, I'm a big fan of rev/del for copyright violations, but I think this content, while promotional and inappropriate for use here, is provided by the US government for public use [1]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:ACD1:EE0:6A65:AED8 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

পুনঃনির্দেশ - Suvray (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

15:07:42, 25 June 2017 review of submission by 2A02:8071:A8F:E300:B9A6:609A:8E36:315C

• 2A02:8071:A8F:E300:B9A6:609A:8E36:315C (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alexander Leopold Anton von Rantzau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer does not accept all the listed original historical sources, written in French, Danish and German. He does not even recognize the famous universal genius Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (inventor of the infinitesimal calculus) as a reliable, independent and published source. Shocking.

Given that my decline had absolutely nothing to do with sourcing, I fail to see how any of this is relevant. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

for keeping me in check on what edits I should/shouldn't make 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania

This redirect was deleted. Per the GFDL, you can't do that since the content was merged. The history has to be preserved and there is no harm in the redirect. It was clearly marked as such and there is also a notice on the talk page of the target article. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of, why was Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism deleted? I don't see anything in the AfD or in the move discussion that demanded the redirect be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, a redirect can always be created or re-created. There is a redirect.

Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, got a bit carried away. I've restored them. Primefac (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Whining...

I know you had to do what you had to do. But the squirrel article renaming doesn't convey the cyber-security issues that prompted me to write it in the first place. Thanks for letting me vent on your talk page.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), given that I didn't change the content of the article, I'm not sure where the issue lies. You're welcome to add or subtract content, provided it meets the criteria. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. There is no issue, really. I will cheerfully continue to make the article even better. I guess the renaming the article makes it seem... less interesting. Thanks for your time.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

ISBN

In this edit you seem to have updated one ISBN link but not the other. Is it the capitalisation? --John (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@John: Which is "the other" ISBN link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the one two below the one that was fixed. --John (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

John, the only isbns I'm seeing (post-fix) are either inside the citation templates or in the {{ISBN}} template itself. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that. So the correction isn't necessary inside a cite template? Makes sense. --John (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@John: No, because the cite templates build their own ISBN links from the content of their |isbn= parameter, and have done for as long as I can remember (eight years or more); AFAIK they have never used the magic links method, which is what we're eliminating here.

On a very realted matter, if you see an ISBN magic link outside a cite template (as here), the thing to do is not to wrap it in {{ISBN}} (like this) but instead to move it to the |isbn= parameter, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Got you. Thanks for taking the time to explain. --John (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible refinement to PrimeBOT id=ISBN change

In this edit, PrimeBOT changed "id=ISBN 0761992774, ISBN 978-0-7619-9277-6" to "ISBN=0761992774, {{ISBN|978-0-7619-9277-6}}" inside a citation template. This generates a red citation error message and means that a gnome has to do additional cleanup.

Is it possible to adjust PrimeBOT's code such that it leaves behind only "ISBN=978-0-7619-9277-6"? That would be ideal.

You can see the affected pages (so far) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors. Do a find on that page for "{{ISBN|". Thanks for considering this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

