User talk:Mets501/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

MetsBot

Hi! Would be great if the bot, when checking if an image has correctly been transferred to Commons for deletion here, could leave a DIFFERENT edit summary when he noted some problem. I don't believe it does it now. Would help. Cheers! Ingolfson 08:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll implement it now. —METS501 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPR censorship

You apparently find my use of sarcasm not to your taste. I find your censorship not to my taste; I have never censored another editor's comments because I didn't like their tone, and I don't intend to start. I thought that broadening the discussion was a good idea. If you go to the discussion I mentioned, you will see that the proposals are pretty much the way I described them. If you don't like their politics, and are still in a censoring mood, have at it. Chris the speller 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to advertise or gain more opinions on a certain discussion, please do so in a responsible way. Beginning a post

Let's all go over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Metric/SI only and punish the Americans for using pounds, feet, miles and acres, by making many Wikipedia articles difficult for them to use and understand.

is never a good idea. Feel free to add back a link to the discussion in a neutral and not sarcastic way. —METS501 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Metsbot

I'm not familiar with Metsbot, and I had a question. Metsbot recently reviewed the deletion requirements for Image:You have new messages.png, which I have reuploaded into the Commons, and Metsbot said it may not be sourced properly. When will I know if it was or not, and who does this review, an administrator? — Moe ε 00:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And since I reuploaded the image, I was wondering if I could revert your bots review and let it review it again. — Moe ε 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moe: MetsBot is very over-cautious when determining whether the license and source information is good on Commons, as it is done completely automatically, and if it is not 100% positive, it reports that it cannot determine whether it is good. I'm not sure what in this case, but something about the image description on Commons or here caused it to not be sure one way or another. The ultimate decision will be made by an administrator, and in this case, it looks like it's good. Nothing to worry about :-) And certainly, you can definitely revert the bot's edit and have it re-review tomorrow. —METS501 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it again, it seems like it was the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} and {{wikipedia-screenshot}} templates that caused the mixup. The bot wasn't able to determine if they were equivalent. —METS501 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I ran a Commons helper tool and I discovered that the Wikipedia screenshot template was there, which I didn't think it was before. I gues that cuased the mix-up. I will take your advice and let it re-review it tomorrow. Thank you for your help! :) — Moe ε 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common.js

I have reverted your change to common.js. The purpose of the sitenotice is not to be pretty but rather to convey important sitewide information; causing this not to display on the main page removes it from the most prominent page on the site, which is counterproductive.

If you notice a particular version of the site notice displaying improperly, please either say so or fix it. If you simply don't like it and don't wish to view it yourself, please suppress it in your own user settings. However, suppressing display on the main page cripples its purpose and removes it from view of many who ought to see it. It is for the informational benefit of readers and anything displayed there is probably something that ought to be spread as widely as possible, and aesthetic concerns should serve that purpose, not defeat it. Thanks, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kat. Sorry about the edit; I guess you're right, I took the easy route out and just removed it instead of actually fixing it. You have a good point. Thanks for fixing the Anonnotice so it doesn't overlap the main page. —METS501 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd like it to look nice (or at least not terrible) also! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BRFA Templates

Hi Mets, I know your fairly template/parser savvy.. So could you have a look at something for me

In ST47's BAG bot report thingy, (T|C|B|F) links are pointing to the wrong place - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReedyBot_2&action=edit

Rather than say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reedy_Bot

The other links are wrong too...

Any chance you could try and find out whats up?

Cheers!

Reedy Boy 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's weird. Looks like a bot bug and not a template problem to me. I tried this and this; let's hope that fixes things. —METS501 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think martinp23 tried that yesterday. {{BRFA}} also transcludes {{botlinks}}... God knows!! Reedy Boy 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC

#wikipedia-BAG :-). ~ Wikihermit 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot

Hi, I understand way this did not work. Could you please delete the following Image:Abergavenny castle.jpg which I origianly uploaded under the wrong place name. Oh and also Image:49 parellel waterton.png which I uploaded again as jpg

Traveler100 09:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done —METS501 (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your MediaWiki updates

You did two of them today for files. There is a problem with that. It has disabled scripts like Twinkle that assist deletion. Will it be possible to undo this? --Maxim_(talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the cause. Maxim_(talk) 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they were added by developers; I just copy-pasted our current system messages customizing them a bit for media files. —METS501 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Metsbot again :)

