User talk:CBM/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Imperfect split of your archives

To CBM: I think something went wrong when you split your old Archive 16 into a new Archive 16 and Archive 17. What is left in Archive 16 at the end is not the end of a section of talk but some where in the middle of one. It looks to me like about two and a half sections got lost in the split. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The "save" of Archive 16 timed out once, so maybe it got broken before I saved it the second time. I'll see if I can fix it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about the assessment tables

I have noticed that the assessment tables don't always calculate quite right. In this example it says its top importance and class NA but the article template has start. Not quite sure why so I thought I would let you know. Its still fairly rare only occurring a few times per 100, 000 articles or so. This is just one example, there are others if you need them. --Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue seems to have resolved itself in the last automatic update. My guess is that at the time the previous update ran, the database on toolserver was not completely up to date. In general it can take a couple days after a change for things to be reflected there, depending on database lag and on the point in the update cycle when the edit was made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok that makes sense thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are probably best equipped to reply to this

question from a new Arb. Oh, and belated: Happy New Year. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of an emergency now [1] [2]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you also have a good new year. Thanks for the note. My ability to respond in the next several days is extremely limited. But I also think I have laid out my argument already, and the arbs will keep it in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an informal proposal by xeno to allow Δ to edit articles only from his bot account, so only BAG-approved task to be allowed. I vaguely recall reading that some of his bots caused problems in the past, although they were presumably BAG approved. That doesn't seem to be the case with the SPI-clerking bot. Could you comment on xeno's proposal? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible bot task?

Hi Carl, I was wondering if it would be possible for a bot to create / populate the WP:FAR archive each month? The latest example is Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2011. Since August 2010 there have been at most 10 FARs closed in a month, usually less. I assumed if a person made the archive each month, and the FAR delegates added a category (something like kept or demoted), that a bot could add the closed items to the archive. I am not sure the bot would even have to check every day - probably once a month would work. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this and happy new year, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In principle, this is certainly something that a bot could do. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I can't take on new bot tasks at the moment. I have actually been trying to find someone to take over some of my existing bot tasks. But if you ask at WP:BOTREQ I think someone should be able to do this for the FA archives. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply - I will ask there. I am guessing I am not qualified to be a bot operator since I cannot code to fix bot errors, but if I can do something to help, please let me know. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on Dana's talk, I'll try to get this task running as soon as I have time (which may not be soon). Ucucha (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha - I do not watch Dana's talk page and so missed your comment there - sorry. I have made a request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Featured_article_review.2Farchive_Bot.3F - should I withdraw it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In what computer languages are the bots written? Are there free compilers for those languages available for home desk-top computers? (As a former computer programmer, I would like to get my hand back in the game.) JRSpriggs (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are "bot libraries" available for a lot of languages; some are listed at [3]. I use PERL for my bots, but Python is probably more common, and PHP is also common. Traditional languages like C and Java are less convenient because they make it harder to handle string data.

In general it's not particularly hard to write a bot if you're familiar with programming already. But for bots that will be doing particular tasks at regular intervals indefinitely, there is also an indefinite need for maintenance to keep the bot running and make any changes that are necessary due to changes in Wikipedia's software or changes in the desired task. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Several people do use Java, though, and apparently someone wrote a Wikipedia bot library in C once. I use PHP myself. All the essential tools are freely available (including the large pywikipedia bot library). Ucucha (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation taskforce

WikiProject WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force assessment statistics WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 3 5 8 GA 24 15 39 B 2 150 2 154 C 1 73 1 2 2 79 Start 7 1 8 Stub 1 1 Category 4 4 Project 1 2 3 Assessed 31 250 3 3 6 3 296 Total 31 250 3 3 6 3 296 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 902 Ω = 3.12 worklist • log • category

This is the main thing I am trying to get work... We have a whole bunch of them here that do [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The table is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject_Medicine_Translation_Task_Force. I updated the WPMED template earlier today and created the appropriate categories. The bot should continue to update the table. It runs about once a day, although occasionally there are delays. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Great how do we get that to fit into Template:Task_force_assessment and thus mess into [5]? Thanks for you help on this. The project is coming together nicely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You can just use this code:

{{Task force assessment|WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force}}

— Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Frequently viewed mathematics articles

It would be good if the tags for frequently viewed mathematics articles was updated. For example, imaginary unit is not on the current list of the 500 most viewed articles, whereas W. Edwards Deming is. Isheden (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BRFA

I have moved your comments to a subpage, I am not really interested in anything you have to say. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi CBM,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, CBM. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mistake?

Hi. Not to be nosy or anything, but this edit seems like an accident. Did you really intend to roll back that edit or was this a mis-click? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was an error, thank you for pointing that out. I have been using an iPhone more often lately. I have now bitten the bullet and changed my use CSS to hide all the rollback links on my watchlist [6], because sometimes it thinks I mean to click them when I try to scroll around. Unfortunately, because of slow loading, I don't always see any feedback that the link has been clicked before I load a different page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, just recently I hid the rollback links for myself globally. It's pretty flawed user interface in my opinion. The value of having such confirmation-less links for (power)users on a default basis is unclear to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A problem with "conditional statement"

Please, look at this posting. In few words, the problem arose due to different uses and definitions of "conditional". It also is aggravated by edit war between users Hanlon1755 and Machine Elf 1735. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

TB

Hello, CBM. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
Message added 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For the urgent task, I have a template ready. Thanks for doing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"An hypothesis"

Sorry, I had a feeling there was a policy about changing regional versions of English, and should have mentioned that when I reverted the first change rather than leaving the door open for another change. skeptical scientist (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is one where I am not sure which "region" it might correspond to, but it is certainly an established English variant, although it is certainly a minority usage. Sometimes I get carried away by a dislike of random prescriptivism about such things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Poll on WT:AT

CBM: Your comment/vote on the poll at WT:AT shows that you have a proper grasp of the issue. Just as my example was how it is rightly Boutros Boutros-Ghali”, not “Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egyptian dude)” your example of how it is rightly Matagami and not Matagami (town in Quebec) is not farcical—as mine is—and is spot-on. May I suggest that you make it clearer than you post is a definitive !vote rather than a possible !vote that is dependent upon the conditional of your having correctly grasped the issue? Greg L (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand

As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Error 61

Thanks for participating in the discussion in the German wikipedia on obtaining an updated list. I am making a big effort to solve many problems but my free time is a bit limited compared to last year. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about null input to a function-box