An id=ISBN 1,ISBN2 works fine, since the module parses them out, so I'll tweak the code to ignore those circumstances. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there's another similar case where things go wrong: When PrimeBot replaces the "id=ISBN ..." by "ISBN=..." and another "isbn=..." or "ISBN=" parameter exists already, you'll get an error message as well. See, for example, here: [2]. A possible tweak would be to leave things as they are when "isbn=" or "ISBN=" is already present in a citation template or (even better) to convert "id=ISBN ..." to "id={{ISBN|...}}". Yet better would be if the citation templates would accept multiple such parameters. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: id=ISBN 1,ISBN2 results in magic links, which we want to eliminate. See this version of A. P. Patro, from before your bot's edit. Some sort of action is needed with citations of that sort. If you think that my suggestion would overstep the remit of your bot, I will understand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. In digging through the cite module I thought it formatted the ids separately to use templates, guess not... making it work won't break my brfa, but if I can't get it to run properly on some test cases I'll just drop it and leave it for either another bot or a human to fix. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears as if your bot uses "ISBN=" rather than "isbn=" in citation templates. Technically, they are both correct, however, the lowercase version is the preferred form. A few parameters are also supported in uppercase for user convenience, but they are exceptions. This applies to all parameters which are supported in both cases. Since it doesn't matter for a bot, I suggest that your bot should use the preferred lowercase form. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, your bot now even completely removes id=ISBNs if another ISBN is present in isbn=. Please don't do that! If you don't manage to properly convert the id=ISBN into using the ISBN template, just leave it alone - it doesn't cause harm to leave it as it is, but it does cause harm removing valid ISBNs! Books may have more than one ISBN printed on them. If so, they may be used for identification purposes and as search strings. By removing them, you are making it more difficult for users to locate information inside and outside of WP, and in cases where you remove ISBN10s in presence of ISBN13s for books issued before 2007 you are even invalidating the reference, as ISBN13 weren't printed on older books, so the reference no longer represents the book the author of an article had in front of him. If an editor gave multiple ISBNs he probably had a reason to do this, and unless you own the same issue of the book yourself to check, you cannot decide if an ISBN was calculated only or is actually printed on the book, so you must leave that decision to the authors of an article and not remove one of them blindly.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, I only removed the second ISBN if the core numbers (i.e. not the 978 or the parity bit) were the same. If valid/different ISBNs slipped through, you're welcome to correct them. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Naval sockpuppetry

Howdy! You jumped in at Naval Supply Systems Command and blocked NAVSUP HQ for its institutional account name and adding promotional content in Wikipedia's voice. Instead of responding to either of our talk page messages, or requesting an unblock, now all the content is there again, added by a new institutional account, NOCCHQ. In any other instance I'd open a SPI, but I kind of hate to do that to the Navy—but, given the utter lack of response to talk page messages on the NAVSUP account, I'm not sure what else going to be enough to get someone's attention that this isn't what Wikipedia is for. Unfortunately, I have an urgent real-world project going on today that will keep me from being able to spend much time dealing with this, so I thought I'd keep you apprised of the situation. Thanks for all your help, with this issue and otherwise! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Another question on this: I'm not objecting to the removal of the content as copy-pasting of primary source content, but was curious (for my own future reference, if nothing else) as to the rationale for deeming it copyvio when the source appears to be a U.S. government publication. No rush; just wondering. Thanks for your help with this - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima, the first big removal was just random info, the actual "rmv copyvio" edit I made was to remove content from http://japan.stripes.com/ which as near as I can tell is not officially DoD and thus not PD. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to un-revdel. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This turns out to be an interesting issue--I've never had occasion to dig into whether Stars & Stripes and progeny fall under the government umbrella. This may be a nice insomnia-busting bit of research for me tonight. Again, I appreciate your time (and I'm definitely not critical; I do an occasionally-copyright-law-related thing in real life and, between that and WP, government authorship status comes up with some regularity). Take care - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietdeltalima (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima, dig away! My main reasons for thinking it wasn't PD were these two phrases:

• The contents of Stripes Japan and its corresponding website, Japan.stripes.com, are unofficial, and are not to be considered as the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. government.
• Products or services advertised in this publication and website shall be made available for purchase, use, or patronage... (emphasis added)

I figured if they're unofficial and selling things, it's not PD (plus the copyright statement at the bottom of the page). But it is closer to OR than Truth, so if you can get definitive answer I'm all ears. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. Since you had some involvement with the Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KMF (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

template {{rlp}}

Hi, the new lowercase option does not appear to be working - see the lead paragraph of User:Nthep/1946 Great Britain Lions tour#Squad. Unless there is something wrong with my keyboard {{rlp|ce}} is producing Centre not centre. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, when copy/pasting to duplicate a section and make it lowercase, it helps to actually make the output lowercase as well...  Fixed. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My type of boo-boo :-) Thanks. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiding option for unwanted entries in Watchlist

While I appreciate the good work that PrimeBot and its maintainers are doing, is there any reason that it should be exempt from the "Hide: bots" in the Watchlist options? Specifically, I am seeing a lot of unwanted messages about removing magic links from ISBNs in articles on my Watchlist. Is this necessary, or was it just an oversight? Reify-tech (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No idea. It's got a bot flag, so it should be showing up as a bot... Xaosflux? Primefac (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Reify-tech: can you point to a couple of specific diffs? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: bot flag "enables" a bot to assert that their edit should be bot-flagged, but does not enforce that each edit carries this flag. If running under AWB this should be included already, if you ran under another framework it may or may not be. (See mw:API:Edit#botflag). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are not sending a bot assertion on recent edits - this is a BadThing, gathering some details. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are asserting bot on these edits in general. Will need some specific examples. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