Hey Mets. Technically the images Metsbot approves as confirmed to be properly moved over to Commons is acceptable to be deleted per CSD I8, right? Why doesn't Metsbot tag it with {{db-i8}} so an administrator can review it faster? — Moe ε 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would, but often images that MetsBot says are ready for deletion haven't been tagged for at least a week, so I don't want to get in trouble tagging them all as db-i8. No one ever objects if they've been deleted quicker, but I don't want any admins blindly deleting them and then blaming the bot :-) 12.40.142.130 (Mets501 from public wifi) 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats true, I don't want to get your bot in trouble :) — Moe ε 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Metsbot making errors on artist's infoboxes

Hi, I have noticed that metsbot has made some errors on artists' infoboxes when the bot is migrating them to the new infobox style. Basically it leaves a "}}" in the middle of the new infoboxes it creates and so causes a piece of that infobox to be displayed in the main article. I have fixed it's mistake in two band pages, check the history of From Autumn to Ashes and Godhead. I don't know if this has happened in other artist pages, apparently it only happens on some. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. -SaberBlaze 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The run was just a one-time thing, so it's too late to fix bugs :-) That was caused by an uncommon syntax that the bot was not prepared for, so I doubt it happened to too many (if any) more pages. Thanks for fixing it though! —METS501 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, I checked the contribs of the bot and yes, did notice the same problem on some of my randomly selected band pages, however, hopefully whoever edits those and other band pages will fix that mistake because checking every band page on wikipedia is very time consuming. Keep up the good work. —SaberBlaze 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi Mets501, please, please help key an eye on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We had a great group of editors finally move this page to the multilingual provincial name, as cited in Brittanica (!!). Gryffindor is now having a hissy fit and saying this is the work of some "Italian" sham vote. [1] Gryffindor is going back and reverting edits in mass [2]. I've personally had enough of Gryffindor's abuses on Wikipedia. Please give advice on how we can have him investigated for the Administrative abuses he has been guilty of since 2005. Icsunonove 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Icsunonove. Unfortunately, I don't see an end to this debate if all the parties continue battling it out the way they are now, so I recommend that you and the other parties in the dispute participate in one of Wikipedia's method of dispute resolution. I can't remember, have you tried formal or informal methods of dispute resolution in the past? If you have, let me know, and I'll recommend a good place to go next. —METS501 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

What was wrong with this? [3] Gopher backer 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I don't want MetsBot to change the usage of the convert-template. Please stop immediately, or refer to a discussion where consesus was reached on this issue. --Berland 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, don't worry, I've stopped for now until we can come to an agreement (a.k.a. I can convince you :-)). The reason is purely technical: {{convert}} is a huge waste of resources: to make the document parser load such a huge template and convert the units every time is simply absurd. See also [4] (Templates were never intended to be a programming language, but #expr was intended for unit conversion. You just need to make one small template for each conversion, instead of merging them all together with a huge #switch. --Developer Tim Starling) and [5] (Substitution...makes page rendering easier and therefore faster for the server [and helps to] stay under the pre-expand include size maximum of 2,048,000 bytes.). In my personal tests, pages with 50 instances of the {{convert}} template loaded almost 10 times slower than the same pages with all the instances substituted. —METS501 (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a break so soon. I totally understand that this puts extra load on the Wikipedia servers and increases response time, however, having a template to do the conversion makes the source code so much more readable, and also allows for future layout changes in a single place (but you probably knew that). Also, most of the pages I edit only contain one or two convert-templates, and I can probably personally cope with those extra milliseconds. What about converting to using the specific meter to feet template? That would be in line with what Tim Sterling says. Also, your substitutions done by your bot is not equivalent to subst:convert, for example, the wikilinks on the units are missing. --Berland 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against saying that it makes the source code more readable to newbies, because most of them are unfamiliar with Wikipedia template syntax, but that matter is up to consideration. The bot is using Special:Expandtemplates, so there should be absolutely no visible change in the page after the bot substitutes it (if you found an example of a visible change, then there's a bug somewhere, can you point to an example?). I'm going to sleep now; I'll respond to the rest of your message tomorrow morning. (I won't start up the bot either, don't worry :-)). —METS501 (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no bug, it was just a bug in the initial usage of a convert-temrplate in a diff I was reading. --Berland 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that. I mainly started using the convert template becuase I saw it in Climate of India. That article was promoted to FA a few months ago and was featured on the front page recently, I just checked, and convert is used 55 times in that article, and from what I've seen nobody ever mentioned it as a negative. Is this a larger issue that needs to be addressed globally? Gopher backer 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be substituted, especially not en masse by bot without consensus. The bot's userpage claims that it only substs templates listed at Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Templates_that_should_be_substituted, but convert is not listed there. The div in the subst'ed version also makes the wikitext bloated and impossible to read or edit, and previous discussion opposed subst'ing it. But in any case this should be brought up and a consensus reached to list the template at Wikipedia:Template_substitution#Templates_that_should_be_substituted before any bot-subst'ing is done. --Delirium 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You should not substitute templates whose implementation could change, for example, I was going to suggest a change to {{Unit acre}} to change the secondary unit from ha to km², however such a change will have no effect on many articles now that you have substituted the instances of {{Unit acre}}.