I don't want to look like a stupid ass, so I'll ask this of you rather than pursue it further "in the clear". Do you agree with Rick Norwood's answer (at Talk page of Function), RE: that an algorithm with null or empty input, instantiated in a Turing machine is not a function? (e.g. a Busy Beaver "function" (or not . . .)). If not a "function", what is it called? If it is not a function then the generalized notion of a function-box is bullocks, plus I need to go into the Algorithm article and amend the lead paragraphs. I have no problem with an ordered pair written as < ,☹>, or as <Ø,☹>. I know exactly what it means: put in zip and get out the frowny-face. I have to deal with null input all the time in the work I've been doing (state machine theory) -- put the power to it and out comes an autonomous sequence of symbols (or symbol, etc). BillWvbailey (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot seems to be acting funny

See this history - it's done 38 changes to the "Articles by quality" page, and says that all our articles have had the banner removed - though that's certainly not the case. Thought you'd like to know :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is because of categories such as [7] which were in Category:LGBT articles by quality. Each "by quality" category can only hold one wikiproject or task force and can only have one subcategory for each assessment class. The "LGBT persons" subcategories in the "LGBT articles by quality" category were replacing the actual LGBT subcategories in the mind of the bot. I removed the "LGBT persons" subcategories and ran the bot on the LGBT project again, and it found all the articles again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh - got it. Thanks for your hel! So will that create the person-task-force assessment? As in a similar table to User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/LGBT? Or is there something else I need to do to get that going? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The task force statistics are at User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/LGBT_studies_-_person and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/LGBT_studies_-_person_articles_by_quality_log. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You rock! Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Informal mathematics

I noticed that you have undone the edit I have made for this article. I feel that Category:Mathematics and culture is a suitable category for informal mathematics as it is the subject of modern ethno-cultural studies of mathematics. I ask that you to revert your edit, or create a discussion about it on the talk page of informal mathematics or at WP:MATH Brad7777 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge discussion at WT:WPM about the category changes you have made. Numerous people, including me, have asked you to stop making them until things are sorted out. These requests have happened both on your user talk page and at WT:WPM. Therefore, until those discussions are settled, and per WP:BRD, I may decide to revert any category changes that you make. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." I explained at WT:WPM why I do not have to stop so pehaps you could reply to that. I feel like you and a few other members are violating WP:PERSONAL because I took a bold approach and also want this to be sorted out too. I suggest that you revert you reverts if they were for no reason, and if it puts you at ease, continue checking my edits so that you can sort this? Brad7777 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, let's first figure out what is going on at WT:WPM, and get on a path forward, before you recommence any large-scale recategorization of mathematics articles. Continuing to do something when so many people have asked you to stop is not a sign of good faith. Stopping a series of contested edits until the situation is worked out is a sign of good faith. I don't believe any personal attacks have been made; the issue is entirely with your recategorization edits themselves, and numerous issues about those edits have been raised at WT:WPM. It must be clear to by now that something has gone amiss if so many people have found it worthy to comment on the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that my suggestion of how to structure categories similar too Category:Properties of topological spaces is contested. It is also clear not to edit certain other types, but the organizational method I apply to articles in Category:Mathematical theorems hasnt been contested. (Start another discussion if you think I am lying). Of the 6 discussions I have started expressing ideas 2 have been agreed with, 2 have not, and 2 have been ignored. You are only counting at most 2, which happen to be the longest and the most noticable discussions (but not acted against!). So I know exactly whats going on. Since I joined wikipedia, most of my edits are consistent with the current categorical structure, I rarely try to recategorize, but since doing so, the "main discussion" was sparked... (which i have read and took the points out of) and now you think you should do what i percieve as hounding me (starting a discussion because of poor grammer and a pointless link, probably as an attempt to swing more peoples views? Basically denying that I rearranged that page for any good reason, when the layout was worse before). You and any other user including myself have no right to tell somebody what they cant do (especially when they are not breaking any rules, dont ever plan on it, and generally doing there best on this more importantly - chaarity based website), and then take further action when they dont obey you (even WP:BRD permits against it). You as an administrator should revert those edits (if they were fine) out of good faith because leaving them is encouraging bad etiquette. Brad7777 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear CBM,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

CBM, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Luzin set and Luzin space

Please, help me with cleanup of Luzin set article, which appeared via merger of Luzin space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and "Luzin set" proper. The merger of 2007 was made to an incorrect side, such that now a narrower title "Lizun set" contains an article about the corresponding topological property, which is not restricted to real analysis. Please, move "Luzin set" to "Luzin space" with history merger (i.e. delete "Luzin space", move "Luzin set" there and restore all edits). I could fix it myself, I even have a possibility of red move to free "Luzin space" title for an article, but what I cannot do is merging histories, because I have not the sysop. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because both pages were started independently and edited repeatedly during 2007, if I merge the histories the result will be a page that has interleaved revisions from both of the previous pages, which would be very confusing to try to follow in the article history screen. In such cases, we generally don't do the history merge.

Because there is a disambiguation page at Lusin space, renaming the pages has to be done with some caution. I don't have time to think it through at the moment, but the main question is whether we need the disambiguation page at all, or whether we can just use a hatnote. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel RfC

Hi, Carl. Because you participated in last spring’s discussions on WT:REVDEL about possibly removing RD5, one of the RevDel criteria, you might like to weigh in on this RfC. It basically puts forth a proposal from last May, which was supposed to become a live RfC around that time but never did. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

SQL Query request

Hi CBM

We're trying to do a bit of analysis of AN/I and I was hoping you might be able to create an extract for me. I've built a small system to assess all the comments to ANI in terms of relevance, tone, constructiveness, etc. We now want to load a few months worth of diffs and then a group of us will grade them. The result set would have datetime, username, edit summary, minor edit flag, and the diff content, and would span from 00:00:00 Nov 25 2011 until 23:59:59 Feb 3 2012 (UTC). If you really wanted to make my day, the result set could also include the sysop status for the user.

Anyway, is this feasible in your opinion? I'm not very familiar with the mediawiki table schema unfortunately so I'm not quite sure how diff data is captured. Appreciate your thoughts, regards Manning (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a count and there are 15,000 edits during that time. Do you really have the manpower to review that many? In general the database tables on toolserver do not have copies of actual page content, only metadata, so I would have to use some other process to get the diff text. However if you are going to look at the diffs on a web browser, I can just make URL links that load the diffs, and that will be much easier (= faster turnaround). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't have manpower for 15000 diffs as of yet. We're actually starting with only the contents of two archives (729 and 730, Nov 28 to about Dec 10) which looks to be about 800-1000 or so diffs. (The reason I asked for that larger volume was to avoid having to come back to you and ask for another result set if our prototype proved useful). We're not planning to review the diffs via a browser, we're going to load them as text into an Access database which will then allow for grading on these various parameters. That grading will then get fed into SPSS for statistical analysis.