HERE is a dump of recent changes showing the flags in use. Also verified by adding some recently edited pages by your bot to my watchlist. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Weird. Recent changes shows the edit to A Practical Handbook of British Beetles as a bot edit, but the history doesn't (nor does a look at the contribs). Primefac (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: bot flag markings are for recent changes purposes - they are not stored in the permanent revision data. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That would do it. Ya learn something new every day. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• xaosflux, was this request for the above strike-through comment? Primefac (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I reverted after the additional info came out, no issues so far. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  Cool. AWB throws a fit when one gets a new message, so I just wanted to make sure. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

AWB-Request

Hello, hope you in good health, can you please assess my request? Thanks --Alaa :)..! 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Been rather busy lately, if I get a chance I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Alaa :)..! 22:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your funny name

Hi Primefac. I've been seeing you around a lot recently, and I can't help my ocd reaction. It hits me every time that primes don't have factors. However, then I realise that you may be claiming to be The One? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, just a throwback to a time when the programs I was writing could only have 8 characters, so I had to settle for "primefac" for my program that ran "prime factorization". Primefac (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and Clarification

Thank-you for proposing the IBAN. I've been offline busy on a volunteer project for a couple days so I just saw it. Obviously I'd prefer to edit unrestricted, but I was completely ignoring and avoiding him until his attacks became to much, so I'll just go back to completely ignoring him. Great solution. Just to clarify, when/if he substantially breaches the IBAN, and resumes harassment, what is the correct procedure, given I can't mention him or go to ANi? Thanks again for actually doing something about this unfortunate situation. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hello Primefac, Thanks for your reversion of my "edit". Frankly I cannot even remember making the edit. It must have been an accidential touch whilst checking the page. Apologies and thanks, David,David J Johnson (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Aye, no worries; it happens. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, I tried to fiddle around with AWB, but I couldnt get the hang of AWB with RegEx. If given an example, I will be able to understand everything very easily. Would you please be kind enough to tell me how to achieve following result?:

Assuming, we want to target articles with the tags of particular English, for this scenario, british english. Now we want to change all the words from american english to british english (color —> colour), excluding the ones inside templates/parameters, how should we do that?

Thanks a lot. :) For me, asking somebody else is very embarassing as I am a level 4 expert in C :-/
—usernamekiran(talk) 06:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, in that particular example you wouldn't even need regex. Just do a simple find/replace for color/colour. However, you run into a major context issue, because while an article may be about a British subject, the text of the article may be written entirely in American English. It has long been held that whatever English variant a page is written (regardless of subject) it should not arbitrarily be changed. Obviously, if it uses "color" in one paragraph and "colour" in another, one of the two should be changed, but that's really not something that AWB would be good for, because there's no good way of finding pages like that. I think you're best off finding other things to fix. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What if we tell AWB to edit only the articles with {{Use British English}}? That way, the target pages would be easy to acquire. Maybe we can include entire british, and american english. There are way too many words: centre-center, favour-favor, favourite-favorate and many more. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, I was looking for that template when I was replying above and couldn't find it. I must have misspelled something...

Anywho...

Yes, you could load up all pages that transclude that template. However, you then reach another issue - that template is used on over 150k pages. That is a massive undertaking, and would be most appropriate as a bot task. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that sort of bot proposal has been shut down in the past. I'm not saying that you can't do it yourself, but a) it will take forever, and b) it will take forever. You might also get someone complaining about the massive number of edits you're making (of course, you might find that the majority of those pages do use proper British English, so with luck you might only have to edit a few thousand pages). Primefac (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Such a bot would be against WP:FDB#Fully automatic spell-checking bots. Even if permitted, you would need to guard against altering quotations, and if altering American spelling to British, you would also need to keep away from computer code, such as the color:#a80000; declaration in my signature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might have been a CONTEXTBOT issue. But, if you were actually checking what AWB was changing, you could avoid such improper changes. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are those who run AWB without checking before saving, contrary to rules of use no. 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

oh poop. If initial edits/exeriments gone as expected, then I was hoping to create a bot that would exclude code, and quotes.
—usernamekiran(talk) 23:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT sleeping?