I have been maintaining the {{Unit *}} templates. A number of them to use {{convert}} internally to simplify the implementation, however if there is a real performance issue I can change them perform a simple multiplication instead. If this is done I suspect substitution would not be necessary. I'm not convinced it is necessary keeping in mind WP:PERF. Are tests with 50 instances of a template really indicative of a noticeable delay for readers? PatLeahy (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if American users agreed to use the same units as the rest of the world, we wouldn't need a convert templates at all :-)) Seriously though, I would not object if the policy was to use miles, gallons, farenheit, etc. exclusively in articles on US things; and use kilometres, litres, centigrade, etc. in all other articles. Astronaut 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at some other Wikipedias, and use of unit conversion usually appears to be restricted to the English Wikipedia. Perhaps we should consider if an article like Climate of India really needs to provide temperatures in Farenheit or rainfall in inches, or if it is necessary for the Burj Dubai article to provide the building's ever changing height in feet. No matter what is decided, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Delirium, that unit conversion templates "shouldn't be substituted, especially not en masse by bot without consensus". Astronaut 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy about either (1) the ability of the template to handle ranges, the hyphenation of value and unit when attributive (as required by MOS), and singular/plural of units as required, or (2) the ability of editors to use it to display properly WRT these issues. One of the two is causing difficulties. Until these are ironed out, I don't like the template. Tony 10:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given this response, I'm obviously stopping the bot for now. I'm sorry to have gone ahead and done something which I mistakenly judged to be uncontroversial; I'll have to remember to be more careful with issues such as this one in the future. For that I ask all of your apologies. To demonstrate my loading time comparison, however, try to load a page with the convert template many times vs the same page with all of the instances substituted. I think you'll see what I'm talking about. We should definitely do something about it. —METS501 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a test of real readers' experiences since it by passes the cache (i.e. action=purge). I also suspect most articles have far less that 50 convert templates. We should not make changes to articles to solve theoretical performance problems. -- PatLeahy (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, you indicated on 31 August 2007 that you were stopping the conversion of Unit templates. Yet I see that on 1 October 2007 the bot converted the Unit templates in the Akhurian River‎ article. I wouldn't mind so much, but the bot introduced span style="white-space:nowrap" etc. which unnecessarily complicated the page. Did you get the go ahead to restart on the Unit templates in some other place? --Bejnar 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that you may be incorrectly reading the history. This was the bot's edit, which was in fact on 31 August. I haven't restarted it since then. —METS501 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The tyranny of the bots must end!

I'm currently trying to get the guys at convert template to stop it nowrapping between expressions. MetsBot nowraps the whole thing, too. I wish it wouldn't. Also, what if the poor editor wants to change the value after some bot has marched in and established its arbitrary authoritarian regime? The bots are taking over. Humans unite! Kill all bots! Well, OK, restrain some of them, anyway.