While I expect you're puzzled by why we're using Access, the plan is ultimately to deploy it via a MySQL db with a web-based interface. However because we have yet to decide what assessment parameters we will use, we can't finalise the table schema, and hence we can't yet design a web interface. (Well we could, but it would be far more time-consuming with the constant changes that would be needed). Access's "quick and dirty" nature is ideal for this prototyping phase. Manning (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

PS - a relevant discussion is here. Manning (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What format for the diffs do you want to use? Are you going to be reading the diffs at a text console, then? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent question - I've just finished manually scraping 500 diffs (mostly related to ANI Archive 729) and it's now clear to me that a fair degree of subjective interpretation of the diffs is required. Many diffs are copyedits, indent fixes and such and they don't need to be scored. Other diffs are redactions, which do need to be assessed, but they are quite different in nature to a regular addition. Finally many comments need to be seen in context in order to properly understand their tone and relevance (eg. this one which at first glance might appear unconstructive, but in the wider context is probably not).

I'm now thinking that a better solution is what you hinted at earlier - a web interface that renders the diff as WP does (with tha ability to scroll down to the full thread). This interface would also link to the "scoring" table and allows data entry for grading. (Of course, we haven't actually finalized what our parameters are going to be, but my Access DB with 500 diffs in it should be sufficient for hammering out exactly what we want and doing preliminary testing.)

So do you think this idea is even feasible? Just FYI - our project has its own page now - User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Many thanks, Manning (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I put the data at [8]. The zip file contains a tab-separated text file with the following fields: rev_id, user name, timestamp, edit summary, minor edit (0 or 1), sysop (0 or 1). The sysop field tells whether the user is a sysop as of today. You can make a link to get a diff using the following format and replacing REV_ID with the rev_id from the text file:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=REV_ID&oldid=prev

for example http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=476938655&oldid=prev . The SQL query to make the file is:

select rev_id, rev_user_text,  rev_timestamp,
       rev_comment,  rev_minor_edit, if(ug_group is null, '0' , '1') 
from page 
join revision on rev_page = page_id 
left join user_groups on ug_user = rev_user and ug_group = 'sysop' 
where page_namespace = 4 
  and page_title = 'Administrators\'_noticeboard/Incidents' 
  and rev_timestamp >= 20111125000000
  and rev_timestamp <= 20120203235959;

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that's genius, pure genius. The extract is brilliant and just what I wanted. Many many thanks! Manning (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

May I have my headhuner's fee now? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Admissible rule

Admissible rule keeps being relisted by the toolserver as having unbalanced brackets. On the other hand neither AWB nor I manually can find these brackets to fix them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassesments

Hi CBM. For some reason the community reassessment at Talk:Nawa-I-Barakzayi District is not transcluding onto the WP:GAR page. I moved it to the top of the talk page to see if that made a difference[9] but as of now it is still not transcluded properly. I was hoping you might be able to fix it. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion page [10] was not set up correctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Infinitesimal navbox

Re: your edit: What do you think of the idea of creating a category named "infinitesimal mathematics", "infinitesimal", or "infinitesimals"? Then the navbox could be placed in this category as well as some other subcategories such as Category:Non-standard analysis. Tkuvho (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The navbox itself is not supposed to be in article categories; these should only contain articles. The real problem, though, is that the box is placing articles such as Pierre de Fermat into the nonstandard analysis category. This is strange both because the category mixes biographies with non-biographies and because it's somewhat ahistorical to say that Fermat studied "nonstandard analysis". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the current format meet with your approval? Fermat seems to fit snugly in Category:Mathematics of infinitesimals. Tkuvho (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have put the category on all the individual articles, we could remove it entirely from the template. That is the way that things are usually done, because it gives more flexibility if we categorize the individual articles rather than having the category come from the template being included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a few articles already. Perhaps someone could help? Tkuvho (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Bug on {{nobots}} fixed

rev 7969 fixes the CheckNoBots logic. This is an important fix and explains why by bot was ot skipping in many pages where it should. Moreover, I figured out which bug causes the problem in the given page we were discussing. This page contains html numbered bullets which can't be replaced by wikicode. I'll contact the german guys who is responsible for CHECKWIKI and ask them to exclude this page from this list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. By the way, the reason that we put punctuation inside the <math> environment is that otherwise there can be strange line breaks between the math and the punctuation. There is an explanation in section 7.4 of WP:MOSMATH. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. On the dablink issue: I think you should keep {{about}} to reduce unintentional edits in the case this page reappears in the toolserver list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sikorav

Hi, Someone just deleted the page Jean-Claude Sikorav who is an eminent French mathematician with a long wiki page on the French side. I started adding material to source notability but someone was in too much of a hurry. Could you retrieve the material please? Tkuvho (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he meets WP:PROF; perhaps you could see what people at the math project think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

He has a number of influential papers, one of which was cited 125 times at Scholar. He received a prestigious French prize, and is professor at one of the best French schools. This does not predetermine the outcome of an AfD but "speedy deletion" was odd, as per Sodin's comment as well. Tkuvho (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tkuvho (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tkuvho pulled the wool over your eyes ... he was aware how to proceed, and going to another admin was unbelievable and disruptive ... of course, that admin should also have either discussed or advised the deleting admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe he did any such thing. Before responding I looked at the deleted article, which makes a very marginal but nonzero case for WP:PROF. I then asked what case Tkuvho would make for notability, and he had a plausible case. On the basis of my judgment as an experienced mathematics editor and admin I decided to undelete the article, because an AFD would be beneficial. Any admin can undo a CSD deletion, it does not require permission of the deleting admin.

I was actually very surprised that the article was deleted when there was a one-hour-old comment on the talk page asking for it to be kept (visible in the deleted history of the talk page). That comment on the talk page should have been enough to prevent the article from being deleted. I was more upset when I saw that Tkuvho was warned by a bot about removing the CSD tag - as an experienced editor he should be given more respect than he was given in the entire process, and the bot warning crossed a line. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Carl, with all due respect (and a lack of desire for bureaucracy), I do understand the undeletion process - I am, after all, one of the regular patrollers of WP:REFUND. The editor in question did what they should do: went to the deleting admin. Their next step is and always should be WP:REFUND. Going to another admin is neither procedurally nor ethically correct. It is also pretty much SOP that when one admin "undoes" another admin's action, they let them know - in that case, you could have seen the discussion on my talkpage and seen where the case had been up until then. You also know that the bot action is standard: no editor is allowed to remove a CSD tag from an article they created: ever - the bot was just doing it's job. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for our differing expectations, but I do not in general think there is any need to go to the deleting admin for these "new page patrol" sorts of actions. I am not familiar with your editing at all, but in my experience the admins who do these CSD category deletions typically perform a large volume of deletions and consequently have a small amount of attachment to each one. Perhaps the ones I know are on the high end of number of deletions, though. I assure you that no offense was intended, and in fact I would feel bad "harassing" the deleting admin about these things, since they would likely feel that the deletion was just "part of the job". I will not feel offended if you take the page directly to AFD if you feel it does not pass the notability criteria. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at WP:RFP/A if you get a chance. Tkuvho (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightcore

Again someone has deleted Nightcore from List of styles of music: N–R#Ng and then used that as an excuse to delete the redirect. Please recreate the redirect again. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I already did enough undeleting today (see the section just above). That particular page was always somewhat difficult - are there not any sources at all that could be used to make even a stub out of it? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Helmut Hofer

Hi Carl,

Tkuvho observed that Helmut Hofer is not what some of us would expect :) My first thought was to create another article, Helmut Hofer (mathematician). Now I see that actually the current article has no references at all, most of the articles that link to it are by mistake (they actually mean the mathematician), and notability is not quite obvious (leaving alone the phone number at the end - ???). So perhaps a better idea is to delete it completely.