PrimeBOT does not appear to be working on ISBN magic links. It would be nice to have it running, if only to limit the drama around editors who just won't listen. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have it up in the next day or so. Been a really strange week and I haven't been home much. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please also modify your bot to catch tabs and not only spaces. It would be also helpful fi you post the regex you use somewhere. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the same regex that MLB uses, and I'm pretty sure that code catches all whitespace. If I'm missing a code, though, I'm happy to modify. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Few pages left

Hi. Caan you please help in fixing the last 60 pages left in mainspace with ISBN magic words. After we are done we cn report to Phabricator and ask the devs to starting removing it from the code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ???? There are over 56,000 pages left in mainspace with ISBN magic words. Also see Category talk:Pages using ISBN magic links, which still applies, AFAIK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 AWB onyl loaded 60 pages in last run. No idea why. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AWB only loads 60 mainspace pages because it can only load 25k pages from a cat, and since it does this semi-randomly it's grabbing all of the non-mainspace pages first, leaving only the 60-odd pages that can't get fixed by a bot. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering that message on my talk page! I was at work and unable to at the time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to help out when I can. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks + 2

DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

thanks for all the helpful advice! I appreciate it and have been putting more work into varying and diversifying my welcome messages on User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates. As always, please let me know anything I could do better and thank you.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: should I keep User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates updated? I wasn't sure if it was helpful or superfluous but I'm willing to keep it current for everyone's sake.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I made a list of users (both unregistered and registered) I'd like to welcome. Please let me know if it would be okay to do so or if it would be better to hold off.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

DoctorWho42, I'll be completely honest, there are a lot more effective things you could be spending your time on than welcoming random editors. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac that's fair, plus I have been behind on articles I should start. For what it's worth, I'm open to recommendations.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC Close....

Hi, I have closed the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion.Please don't forget to sign.As a side-note I found it problematic to introduce(wiki-link) the URLs as discussed.Please look into the matter.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Signed. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, do you know of any way to fetch a list of articles created by a particular user in AWB.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You can load from Special pages in AWB, if even there is nothing specifically for Contributions. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno:--The special-pages sub-sub-section on WP:AWB/MAN#Make list allows a skim through an user's contribs. but that's not very helpful.I tried URL scraping from XTools Article creation page but it's too of no use!Did I miss anything?Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, the short answer is "no", the long answer is "yes, but not directly". If I'm doing something convoluted like getting all pages created by a user or all pages edited between X and Y date, I go to the appropriate page on-wiki, copy the list, and put it in on of my subpages. Then I can load that page into AWB and have all the links. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Need Help For my startup

I'm Ankit desai.I want to chat you for help so when you free msg me. Ankitdesai (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ankitdesai, I'm not really sure what you're wanting to chat about, but please make sure to message me here if you reply, not on my bot's page. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming etiquette

I added a section on bots to Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcoming etiquette, but I'm not sure if it's worded well enough. If you want to improve upon my edit, feel free to do so.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot flooding watchlist

Can we slow this down? El_C 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, El_C, can do. I apparently turned down the delay period at some point. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been busy cleaning up after your bot

You are adding a lot of articles to duplicate template arguments. Check my edit history to see the screw ups. 50.130.251.28 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call them screwups, I'd call them "exceptions to a bunch of rules I have coded". Either way they would need to be fixed/updated, so while I appreciate you cleaning up after me I'll see what I can do to code in a few more exceptions. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you didn't notice this while you were going through the BRFA. It sounds like you coded up something for the BRFA, then started messing with the code without checking the results. You really should look at all of these. It's not just a problem with an ISBN13 duplicating an ISBN10. 50.130.251.28 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and Jonesey95: can probably help you figure out what went wrong (especially here). 50.130.251.28 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop. You have not fixed the problem! 50.130.251.28 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It's more like playing whack-a-mole. You keep finding novel instances. Honestly not sure what happened with Vatsaraja, because I made sure I fixed that error yesterday... Either way, I'll leave the |id=ISBN alone for now. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And no, I didn't just start "messing with the code" - I've tweaked some things based on suggestions given to me, but to imply that I'm just willy-nilly throwing around regex on a 250k page task is rather insulting. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your bot should not run automatically while you fix this bug. You want a negative look ahead and look behind for the isbn parameter with the "any character" regex in the lookahead/behind set to [^{]* or [^}]* so you don't look outside the one template. Ill be back in town tomorrow so ping me if you need help fixing this bug. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't; thought I fixed it. Clearly didn't. Will cease operations until it's fixed. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you throw me the regex you're using on IRC, happy to help. I've dealt with similar problems in my bot in the past. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and Jonesey95:, clearly operations have not ceased even though problems have not been fixed. blocking the bot would fix it. 50.130.251.28 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please examine that diff, Primefac. It's concerning for multiple reasons; it appears to be a bug. Please email me your code for the lookbehind/ahead for duplicate parameters; I can help you debug that portion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I had disabled that functionality per the previous run's issues, but somehow managed to not save it for this session. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Code fart in Task 13

