User talk:HardBoiledEggs/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Proposed deletion of Conflict of nullity laws

The article Conflict of nullity laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of property laws

The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce

The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


Concern, reason or rationale: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings!

The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

Arbcom

Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include:

  • Community encouraged to review common fixes
  • Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits
  • Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface
  • Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope
  • Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis
BRFAs

We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular:

New things

Several new things are around:

Wikimania

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

Since you've been inactive for a while, I've removed you from the subscription list. Feel free to re-add yourself to the newsletter if you become active again though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of removal of "bot" flag from RM bot

Please note Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Notice of removal of "bot" flag from RM bot. Thank you. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Should you wish to bot again, please see WP:BRFA. — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

RM bot and out-of-process redirections

I should have brought this up before, but I was spending too much time reverting the unnecessary actions of the bot due to (IMHO) improper actions by editors who should know better.

If there is a multi-move request at WP:RM A → B , A' → B', and A'' → B'', with discussion set to talk A, and someone (out of process, in my opinion) moves A to C and A' to C' , then the redirect pages at Talk:A and Talk:A', and the talk page at Talk:A'', all get new RM bot notices pointing to Talk:B. I can understand the quasi-duplicate notice on Talk:A (the notice pointing to Talk:A already being present), but RM bot shouldn't put notices on redirection pages, should it? WP:RM doesn't cover moving redirection pages, so the bot shouldn't either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I'm looking into this now. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 05:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please clarify -- by "all get new RM bot notices pointing to Talk:B" do you mean "all get new RM bot notices pointing to Talk:C" ? RM bot doesn't yet check that the talk page it is editing is not a redirect -- it just checks for the presence of the <!-- ... crosspost --> comment as well as a no bots check. However, I should be able to modify it to suit. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me make it all distinct letters, to make it clear.
Suppose we have a multimove proposed with A → D, B → E, C → F, with discussion on Talk:A. RM bot puts notices on Talk:B and Talk:C (and Talk:A, if not already set up). Then suppose someone moves A → G and B → H. RM bot puts notices on the redirects Talk:A and Talk:B and the non-redirect Talk:C pointing to Talk:G. It seems to me that a cleaner version would be to follow redirects on input and not on output, so that, in this hypothetical, Talk:G, Talk:H, and Talk:F would have pointers to Talk:A, if not already present. This would mean that RM bot wouldn't add duplicate sections, no matter how bad the out-of-process moves, at the expense of having to follow redirects to see the discussion section. I don't really know how to write bots, but it looks as if you were following redirect on output and not on input. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand you now. I agree that it should follow the redirects when posting to talk pages and I'll have a go at modifying it this weekend. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 00:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got it checking for redirects so far but I'm still working out the best way to implement following redirects. I'll have another look this weekend. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 06:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RMbot stats

Do you think your bot is able to create a separate page how big the backlog is/was? (maybe also back in the history for say 2 months?) XD I want to check something, but I didn't find any statistics right now. mabdul 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I should be able to implement some reporting, but it might not be very elaborate. I'll look into this once I sort out the other pending issues with the bot. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 06:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. mabdul 10:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you just looking for a count of the number of moves in the backlog e.g. at the start of every day? Could you suggest where and in what format you would like the data? Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm atm only interest in the backlog and the old data since I want so see what happened after the change in the {{userspacedraft}} in the beginning of October. But maybe other stats (esp. for the "project") maybe interesting for further assistant and related changed on other pages. More precisely I'm interested in the data of how many request were original made a day. (successful moved would be another interesting part and maybe interesting "somekind" for the OUTREACH study) It's only a part on your side, since I'm interested on the old stats and since nearly all User pages are removed of the RM page (and from the stats because of the change) will be recognized similar in the stats. ("the backlog is dramatically moving down") mabdul 03:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I should be able to get the bot to do a quick count of the backlog -- that doesn't add any significant complexity to the bot. However, in terms of historical data, I'd need to sit down for a while and figure out how to retrieve old versions. Pulling together data on the number of requests from user space would be a bit of a challenge but I'm happy to give it a go when I have time. I'll have a look at what statistics I can pull together and keep you updated. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Leave a talkback if anything changes. I'm shrinking my watchlist a bit because I have def. too many watched pages on it. mabdul 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, will do. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned movereqs