What is your advise? If you also think the current article is ridiculous, I will nominate it for deletion. (I am asking mainly since I trust your judgement on potentially controversial topics.)

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I have no doubts that Helmut Hofer the mathematician will be a viable article, cf. the discussion at my talkpage

There would be no problem with a biography of Hofer; being a member of a national academy is by itself sufficient to establish notability.

I would suggest creating a page at the "(mathematician)" location while the other page is sorted out. If the existing page is deleted some time, it would not be hard to rename the new one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

done (see lk above). Thank you very much! Sasha (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on theorems

Which would you prefer, Category:Theorems in propositional logic, or Category:Truth-functional tautologies. Any thoughts? I am thinking there are potentially quite a few. Greg Bard (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any real preference, but the first sounds more idiomatic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. That was my preference too. However, I thought I'd ask around first so as to avoid problems. Greg Bard (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it to be restricted to classical propositional logic? What about Arend Heyting's intuitionistic version of propositional logic? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that if there are any theorems like that, you should feel free to put them in that same category. If it turns out that there are a bunch of nonclassical, nonstandard, or just plain weird propositional theorems in that category, then that will justify creating a new subcategory. That is how categories evolve in general. After a while of populating them, patterns emerge and the need for a new category becomes clear. Greg Bard (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you Carl for your help with the assessment bot! I appreciate it! Also, thank you for all your contributions on Wikipedia. Thanks :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for hyperlinking the infobox title

Hello, CBM. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Request_for_hyperlinking_the_infobox_title.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. AshLin (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel Project assessment

There seems to be something wrong with this feature. Apart from a general breakdown I noticed today, when I reassess articles there seems to be little or no movement of the numerical totals on the chart. I have upgraded dozens of articles from "stub" to "start" over the past year, for example, but they still appear as "stubs" and do not move from one listing to the other.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be able to look into it in a few days. Do you have any particular articles that you know are not detected correctly? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bot gone mad

Your bot, User:PeerReviewBot, is archiving newly created peer review pages like this. Repair your bot. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot is working fine - it does a simple check - is the article listed at FAC or FLC? If it is, it archives the PR. As a quick glance at the talk page history shows, the bot closed the PR before GimmeBot closed the FAC and updated the article history. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Log problem?

Hi CBM, I wanted to let you know that I've left a message concerning your bot at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Log_problem.3F and I'm just curious what's going on. Jared Preston (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for answering so quickly. It must be really annoying for you having to keep an eye on the replag; turning on and off the code when the server is down and so on. Your bot is great and you really deserve a medal for your troubles! Jared Preston (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The replag is almost always under an hour, and it's rare for it to be over a day, which is the only time it causes problems. I can write some code to have the bot automatically stop when the replag gets too high, it just has been a low priority because the problem is so infrequent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true, the lag isn't usually longer than 24 hours, but when it does get that high it's quite troublesome. Fortunately it doesn't happen so often, but once every few months is enough I'm not sure if you're a barnstar-kinda-person, but you definitely deserve this:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Thank you for all your technical effort, support and expertise; with copious praise for WP 1.0 bot (contribs)! Jared Preston (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/protection

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/protection requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gruber

Hi Carl,

right now Peter Gruber redirects to Peter Guber. Which of the following options do you find most reasonable:

1. mv Peter M. Gruber to Peter Gruber (disadvantage: surprising as it is, there are a few pages that link to Peter Guber via Peter Gruber).
2. turn Peter Gruber into a disambiguation page
3. leave everything as it is now (with {{about}} on both pages)

Thanks, Sasha

Apart from a misspelling, is there any reason for Peter Gruber to redirect or link to Peter Guber? I would suggest having Peter Gruber redirect to Peter M. Gruber and putting a note at the top of both biographies. Since the people have different names (Guber/Gruber), it seems like it would be unusual to have a disambiguation page, those are usually when two articles would have the same title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

do you mean, having Peter Gruber redirect to Peter M. Gruber? Sasha (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I fixed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

At this moment, it seems to still be broken. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it and fixed most of the links. Do you (= Carl or any of the friendly stalkers) have any idea how to fix the link in Hafning bei Trofaiach? Sasha (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise and for adding the rating and categories. Sasha (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The wikilinking of mayor names in that infobox is automatic and the current template doesn't give a way to disable it, even if the link goes to the wrong place. If an article with the name exists, it gets linked. The template code itself is too complicated for me to want to try to fix it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I will leave a note at the template talk. Sasha (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem resolved, thanks to User:Frietjes. Sasha (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing CBM a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

With regard to your little comment here [11] - I quite agree. I got into a discussion with the editor concerned, and although I admit to baiting him slightly (for which I held my hands up), I found his incivility astonishing. But it was not as astonishing as the support he received from his friends, and the threats and jibes which were then sent my way from all sides. It's water off a duck's back to me, but new editors may not be as phlegmatic. How many editors have been pushed out by this guy? Incivility is sad, but the open support and encouragement of it is a disgrace to the project. Thanks for reading, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Cryptography

I noticed you removed the mathematics option from the {{WikiProject Cryptography}} template. I'm not sure what the option gives but it makes sense to me to have articles on theoretical cryptography be supported by the mathematics WikiProject. Do you think this can be resolved in a different way? Nageh (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I somehow missed your comment on the talk page. Nageh (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Bot glitch

Why did it archive this if a peer review hasn't even been made yet? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot keeps a log of all activity. It says it archived that one because there were no recent comments - that means no comments in 14 days. It does seem strange that nobody at all commented in 14 days, and I can increase the limit if the PR project wants me to. You should ask the PR people if they feel that they are having trouble keeping up. I see the Ruhrfisch already undid the bot's edit, he would know. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