Sorry, did I mess up your day?

This edit by PrimeBOT, while intending to fix the magic links, accidentally blanked the page. It was fortunate that it was stopped very soon afterwards. Do you know the cause of this glitch? Parcly Taxel 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Parcly Taxel, I got a popup message saying that one of the servers was lagging, but that's the only reason I can think of why it would have blanked a relatively small page like that. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely an AWB hiccup. I've seen things like this a handful of times. Nothing in the code could cause a lack of edit summary except a random glitch. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

BOTN discussion

The discussion regarding the edit summaries of Magic links bot has been moved to WP:BOTN#Concern about Magic links bot. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Animal Cognition (journal)

I just want to remind you that you have put the "under review" template on this draft, Draft:Animal Cognition (journal). It has been more than 12 hours. Plum3600 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, still working on it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of depreciated infobox field, by bot?

Prime, could you review the talk page consensus at Template Talk:Infobox video game#Distributor? If you agree that a consensus appears to be established, would you be so kind as to work up a bot task to remove |distributor from articles using the infobox?

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ferret, sure. I agree that it's a fairly strong consensus. I notice you say in your last comment that you're going to wait a while before making the change live - do you want me to have it ready at a specific time, or just file a BRFA whenever I'm ready? Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can go ahead and prep towards BRFA. The sandbox is ready. Week of June 17th sound good? That gives 2 more weeks for any opposers to pop up. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

All set to go, ferret, so I'll file whenever is best. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomacy

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		To Winged Blades of Godric, Primefac, and Tazerdadog for the absolutely brilliant close of the "Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion" discussion at the Verifiability policy. It's an example of the very best behind-the-scenes work that can be done here at Wikipedia. Thank you and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Animal cognition

Just realized the reason for the link and was on the way to revert my revert ...

Isnt it usual for the english Wikipedia to differ with the headline Animal Cognition (Journal) and Animal Cognition instead of linking to the other article with the same name?Etron770 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Etron770, we have a fair number of instances like that (e.g. Red meat vs Red Meat), and if I were to have it permanently at Animal Cognition (Journal) we'd have Animal Cognition pointing at it anyway, so it would become unnecessary disambiguation. It's the upside and the downside to having case-specific article titles, I guess. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot problems

[3]. And more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[4] This is also a proof that your bot and Magic links bot do not use the same regex and conditions since your bot edited after the Magic links bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

First link - that's a single curly brace. {ISBN} isn't the same as {{ISBN}}.

Second link - {{ISBN 978-981-02-2241-3}} is not a properly formatted template, nor is it a properly formatted magic link.

The two bots are using the same regex, but I believe that mine is more inclusive as far as what actually gets changed. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, AWB is probably more inclusive (Magic links bot: regexes exclusions). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. So you basically say that we have crap in crap out situations in the example I gave. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I brought up this situation at the Magic links bot talk page. These pages will turn up at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors, and there are so few of them (less than a couple hundred out of the half million or so affected pages, I would guess) that it is not a big deal. I'll fix them from that Checkwiki page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore non-magic-link ISBNs in title= parameters