If the convert template is so bad, why is it still around? --Milkbreath 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

In this diff how is the convert template more bloated that what it was replaced with? Both are obtuse, but the stuff MetsBot is adding seems pure gibberish to this non-programmer. --W.marsh 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite my comments a few inches (few centimetres :-)) above, I understand the problem exists because {{convert|...}} tries to do all kinds of conversions, it expands out into lots of code for each usage of the template during the page rendering process. There is a limit to how big this code can get and lots of code takes longer to render. Can I suggest that smaller, simpler templates be created (eg. one for metres-to-feet, another for feet-to-metres, yet another for miles-to-kilometres, etc.) and then MetsBot can come along and change {{convert|...}} to use one of the smaller templates. Astronaut 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this really isn't the place to debate such things (and I'd suggest moving the rest of the discussion to Template talk:Convert), but thought I'd comment anyway...rather than one for each, how about as a compromise one template for each type of conversion...ie distance, volume, etc? AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates for doing particular conversions do exist at Category:Unit display. Currently some of them use {{Convert}} internally but they could be changed to do a simple multiplication. -- PatLeahy (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Convert template

Why is your bot removing this template? According to your bot's page, your bot is approved to removed templates that are being deleted, and templates that should be subst'd...this is neither. Have you ever considered that maybe the template is actually being used for a reason? I've reverted your bot's change to Cedar Fire. I always appreciate bot's doing the drudgery work around here, but please have it stick to the work it's supposed to be doing, rather than work not it its scope. Never mind...I see from above that you've stopped the bot. Thanks. I understand that heavy use of the template, like in your example slows things down a bit, but use of the template that many times is a bit unrealistic, don't you think? I tried it on a page only the template twice and I couldn't tell the difference. Oh, and thanks for actually apologizing...I've had other instances where bots had run amok and the owners merely got defensive...in one case I had to even threaten to block the bot. So, your civility is a bit of fresh air for a bot owner. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, bots bot owners are people too! Newyorkbrad 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For creating the Italo disco article at the Spanish Wikipedia. Bolt 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ningún problema :-) Estoy aprendiendo español; espero que mi español no es demasiado malo. —METS501 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're going well, yuo just need a little more practice. Otherwise you're okay. --Bolt 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed the "o" in "malo" above. That was a typo :-) —METS501 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SkiersBot

Greetings! Trial run has been completed - fixed the "subpage" issue as well. Hope this passes the muster ;) SkierRMH 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Converstion templates

What is the reasoning behind the replacement of various conversion templates such as {{Ft to m}} and {{convert}} by MetsBot?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see above discussions. Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SkiersBot

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SkiersBot

Are non BAG allowed to approve bots..?

Reedy Boy 10:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but he was on the BAG when he made the edit :-) —METS501 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot subst'ing conversion templates / Cleanup needed

Information in {{infobox lake}} started being more standardized until you started substituting the templates. Please revert your changes. -- User:Docu

Is it really that bad that all of them related to the {{infobox lake}} need to be reverted? I remind you, it didn't change the way the article is displayed, only the code. But alas, if you really think it is crucial that I revert it, I will go go through the edits and revert all of them related to {{infobox lake}}. —METS501 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-block vandal?

69.209.106.115 is at it again. Eleland 22:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done —METS501 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"MetsBot was unable to determine..."

With regards to "MetsBot was unable to determine if this image has proper license and/or source information on Commons" -- I'm wondering just which licenses MetsBot is willing to accept? I've tried:

GFDL-user-w|name
self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0
cc-by-3.0
cc-by-sa-2.5
self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5

Thanks. Enigma3542002 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it didn't have to do with the license, but with the source. MetsBot was unsure if the source information on commons was in accord with the source information from here. —METS501 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I suppose if the bot gave a different message for license problems vs. source info problems, that would help clarify things. Anyhow, thanks for the assistance. Enigma3542002 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.js

Could you de-link give the gift of knowledge from MediaWiki:Common.js? That FoundationWiki page was for a specific fundraiser. I would do it myself, but I'm afraid I'll break something. Thanks :) --mav 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.  Done. —METS501 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Common.js changes

Greetings. Kat asked me to look at your Common.js changes. Your current code will produce an out-of-bounds array index in the very rare but completely possible event that the random value is 1.0. You'll need to fix that or you'll generate errors for clients every once in a great while. You should also get an account on test.wikipedia.org or setup a local mediawiki instance so you can try our your JS changes before you put them live, otherwise you'll someday manage to make the site inaccessible. ;) We run a local MW instance here for this purpose. --Gmaxwell 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it appears that I was incorrect and that the javascript math.random() function is incorrectly documented on most of the internet. It will not produce a 1, so the current code is fine. My apologies. --Gmaxwell 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll set up an account. Thanks :-) —METS501 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Images page