{{math}} formatting

Undoing tens of improvements as you made with [12] requires more specific objectivation than barely "I do not like this", but you did not post any follow-up. I do not trust you in Wikipedia henceforth. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't trust me. The {{math}} formatting is an optional style, neither better nor worse than the existing one. Once an optional style has been established in an article, it's generally discouraged to change it unilaterally. We may disagree over whether {{math}} is better or not; fortunately, I think the future MathJax rollout will resolve the problem by letting us use one style for all math instead of putting some in HTML and some in <math> tags. In the meantime, I would prefer to leave the status quo. It is not only the style I prefer, it's the style shown at WP:MOSMATH and the style used in a large majority of existing articles. As you know, there has been some discussion about this on WT:WPM, such as the section at [13]. I hope that we can continue working together. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus on comparison of {{math}} with <math>, but I do not know any user who advocates the use of raw wiki markup against {{math}} or specific formatting templates. I repeat: the preference of {{math}} over <math> is controversial, but the preference of {{math}} over a general-purpose wiki markup is not contested, as far as I know. The CBM's edit not only replaced numerous {{mvar}}s and {{math}}s with ''x''es and rare {{nobr}}s (without a single <math>), but also several dashes (such as is p. 1–999) become hyphen-minuses again. Enough said. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the hyphens; I tried to preserve the other changes, such as the links, but I missed the hyphens. I changed them back just after my first response here.

As for {{math}} vs. HTML, there certainly are people who prefer the latter. As Dmcq says, [14], "I like a strong distinction between maths and text but others find the distinction very jarring". The {{mvar}} template has a separate issue that it adds <var> tags, which there has historically not been a consensus for. I brought up that issue in the past here. I do think that this will be resolved by the introduction of Mathjax, though, because we will be able to use that for both small inline formulas and for displayed formulas. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I for one am certainly a counterexample to Incnis's claim. In running sans-serif text, I find using a completely unrelated serif font for mathematics to look terribly unprofessional, and I don't think we should do it. I am not convinced that MathJax will fix this, either. The situation for inline mathematics is going to remain imperfect, and the best thing we can do is use it as little as possible. --Trovatore (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that MathJax will probably use a serif font for math, at least the current version will. But for example the appearance of the math on mathoverflow.net is much better than the {{math}} template currently achieves (e.g. here) and so if that is able to replace the use of PNG images, and make the math consistent within each article, I can stomach its fonts to gain the benefits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good of a solution that is and whether you'll like it better or not, but Davide from MathJax fame suggested overriding the default font variant to a sans-serif version if desired so. I have implemented this as an optional switch as explained at User:Nageh/mathJax. The sans-serif font has a slightly more bold face, though. Nageh (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in anything that involves custom skins. My objection to the font mixing is not reduced by telling me how to get rid of it on my screen. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't argue with that; I'm just saying that I get font mixing on mathoverflow (sans serif text, serif math) and it is not so bad in my particular case, and is much better in my particular case than {{math}} achieves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, have it your way. I'm not gonna put any more effort into this. Nageh (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What means "to use inline mathematics as little as possible" applied to Robinson arithmetic, for example? Since {{math}} uses a "completely unrelated serif font", do not fall in this abomination, oh my God! Let us write logic formulas with raw wiki markup instead, symbols and variables in the same font as a running text look so professional. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Robinson arithmetic actually looks pretty good, certainly much better than what you normally get from {{math}}. --Trovatore (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course Trovatore and I both know what professional mathematics looks like; the problem is what to do with a limited system like Mediawiki. Now when I write papers, both the text and math are in the same serif font, and when I write slides, both the text and math are in the same sans-serif font. So the idea that the fonts need to be different seems odd to me. At the same time, the resulting text {{math}} does not match my normal text in either size or weight (test: 1 + x = α), unlike the fonts on mathoverflow, which do. This is probably because the texhtml class inexplicably uses a larger font size, and the larger font size also causes the font to appear darker. At the same time, the syntax for the math template seem less convenient than the usual wikitext method, so it seems like additional work without a net benefit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, taste is not something you can argue with – I am with the camp that actually likes the distinction between maths (serif) and normal (sans-serif) text in Wikipedia articles. And the STIX fonts blend in quite nicely for me. Unfortunately, as we are dealing with web pages here and not PDF/Postscript documents what I see may not be what you see – for example, {{math}} fonts on my system (Windows/Firefox) have exactly the same height as the surrounding text, and have a similar appearance to the STIX fonts. So {{math}} actually looks better for me than simply using italic. But I won't argue about it, and I certainly won't fight for any preference (such as the revert mentioned) either. Nageh (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello CBM. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel Project assessment

There seems to be something wrong with this feature. Apart from a general breakdown I noticed today, when I reassess articles there seems to be little or no movement of the numerical totals on the chart. I have upgraded dozens of articles from "stub" to "start" over the past year, for example, but they still appear as "stubs" and do not move from one listing to the other.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see any change. Can something be done?--Geewhiz (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been disabled for some time due to a general problem on the toolserver database. In about 12 hours I have been planning to look into this to see whether the bot can be restarted.

Apart from that general issue, can you give me an example of a particular article that you are worried about? Is the issue simply that the counts do not appear correct? — Carl (CBM · talk) 09:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The stub count has remained at 3696 for weeks, although I have improved dozens of articles previously rated as stubs and upgraded the assessment. It seems that the color coding of the name of the article doesn't change either, and they remain "red" despite upgrading. I know I added an article that was FA class to the project about a month ago, but there is no change in the number of FA status articles on the chart. It's not a matter of being "worried," but I have been trying to upgrade articles for years now, and it is discouraging not to see any visible change after all the work...--Geewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you happen to remember any of the articles that you upgraded? The current count of articles in Category:Stub-Class Israel-related articles is 3700, and that is also the number that the bot is detecting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the page I was looking at: [15]. A small sampling of articles that were stubs and upgraded, with no visible change in the table, are: Israel Medical Association, Yafit, Rosh Pina Airport, Australia-Israel relations and Shenkar College of Engineering and Design.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked, and the bot does know all of those are start-class, except for Australia-Israel relations which is tagged as stub-class on its talk page. The tables will never update instantly; they are only updated by the bot when it runs, which is once a day at most. Recently there was a toolserver outage that prevented the bot from running for a few weeks. Even when there is an update, other people may tag other articles, so that the totals don't seem to change. There is a log at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Israel-related_articles_by_quality_log that the bot maintains, which shows the changes it has seen. That is updated every day or so by the bot when it runs. I had the bot update everything for the Israel project just now, so it is all up to date. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So how come Saul Friedländer, which was assessed in 2010, still appears as "unassessed" on the page itself? --Geewhiz (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The talk page of that article is in the categories "C-Class Israel-related articles" and "Mid-importance Israel-related articles" which seems to be correct. It is "unassessed" only by the France wikiproject, but that is independent of the Israel wikiproject assessment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the article page, not the talk page. It says "this is an unassessed article" under the title, and there is no color coding of the title. Another glitch I noticed on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Israel-related articles by quality log states that the Gaza Street bus bombing article was reassessed this week from mid to low class. That is wrong. It was last assessed by myself in 2011, and no one has reassessed it. So clearly there are bugs in the system.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You have installed some extra script that is changing the title color and adding that message. That is out of scope of the WP 1.0 bot, which just looks at the categories on the talk page and uses them to make assessment tables. The WP 1.0 bot has no effect on the way that the article pages appear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request at Template:Year in other calendars