This edit by Primebot was erroneous. The page was not apparently in the ISBN magic link category, so I don't know why Primebot targeted it in the first place. In this case, the ISBN followed by a number was legitimately part of the citation title, and it was not forming a magic link. I suspect that many of the 392 pages in Category:CS1 errors: URL–wikilink conflict were caused by this error, since that category typically gets just a single-digit number of new pages per day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I suspect you're right. As mentioned somewhere in a thread above, AWB can only load so many pages in a category (i.e. it can't load them all) and since the front half of the category is non-mainspace pages it never loaded more than about 50 articles. I had to improvise a little with my page gathering, and apparently cast a bit too wide of a net. If I get a chance later today I'll go through the error page and see about correcting what I can. The good thing (yay?) is that as near as I can tell we're out of mainspace, so I can start loading straight from the cat again. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That was my assessment as well, but I didn't want to make accusations. I just like having problems fixed, and the bot is doing a lot more good than harm (100:1 ratio at least). I suggest working on the 33,000 pages left in the category, after which we can try to figure out if there are more conversion targets out there. Keep up the good work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave the last thirteen (which aren't related to the ISBN issue as near as I can tell) to folks who know what they're looking for. Thanks again for letting me know about this. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's curious that the citation title is "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3" - extra information seems to have been added in error, the citation title ought to be "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The title of the page in the HTML is the cited title (that is, "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3"). It's a little silly, IMO, but that's probably the basis for it (probably some mix of lazy programming and SEO). I would suggest that this is not necessary to identify the cited text and could be removed, indeed. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is lazy or SEO. I think this is how Publisher's Weekly titles their book reviews. See their book review page for plenty of examples. Other publications probably do this as well, as a convenience for readers, just as we provide a Special page that links ISBNs to Worldcat, Amazon, and other sources where a reader might locate the book in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a direct copy of the <title>...</title> element - but that doesn't mean that it is correct. Consider the review in question: clearly this is a review of a book that is titled "Blood Hollow". If I view the page source, and search for "Blood Hollow" (case-insensitive), I find that it occurs six times. The last two of these are in sales links; the first four are as follows:

<TITLE>Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3</TITLE>

<meta property="og:title" content="Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3"/>

<meta name="twitter:title" content="BLOOD HOLLOW"/>

<div class="review-single-body">
  <h1>
    BLOOD HOLLOW
  </h1>
  <div class="cons-author"><strong>William Kent Krueger, Author</strong> .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3</div>
...

The <H1>...</H1> element is the important part, and it is clear to me that in the <TITLE>...</TITLE> element, "William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3" is not part of the page title, but is extracted from the text that follows. Viewing the page, it's even in a different font face (sans-serif instead of serif) style (italic instead of upright) and is also a smaller size, so it's not intended to be read as part of the title.

Many websites construct a <title>...</title> element based on the first <h1>...</h1> element plus a little bit more - we even do it ourselves (for example, the title of this page is "User talk:Primefac" and not "User talk:Primefac - Wikipedia"). That little bit more is what we should be ignoring, or at least removing intelligently. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's almost-certainly SEO or lazy programming, per Redrose (I can imagine obvious reasons for the latter, but I would assume those reasons bring with them the former's benefits). --Izno (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ISBN magic links inside of citation templates

Causing this problem over and over again example DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, you're going to have to be more specific, because I'm pretty sure that diff fixed an error. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, the bot is causing the errors that then need to get fixed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I fail to see the point of your note, because clearly I am fixing them. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the same issue as the "ignore an ISBN in a title parameter" section above. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, your "fix" in Sagecandor's link above is not correct. The phrase "ISBN 12345" appears in the title of the cited article, typically a book review. Putting the ISBN in the |isbn= parameter is not accurate, since that parameter in a citation template refers to the ISBN of the source, not the ISBN of the reviewed work.

The correct fix is to undo the bot's edit, like this. Please undo your erroneous fixes and the erroneous bot edits. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please revert these pairs of edits. I have done a few for you to show you what should be done. I would take care of them for you, but I do not have AWB and there appear to be about 350 affected pages in your contribution history. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, with due respect, you request me to revert, and two editors two threads up (RedRose and Izno) have no problem with the edits. While I have no issues with undoing my previous edits, I'd rather not get caught in the middle of an edit war with myself over "how it should be" (as mentioned by the others, including the entire title of the web page simply for the fact that it's there seems a bit unnecessary, especially given how stonkingly long it is. I agree with that sentiment, which is why I'm not jumping to revert myself, because I would bet that then they would return here and ask me to revert again). Primefac (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Redrose64 and Izno for input. Right now, there are 300+ edits like this that are erroneous. The bot took an ISBN followed by a number in a |title= parameter and converted it into {{ISBN}}, still within the title parameter. Then Primefac turned that ISBN template into |ISBN=123456789. Before the bot's edit, the citation title matched the title given in the source. After the two edits, there is an ISBN parameter in the citation that does not match the ISBN of the work that is cited (in this case, Publisher's Weekly, which does not have the ISBN in the citation). The end result is clearly an error. How would you like to see this error resolved?