Greetings your edit conflicted with a rather extensive one by me which was converting all the external links to internal links or pipelinked external links. :) Can you explain the reasoning behind using non-pipelined bare external links? some of the links need to be renamed in order to make sense ... --Gmaxwell 00:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was actually doing it because of a comment which Erik Möller left on the WP:10T page, which was <!-- This list should be in an easy format for copy and paste, and all significant topics should be externally linked to. -->. You should probably ask him for more details; I was just blindly following him :-) —METS501 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I figured that is was to make it easier to copy but I doubt that people are as likely to do it with the images page as the general 10 things page. hmm.. In any case, without the HR the first image butts right into the shortcut box and looks stupid. I'd actually prefer we remove the shortcut box, but I figured someone would insist that we keep it. Ideas? I suppose we could just insert some breaks under the intro.. but I thought I did that already and they were removed.--Gmaxwell 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me that removed them, since I didn't really see the point, but I won't really object if you add them back. —METS501 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally we have a section heading breaking the intro from the body of our pages. On this page we have nothing serving the purpose, so unless something is done the top looks very crowded and the image butts into the box. I'm game for other ideas about how to improve it, however.--Gmaxwell 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

JS again

Well.. looks like we found a reason not to rewrite innerHTML: It was breaking the radio button magic on the history page, I assume because it invalidated any dom objects that the script there had picked up. I used my testwiki to make sure that the innerHTML rewriting was the cause of the issue before asking ST47 to remove it. We should be able to use dom methods to insert the tags into the right places. I toyed around with doing that the last time I used innerHTML, but realize that for the donation notice I could just use document.write and call it done. If you don't figure it out before this evening I'll try to figure out a solution. --Gmaxwell 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...you're right. If it's isn't too illegal, we can do this (it works on both Firefox and IE for me)

code

document.getElementById("contentSub").innerHTML +='<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:100px; top:3px;" class="metadata" id="anontip"><div style="text-align:right; font-size:100%">• <i>' + messageEdu[whichMessageEdu] + '</i> •</div></div>';

What do you think? —METS501 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It passed my testing, and clearly doesn't produce the same problem. Conceptually it sems safe to me.. there is nothing important in that div, so I'd say go ahead and put in your change. Remember to take out the static notice.--Gmaxwell 22:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Y Done. Let's see what complaints come this time :-) —METS501 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. On the line where the educational message is appended the spaces should be non-breaking between the bullets and the message text text. The 'have questions' on is wrapping for me. --Gmaxwell 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Y Done. —METS501 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Respect MetsBot

When Moving Image to Commons Image:Population_density_impgazind1909.jpg, the MetsBot review say:

"MetsBot has reviewed this image and it may not pass the requirements for deletion. (what does this mean?): This image does not give credit to uploader Fowler&fowler on Commons."

See on commons that image give credit to uploader Fowler&fowler. MetsBot failed.

Thanks, Shooke 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bug with handling the & character in usernames. Thanks for letting me know. —METS501 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB Checkpage

Hey there! I noticed you were an AWB Developer, and I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look at the Requests for Approval page, as there's a bit of a backlog there. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Y Done —METS501 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! Arky ^¡Hablar! 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Do you know of any way to browse recently edited articles for misspelled words, rather than google search on AWB for them? If not, is there a way i can request someone to try and make that? Ctjf83 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you turn RegexTypoFix on, and you make list from "Special page" and enter into the box "Recentchanges", you can go through the list of recently edited articles to correct typos. Even better would probably be entering "Newpages"; I think you can guess what that does :-) —METS501 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, ya, I think I can figure out what that does! thanks, Ctjf83 05:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB v4

Only thing that could with being ideally done, would be migrate the last 4 or so uses of query.php to api.php

Reedy Boy 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright; I'll try to do that tonight if you don't beat me to it :-) —METS501 (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, Just GetHistory() and GetUserInfo() to change to api.php if possible :) Reedy Boy 09:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB is now query.php free :) Reedy Boy 12:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay! —METS501 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to get v4.1 out by the end of the weekend? And are we going to leave v4 active after all the hoo-har last time? Reedy Boy 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can get on IRC later, that'd be good. Then we can finalise the decision! I think its ready! Reedy Boy 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

V4.1 has been released! Reedy Boy 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Good decision to leave 4.0 enabled too; too many people were worked up last time to justify doing the same thing. —METS501 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, i think, though, to be honest, people are going to get annoid with v4 and upgrade - I just noticed some of the now fixed bugs that exist in the last release of v4 with regards to update - like it just updating it cause it wants to... Meh!! Reedy Boy 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Nothing we can do about it though. —METS501 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It'll force people to upgrade - not much we can do about it. Heh ;) Reedy Boy 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

bot not following the rules you say it does

Hi I see you said one condition for tagging an image page by MetsBot was:

• "The file has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week."
  