Hello CBM. Somebody wants to add the Julian calendar to this template, and has filed an edit request at Template talk:Year in other calendars#Julian calendar needs to be added. I can't see any reason not to (unless its too insignificant) but I know changing a template can cause things to break. If the Julian calendar is still used internally by the Orthodox Church that might be enough reason to consider it. The user has drafted up the new template in Template:Year in other calendars/sandbox and has already done some testing. Since you did the last protection, do you want to look into this and approve or deny the request? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Project article assessment logs

Hi

I noted your response on the Version 1.0 editorial team talk page, but there seems to be no movement in our project's log page - Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Robotics_articles_by_quality_log

Is there something I can do to make it restart, are you still in transit, or is there another issue that is causing a problem?

I would appreciate getting the page running again as I rely heavily on it.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the toolserver database is very out of date so there is no data there for my bot to take. This problem has existed for a week or two now; there is a thread on the technical village pump about it. Once the toolserver is back to normal I will turn the bot back on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

K - thx for the update :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi - is the bot up and running again? I am away for a few mmore days, but need to get back to work on assessments on the 11th. Any news is good news :-) Chaosdruid (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday the bot completed its update phase, reading info from the toolserver into its internal database. Now it is copying the updated info to the wiki. Hopefully that will go smoothly and everything will be back on track. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will keep an eye on the robotics page from tomorrow. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Woohoo! Everything seems back to normal at last ... time to start work I suppose :-) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Phase

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase of the Rich Farmbrough case has closed. If you would like to add additional evidence, please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbitrators --Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Project assessment bot

The bot used to identify unassessed articles is not functioning. First I received: User 'enwp10' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15) followed by: Bad Gateway An error occurred while communicating with another application or an upstream server. There may be more information about this error in the server's error logs. If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail ts-admins@toolserver.org.

Some fifteen minutes later the tools.org server is not found. --Bejnar (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Working again, 15 minutes later. --Bejnar (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. There must have been a server or network outage of some sort for the entire toolserver to disappear. The "max_user_connections" problem happens occasionally, but it will resolve itself in a few minutes. It happens from people who make lots of queries in a row on the web tool; the database on toolserver is not very aggressive about cleaning up after these, so they linger for a while, and if there are too many the db will prevent new connections until the old ones finally get cleaned up.

If you want a general list of unassessed articles for your project, I should be able to work out a way for the bot to upload a list automatically, so that you don't have to go through the web interface. Just let me know, — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page misaligned with its article

The article Gauss's law for gravity has a talk page, namely Talk:Gauss' law for gravity. I noticed that when I watched the talk page, it did not cause me to watch the article. The reason is that their names are spelled differently — the article has an "s" after the apostrophe while the talk page does not. Since the talk page's redirect has a non-trivial history, this would require administrative powers to fix. Please fix it. Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you fixed it. Thank you again. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to help with these things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

GAR Archives

Hi Carl. I was wondering what was up with the transclusions of the WP:GAR archives. The most recent archive link to a subpage at VeblenBot. They should transclude the reviews like Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 52. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The page source has an hidden error message that says the page that is supposed to be transcluded is too big, so it is not being transcluded. This is a "feature" of the Mediawiki software. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a go at creating a new archive. You might want to check that it is done correctly as it is the first time I have done this (see User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/54 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 54. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice

What do you think? Not a big issue either way, but your opinion will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube group

Can you resolve this article, tagged as needing expert attention - it's apparently the oldest such tagged article by some considerable time, and right up your street. I looked at it last month, there was something that caught my attention about the way the quotient group/orbits are explained properly for centre facelet rotation, but not so well for quarks etc.. I probably have Singmaster's cube newsletter somewhere but I suspect you wouldn't need it. Oh - also "notation of Griess" needs some kind of footnote or link.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Can you provide some input on pi article?

Hi. I'm preparing to submit the pi article for Featured Article status. Do you have some time to review it and offer suggestions for improvement (particularly to meet FA criteria)? Just post your comments in the Talk page and I'll address any issues you raise. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RF's Arbcom case

I know we frequently don't agree but I wanted to give you props where due that I thought the recommendation you presented for Rich was both reasonable and fair. Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal language image

Greetings Carl, Thank you for looking into the situation with that image. You removed some text, and hey, it really is not a big deal to me. However that particular text was put there in response to criticisms brought up by some of you buddies over at WP:MATH. Please Carl, I am pissed off about this whole situation with that image. I worked hard making it. It is substantially the same as one in GED (an excellent reference btw). Your buddies have no respect for me, as they have clearly overtly stated and behave consistently. This is a disgusting state of affairs. I don't deserve this, and I don't come close to it. I might be willing to create another image, but heretofore there has been NOTHING for me to go on in such an effort. Your friends have not articulated any clear criticism, and it seems to me that they are so arrogant, that they don't feel they need to. It's pretty disgusting that I am the one willing to collaborate, only to have shit thrown at me from the monkey cage. Anything you can do, that would cause for me not to associate with those jerks would be greatly appreciated. I certainly cannot express my appreciation to you enough. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP1.0 bot

Hey Carl sorry to bug you but I think that the bot might be a little off. I just manually built the assessment table for WPUS and it has some strange things. For example it shows that there are 2 lists of unknown importance but when I select that there are actually 4. Another example is in the Other category. It says there are 2 but when I click it there are none. I also notice that the server seems to be kinda iffy at the moment so that might be part of it. Its no biggie but I wanted to let you know in case there is an actual problem. Kumioko (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There are still a number of areticles with two banners with differing ratings, I noticed them causing problems and am trying to track them down. That might account for the different figures in the list and categories. Agathoclea (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I have been working on those too. I don't think thats the whole problem though because some of the things going on with these assessment table builds only have one banner. Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The US table on the web tool seems right [16], so the one on the wiki should be updated within 24 hours. The web tool is not likely to work for a project as large as the US project; the webserver tends to cut off the script before it is finished, and I cannot change that configuration. Did you get the web update tool to return some output for the US project? If so, could you send me a copy of that the next time you do? The web update tool does work for small projects, at least when I tested it during development.