My proposal is that both edits should be reverted on each page, leaving the citation titles as they appeared in the original sources. Do you have a different proposal? Thanks for your consideration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The second edit compounded the problem of the first. Undo both, and then remove the extra info - everything after the book title. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose's proposal, per the discussion above. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno, Redrose64, and Jonesey95:, in that case I'll go through and amend the amendments. It looks like the titles follow the general format of "<title> by <name><profession>; <publisher><price><pages><isbn>". At bare minimum I think the last five should be removed; I can make a case both for keeping or deleting the "by <name>", so I'll probably leave that in. I'll also leave this here for a bit for feedback before starting. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

OK with me. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

New article

Hello I would like to write an article on World Endoscopy Organization. The same article was previously deleted and it was suggested we first contact you before writing a new article: A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 13:27, 23 May 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page World Endoscopy Organization Waiting for further instructions, thanks! Ines V (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

SPI closes

Hi, just wanted to let you know that after you've done whatever you need to do at SPI (thanks for your help there), you can close the case by changing the parameter at the top, like this. Hope this helps. Thanks, GAB^gab 14:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

GAB, good to know. At some point I seem to recall talking to someone (I thought it was either a CU or a clerk) where they said only those two groups of folks should "officially" close SPIs. I guess in clear-cut cases that doesn't matter so much? Primefac (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Only they can archive cases, but admins can close cases, too (WP:SPI/PROC) GAB^gab 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's what it was. Cool. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Primefac: three questions:

1. My name is Michael, Arad's manager, and therefore do not edit his articles. Is it ok if I edit draft through WP:AFC?

2. Does the following notability specifics seem fair as to be incorporated within the draft:

Subject meets notability in following sections:

WP:GNG

Non trivial and objective coverage by reliable sources such as: ynet.com, Jewish Week, All About Jazz (article) and Israel Times.

WP:MUSICBIO (Although single section notability is sufficient, Arad meets notability in 3 different sections):

Section1: Multiple Reliable Publications:

● http://m.ynet.co.il/Articles/4182867 ● https://www.allaboutjazz.com/sketches-of-imaginary-landscapes-kobi-arad-self-produced-review-by-glenn-astarita.php?width=412 ● http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/for-jewish-artists-a-space-of-ones-own/

Section 7:

● Arad is a world-wide authority in the Third Stream style, as he is the first and only (as of 2012) musician to earn doctorate in the field.

Sources: - Letter from Dean of New England Conservatory of Music to Kobi Arad (dating 2012): https://issuu.com/kobiarad/docs/novak_letter - https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_stream - http://m.ynet.co.il/Articles/4182867

Section 9:

Arad participted in multitude of interviews which featured panel discussions, airplay and interviews in Israeli National Radio, IBA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Broadcasting_Authority).

Sources:

- http://www.tunedloud.com/2017/07/05/kobi-arad-ellington-upside-down-as-a-musical-portrait-of-the-jazz-titan/ - https://issuu.com/zmiralu/docs/selection (Letter from Iba editor Zmira Luzki) - https://issuu.com/acum9/docs/5_7_1_ (BMI international airplay statements) - https://issuu.com/acum9/docs/9 (BMI international airplay statements)

3. In case the requirements are fulfilled (links are alive, and you find #2 satisfactory), are you going to be willing to assist in living the draft and unsalt 'Kobi Arad' article?

Thanks :=) Ee212 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot mangling pages

I have reverted this edit. Is it possible to go back to check to make sure this is the only one? Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, BU Rob13, and Redrose64:, I found more [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], someone should really go check all your bot edits. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes, there was a glitch in my code. I've removed/fixed the issues. I will go through my edits and attempt to find all of the erroneous edits. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)