I noticed 2 unsigned move requests at Talk:Cyrrhus, Turkey and File talk:Austarlia High Commisioner.jpg that the bot was placing at the bottom of the WP:RM page because of no time stamp. In the past I believe I would just add Template:Unsigned and the bot would pick them up, but it doesn't seem to be doing it this time. Did I do something wrong or why is the bot missing these? Station1 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Another one showed up... Orissa → Odisha ; it was signed, but it had no rationale. -- 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I'm looking into this. I'm a bit busy over the next week but hope to sort this out soon. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's doing something weird with the unsigned Coupe de Ville move request. It's not stopping at the end of the signature, but including the entire page. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot blanked the page

Hi. Not sure what happened, but I thought you might want to know that RM bot just blanked WP:RM when it was apparently trying to add the backlog notice (diff). Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that and bringing it to my attention. I'll create a basic check to not update the RM page if it's "too short", and then work out why the bot did this and fix the logic. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 04:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Multimove request notification

So, users are still messing up the order of multimove requests. Someone added one to the destination talk page recently, so the notification did not show up at the source talk page. Another person added it to the second source talk page instead of the first.

It would be nice if RMbot added notices to destination talk pages (for destinations that exist and aren't redirects), and all source talk pages (for sources that are not redirects).

76.65.128.198 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Another missing RM listing

The bot doesn't seem to have picked up on Talk:2012_Wikipedia_blackout#Requested_move either, although unlike the above missing listing, it's only been two hours... still, the template claims that it should be picked up on within a half hour, so I'm wondering if something is wrong? Xmoogle (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion that affects RM bot

HardBoiledEggs, there is a discussion that affects RM bot (talk · contribs) at Template talk:Movenotice. Please comment as to whether my proposal is workable. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


RMbot and improperly formatted multimoves

So... people are still listing multimoves in the wrong order, and RMbot isn't informing pages of the multimoves, it is informing the pages that have the move discussion of the multimove instead... people just don't read the instructions about which page to place first. I'd suggest the easiest fix is to just inform all the pages involved in a multimove that a move has been requested. Since it already informs the page where the discussion is taking place that the discussion is taking place, double posting isn't an issue as it does that already. (discussion at talk:source2; RMbot notice at Talk:source2; talk:source1 missing any informative notice and also not having the discussion section)

And as some people also only list one pair in a multimove request (source1/target1)... it might also be a good idea to place a notice on all target page talk pages as well.

Example at: Talk:Charlotte_Checkers_(2010–) (discussion & notice) Talk:Charlotte_Checkers (no discussion or notice)

70.24.251.194 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Slightly crazy

When a RM is on a talk page and the bot insists on there being a new section pointing to the RM, right under the RM section. And doesn't remove that notice when the RM closes either. Can this be tweaked? Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


RMBot and talk page notification

Can RMBot leave a notification to the first pair of indicated move names as well as the second/later pair in a multimove? It keeps coming up that people frequently screw up the order, leaving a situation like that found at Talk:Anthony the Great, where the notification shows up on the discussion page, and the other page Talk:Saint Anthony does not receive notification. (I added the notification on that page)

70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


RMbot and notifying destinations something wants to take its place

For things like Talk:General Nutrition Centers, where a multimove is not requested, but clearly, a displacement of a page to a second location, so that the current page can move there, there should be notification provided at the destination page. RMbot currently doesn't inform pages that exist that something wants to take its name. This seems like it should happen, since it is a multimove request that is improperly formatted. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


Zhang Yang (politician) is not being listed correctly at WP:RM

Talk:Zhang Yang (politician) uses the {{unsigned}} ... so is that causing the error? 65.92.182.149 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HardBoiledEggs/Archive_2&oldid=1091673147"