Yet your bot tagged Image:Kuwait-Iraq barrier.png only 1 day after it had been marked. Jackaranga 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a general consensus that the waiting period is not necessary, so MetsBot is currently not marking it and leaving it up to the admin whether they want to go ahead and delete it early or not. —METS501 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Denied request for bot

Hi,

I am new to this, but would like to know more info on bots. The reason for requesting for one was for vandals and trolls removing our WikiProject Dravidian civilizations template from over 120 of our related sites pertaining to the subject matter. Furthermore, if there is someone who could coach me on bots or if there is a page where I could read more about how they are used it would very much be appreciated. Regards. Wiki Raja 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wiki Raja. If you are inexperienced technically with bots, I would recommend AutoWikiBrowser, a great tool which will allow you to make repetitive edits fast with a technical knowledge of little to none. It is pretty self explanatory, but there is also a users manual there if you need more help. —METS501 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Malfunction on Peter Rehberg

MetsBot has malfunctioned on the Peter Rehberg article, causing the infobox code to be visible. I wasn't able to pinpoint the error and fix it, so I simply reverted it. Go ahead and re-apply the edit sans the error if you wish. Regards, Grim-Gym 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

code

| Img = [[Image:Pita madrid06small.jpg| Img_capt = Peter Rehberg, Madrid, February 2006, photographed by [[Gisèle Vienne]]

It didnt handle the piped wikilink of the image correctly. Taking it as a new parameter. The unclosed wikilink brackets then caused the error. Reverted and fixed MetsBot Reedy Boy 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it :-) —METS501 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An ultra-smart or buggy bot?

Hi Mets. Can you please explain what happened here? MetsBot removed the image during the conversion process. Now, the image (uploaded by myself ages ago) is indeed a replaceable fair use, the one I should probably have deleted myself had I not forget about it. However, is the bot really ultra-smart to conclude that it's a RFU, or is it a bug? Occam's razor suggests the later, but I'm curious. [please reply here] Duja► 06:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a bug. I wish I could claim the former though :-) —METS501 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Just curious, is the annoyingly ultra-wide setting of your talk page made on purpose (in order to discourage other wikipedians from bugging you :-) ) or a bug as well? :-). Duja► 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually an IE bug that makes the <pre> stuff display on one non-breaking line. It should be fixed now. —METS501 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recursive Category Getterer

rev 1665

Fixed :)

You must've accidentally removed a bit of code you shouldnt have :)

No Biggy - Rather you than me changing the code over ;)

Reedy Boy 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it :-) —METS501 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category (Recursive) not working

When I type in "The Simpsons episodes" in the recursive, it use to come up with all 400+ episodes on the search, now it only comes up with the specific seasons. Is there something wrong with my AWB download or is it a fix from the main AWB? Ctjf83 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 4, first bug. Or my post above this one. It was accidently broken just before 4.1 was released. Reedy Boy 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i went to the link to fix it, and i'm confused as to what to do. i tried reinstalling AWB, but that didn't fix it. Please help! Ctjf83 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice the "Fixed in the next release'" :-) All you have to do is either wait for the next release or download version 4.0.0.0 and use that until the next one is released. —METS501 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OsamaKBOT

Hi, My BRFA 5 stills active. You can see it, thanks!--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please}}}|OsamaK}} 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mets Bot, Commons, and multiple templates

Hi. I have started to move all the images that I have done from Wikipedia to Commons. As I am the sole editor on those images, I have placed two templates on them: namely, {{subst:ncd}} and {{db-author}}. MetsBot is now reporting a possible problem (see this, this, or this for examples). Rather than get into a complicated arguement about whether it's right or not, it would be simpler if I could just tag them with {{db-author}} (as is my right) and forget about tagging them with {{subst:ncd}}. Do you foresee a problem with this workaround? Regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot is only saying that it cannot verify that there is or isn't a problem, so it's letting the deleting administrator know. You can certainly tag them with {{db-author}} if you'd like, but there's no harm in doing it the regular way with {{subst:ncd}}. —METS501 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Metsbot error when migrating infobox

When migrating {{Infobox band}} to {{Infobox musical artist}} on SerialPod, trailing }} brackets of the old infobox were left inside the code of the new infobox:
| Current_members = [[Trey Anastasio]]<br />[[Mike Gordon]]<br />[[Bill Kreutzmann]]<br />}}
| Past_members =
| Notable_instruments =
}}
This resulted in the last two code lines showing on the page. I have seen that effect on other pages already. Please prevent that from happening again (and maybe fix the pages where it happened?). Regards, BNutzer 10:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was a one-time run, so be assured it won't happen again in the future :-). Sorry for the inconvenience. 165.155.208.143 (Mets501 from public computer) 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ProteinBoxBot approval

Since you were the one who approved the trial for ProteinBoxBot, I wonder if you'd chime in on the full approval request? Cheers, AndrewGNF 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Operating speed

Hey Mets.

Is the article Operating speed really necessary, since we have Speed limit? Keegan^talk 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I understand the legal differences. Example if the speed limit is 35, while raining the appropriate operating speed would be less than that posted. I just thought the two might be worked in to the Speed limit article nicely rather than that article just being an overview of speeds in various countries/provinces. Keegan^talk 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if you preferred them merged. I just thought that since they can technically be considered very different (speed limit deals with the legal aspects while operating speed is basically about what people actually do) they could get separate articles. Either way is fine :-) Is there a relevant Wikiproject we could ask for more opinions, perhaps? —METS501 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport would be the place to go. This could be a good opportunity to make Speed limit a much more encyclopedic article and/or the other. Toss a note over there, see what they think. Best of luck with it, I'll keep an eye out. Keegan^talk 05:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbroke MediaWiki:Returnto

Please see MediaWiki talk:Returnto. --brion 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB Bug fix Release

You think we should get 4.1.1.0 out this weekend to fix up some of the bugs in 4.1?

Im thinking it would be worth it

Reedy Boy 10:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can try :-) —METS501 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jogers agrees. I'll sort one out later today :) Reedy Boy 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

BOT en WP:ES

Hola Mets. Acabo de ver que tu bot hizo una correción en una página, cambiando "caracter" -> "carácter". Te comento que la palabra "caracter" sí existe, y por eso el cambio podría estar equivocado. --200.122.193.187 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (es:User:Racso)

Sí, ¿pero que significa en espańol? Ni siquiera sabía que existe la esa palabra. Y evidentemente, tampoco sabe el diccionario de la real academia: [6] (escribe la palabra caracter, y dice que no existe). The Evil Spartan 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaja. Ya respondí en es:User:Racso con lo mismo :-) —METS501 (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on bot approval

You recently approved my bot User:PsychAWB. For some reason, my main account (this one) can use the bot part of AWB but my bot cannot use it at all. Could you explain this, or at least approve my bot? Psychless 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that. Fixed. —METS501 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's working now. Psychless 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please take another look at my approval request? I have completed 50 edits. Psychless 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems you must have missed my last message somehow. Can you take another look? Psychless 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I've approved it now. —METS501 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MetsBot mistagging commons images, sort of...

Well, I'm conflicted about MetsBot tagging as "not ready for deletion" images that simply don't have a category at the commons. However, I thought you should know, that right now it's tagging as OK images that have only one category: Images transwikied by BetacommandBot (e.g., Image:Bluetit777.jpg). This may or may not be a good thing - your decision. The Evil Spartan 00:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a local rule that all images must be in an article or category on commons. Thanks for letting me know about the BetacommandBot category, though. I'll definitely fix that for tomorrow's run. —METS501 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot approval

Hi, I'm not sure of the procedure here... You approved my bot's second task for a trial run of 15 edits. I have done this (Special:Contributions/Kotbot) and it works (the red links will be fixed later). To complete the task I need about 100 more edits. Is it OK to go ahead with them?--Kotniski 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to wait for the full approval to finish the task. The trials just to check that the edits should be fine. I'd look at it, but i've got to run for my tea! Reedy Boy 15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 2. —METS501 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)