I made a list at User:CBM/Sandbox of all the articles for the US project that have duplicate ratings. That list is not made automatically, but I have a script that can generate it when necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, I do usually get results back (its a long grey page with codey looking stuff so the next time I run it I'll send it to you. If you could generate a list of the articles with double banners that would be great. I'm in the process, along with several others of getting all the WPUS articles assessed and fix those duplicate banners problems so this would help a lot. Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to save it, it is in my sandbox now. One additional confusiong point is that you can run manual updates, but other updates happen once a day in the background, so depending on timing things might be updated again after your manual update. That would normally have no effect, but for double-assessed articles it causes the ratings to flip flop. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks again I'll start working on that. Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The list is done, thanks again. Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and reran the list and I think I see a problem. When it runs, it runs several projects starting with United States so rather than isolating the United States project it does several. Or at least it appears too. Here is the message it generates when its done (I took out a few spaces):

Extended content

Running /home/project/e/n/enwiki/w/enwp10/bin/update-project-web.pl Project: «United_States» Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Get: Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments Listed 4173 pages in 1 seconds Mode: 'all' Will update 1 projects Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Cannot get lock for United_States, exiting. Done. --- Finished downloading assessment data, now uploading table to wiki Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 2020 1 / 2020 United_States Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count is zero, skipping 2 / 2020 United_States_Government Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 9997 A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_Government A Making HTTP request (5) A Making HTTP request (6) 3 / 2020 United_States_History Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 658 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_History A Making HTTP request (7) A Making HTTP request (8) 4 / 2020 United_States_Public_Policy Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 495 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_Public_Policy A Making HTTP request (9) A Making HTTP request (10) 5 / 2020 United_States_Virgin_Islands Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 862 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_Virgin_Islands A Making HTTP request (11) A Making HTTP request (12) 6 / 2020 United_States_comics Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 3841 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_comics A Making HTTP request (13) A Making HTTP request (14) 7 / 2020 United_States_governors Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 3042 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_governors A Making HTTP request (15) A Making HTTP request (16) 8 / 2020 United_States_military_history Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 40713 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_military_history A Making HTTP request (17) A Making HTTP request (18) 9 / 2020 United_States_presidential_elections Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 1148 A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States_presidential_elections A Making HTTP request (19) A Making HTTP request (20) Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Fetching content of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United_States articles by quality statistics A Making HTTP request (5) Transclusion page exists

Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The important thing there is at the top, where it says "Cannot get lock for United_States, exiting.". That means that some other process on the server is updating the US project at that moment. I ran it on my browser, eventually timed out, and gave me back just a blank page. However, the update continued in the background and eventually finished. If you do get the update to work from the web tool, the output will look something like below. The uploading multiple projects wasn't optimal, so I changed a regex to fix that, but that was not the issue with the updates. The way I got the output below was to run the update again just after it finished, so that the query results were already cached in the database. The first update I ran took about 30 minutes just before that. So the elapsed times shown in the results below are not reflective of the real time it takes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Running /home/project/e/n/enwiki/w/enwp10/bin/update-project-web.pl Project: «United_States» Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Get: Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments Listed 4173 pages in 0 seconds Mode: 'all' Will update 1 projects Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful -- Download ratings data for 'United_States' A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Fetching content of Category:United_States_articles_by_quality A Making HTTP request (5) See '[[File:WikiProject United States logo.svg|60px|left]] This category contains articles that have been assessed by '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States|WikiProject United States]]'''. Articles are automatically placed in the appropriate sub-category when a rating is given; please see the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment|assessment department]] for more information. {{Cat more|Wikipedia:WikiProject United States}} {{see also|Category:United States articles by importance}} {{ReleaseVersionParameters |hidden=yes |homepage=Wikipedia:WikiProject United States }} {{ArticlesByQuality|topic=United States|project=United States}} {{CategoryTOC}} [[Category:WikiProject United States articles| By quality]] [[Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments]] [[hu:Kategória:USA-val kapcsolatos szócikkek minőség szerint]] [[fa:رده:مقاله‌های ایالات متحده آمریکا بر پایه کیفیت]]' -- WikiProject information from {{ReleaseVersionParameters}} Homepage: 'Wikipedia:WikiProject United States' Extra assessments: Get stored quality ratings for United_States Getting quality ratings for United_States from database Fetched: 303029 for type 'quality' project 'United_States' --- Get project categories for United_States by quality Get: Category:United_States_articles_by_quality Listed 21 pages in 0 seconds United_States articles SCAN 'NA-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) NA-Class 25 NA-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'A-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) A-Class 425 A-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'B-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) B-Class 300 B-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'FA-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) FA-Class 500 FA-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'GA-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) GA-Class 400 GA-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Stub-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Stub-Class 100 Stub-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Unassessed_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Unassessed-Class 0 Unassessed_United_States_articles SCAN 'List-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) List-Class 80 List-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Category-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Category-Class 50 Category-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Disambig-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Disambig-Class 48 Disambig-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Template-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Template-Class 40 Template-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'FL-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) FL-Class 480 FL-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'C-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) C-Class 225 C-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Portal-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Portal-Class 45 Portal-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Project-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Project-Class 44 Project-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Redirect-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Redirect-Class 43 Redirect-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'File-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) File-Class 46 File-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'FM-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) FM-Class 460 FM-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'United_States_articles_by_quality_and_importance' SCAN 'Book-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Book-Class 55 Book-Class_United_States_articles SCAN 'Start-Class_United_States_articles' Cat (2) Start-Class 150 Start-Class_United_States_articles Fetching list for quality Portal-Class Get: Portal-Class_United_States_articles Listed 3810 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Book-Class Get: Book-Class_United_States_articles Listed 151 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality List-Class Get: List-Class_United_States_articles Listed 8312 pages in 3 seconds Fetching list for quality FA-Class Get: FA-Class_United_States_articles Listed 464 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality B-Class Get: B-Class_United_States_articles Listed 5743 pages in 3 seconds Fetching list for quality FM-Class Get: FM-Class_United_States_articles Listed 350 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Unassessed-Class Get: Unassessed_United_States_articles Listed 20502 pages in 6 seconds Fetching list for quality Disambig-Class Get: Disambig-Class_United_States_articles Listed 699 pages in 1 seconds Fetching list for quality GA-Class Get: GA-Class_United_States_articles Listed 1162 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Start-Class Get: Start-Class_United_States_articles Listed 53403 pages in 17 seconds Fetching list for quality NA-Class Get: NA-Class_United_States_articles Listed 77 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Category-Class Get: Category-Class_United_States_articles Listed 56180 pages in 7 seconds Fetching list for quality Project-Class Get: Project-Class_United_States_articles Listed 934 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Template-Class Get: Template-Class_United_States_articles Listed 8394 pages in 1 seconds Fetching list for quality File-Class Get: File-Class_United_States_articles Listed 20130 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality A-Class Get: A-Class_United_States_articles Listed 73 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality Redirect-Class Get: Redirect-Class_United_States_articles Listed 25784 pages in 1 seconds Fetching list for quality Stub-Class Get: Stub-Class_United_States_articles Listed 89641 pages in 2 seconds Fetching list for quality FL-Class Get: FL-Class_United_States_articles Listed 247 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for quality C-Class Get: C-Class_United_States_articles Listed 7073 pages in 0 seconds Total old arts: 303029 Total new arts: 0 ==> download quality assessments 49 sec Get stored importance ratings for United_States Getting importance ratings for United_States from database Fetched: 303029 for type 'importance' project 'United_States' --- Get project categories for United_States by importance Get: Category:United_States_articles_by_importance Listed 7 pages in 0 seconds Cat Unknown-Class 0 Unknown-importance_United_States_articles Cat High-Class 300 High-importance_United_States_articles Cat Low-Class 100 Low-importance_United_States_articles Cat Mid-Class 200 Mid-importance_United_States_articles Cat Top-Class 400 Top-importance_United_States_articles Cat NA-Class 25 NA-importance_United_States_articles Fetching list for importance Mid-Class Get: Mid-importance_United_States_articles Listed 10970 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for importance Top-Class Get: Top-importance_United_States_articles Listed 438 pages in 0 seconds Fetching list for importance NA-Class Get: NA-importance_United_States_articles Listed 116542 pages in 1 seconds Fetching list for importance Low-Class Get: Low-importance_United_States_articles Listed 130125 pages in 2 seconds Fetching list for importance Unknown-Class Get: Unknown-importance_United_States_articles Listed 42765 pages in 1 seconds Fetching list for importance High-Class Get: High-importance_United_States_articles Listed 2289 pages in 0 seconds Total old arts: 303029 NOT SEEN (importance: 63671 / 303029) '0:Valdis_Zeps' Unknown-Class A Fetching log events for Valdis_Zeps A Making HTTP request (6) NOT SEEN (importance: 115197 / 303029) '0:Ida_M._Rice_House' Unknown-Class A Fetching log events for Ida_M._Rice_House A Making HTTP request (7) NOT SEEN (importance: 120299 / 303029) '0:American_School_of_Warsaw' Unknown-Class A Fetching log events for American_School_of_Warsaw A Making HTTP request (8) NOT SEEN (importance: 162180 / 303029) '0:Charles_I._Dawson' Unknown-Class A Fetching log events for Charles_I._Dawson A Making HTTP request (9) Total new arts: 0 ==> download importance assessments 24 sec Cleanup United_States Deleted articles: 0E0 Null quality rows: 0E0 Null importance rows: 0E0 Quality-assessed articles: 282532 Importance-assessed articles: 260271 SCORES 'United_States' Updating release version scores for 'United_States' Detected that project uses importance ratings Result: 212514 rows in 23 seconds Updating articles table for United_States Result: 196589 rows in 32 seconds Commit changes to database Done. --- Finished downloading assessment data, now uploading table to wiki Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Count: 2020 1 / 2020 United_States Trying to reconnect Reconnecting to database Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful Key: 'TABLE:United_States' Count: '282532' acount: '282532' Count: 282532 A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Editing User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/United_States A Making HTTP request (5) A Making HTTP request (6) Called db_connect .. Connect to database, try 1 of 100 .. Successful A Maxlag set to -1 A Set maximum retry count to: 20 A Set base URL to: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php A Set debug level to: 3 A Logging in A Making HTTP request (1) A Making HTTP request (2) R Login successful A Fetching information about logged in user 'WP 1.0 bot' A Making HTTP request (3) R Logged in user has bot rights A Fetching information mediawiki site A Making HTTP request (4) A Fetching content of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United_States articles by quality statistics A Making HTTP request (5) Transclusion page exists |} Thanks again and thanks for taking the time to look into it. Kumioko (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Sean Combs I see that you are requesting editors of the Sean Combs article to stop adding citation templates based on your interpretation of the guideline WP:CITEVAR. The purpose of that guideline is to prevent needless edit-warring back and forth between two equally valid formats, based purely on personal preference. You are wrong to assume that the state of the citations before the present round of edits is equivalent to that of the citations when regularised by use of {{cite}}. There is discussion on the talk page at the moment, and you would be welcome to help the editors there form a consensus on what is best for the article, either as a contributor or as an uninvolved facilitator. In any case I would respectfully ask you to desist from distracting editors of the article through blind application of a weak guideline which all too often seems to be deployed merely to frustrate improvements. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I am not assuming that the state of the citations is the same. I believe it is changing, and this is why the edits that have been made are inappropriate, per WP:CITEVAR. It's quite surprising that the editors in question are unaware of this, because WP:CITEVAR is a longstanding and well established rule. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC) RexxS: I noticed you have been facilitating discussion on the article's talk page and I deeply appreciate it. I am not planning to comment on the talk page at this time, as I would prefer to remain uninvolved in the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC) It is patently absurd to suggest that editors should not use Cite templates simply because they have not been used before. And to claim you are uninvolved in any dispute over citations is equally ridiculous. Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC). WikiProject Mathematics It seem that WikiProject Mathematics does things differently to all the other WikiProjects that I have worked on. Why do they not add templates to categories? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC) The {{maths rating}} template is only for article ratings, and in general it should only go in the Talk: namespace. Unlike some other projects, we don't try to put the template on everything related to mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Carl owns {{Maths rating}}, just as he owns the outdated otheruses templates. His life's work is keeping these templates sacrosanct, and retaining out of order references in articles. Some might think this strange behaviour, but on Wikipedia it is perfectly normal. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC). Be nice Rich. :-) Maths rating isn't the only project that doesn't track categories, in fact there are quite a few that don't including I believe Milhist and Biography. Kumioko (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC) I am nice. But not wrong, in this case. Notice how the answer to Alan's question simply restates the question, twice. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC). Axiom Hi CBM. Could you please quote the complete OED entry - I only have access to the Oxford American College Dictionary. I want to know if the OED entry says anything to support the language "..without any reference to extra-mental reality." Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Ah, that makes sense. Definition 2 in the OED online is exactly what is quoted in the footnote there. I misunderstood the intention behind the FV tag, I thought it was referring to the content of the footnote. I removed the clause about "extramental reality" just now from the article, that seems like an odd way to put things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Ok cool. Cheers :) -Stevertigo (t | c) User:Citation bot This bot seems to be introducing named references where none were previously present, such as in the featured article Ecclesiastical heraldry (diff). I have not been involved in that particular article but a user who has has already reverted the bot. In another case, an "Article for creation" page, the bot is adding junk edits to the edit history and actually interfering with a user trying to work on that page (edit history). (Not sure of the value of that particular article in spe, but that's not the point.) I can take this to WP:ANI if you wish, but turned to you, since you are familiar with previous cases when Smackbot did the same thing. --Hegvald (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC) No problem. Let me talk to the bot operator and see what's going on. I think CitationBot has a mode where other people can tell it to run, so this could be related to that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Better just to leave all citation stuff alone Carl. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC).