This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shubinator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When you get a chance, could you check the logs for the 00:00 1 September 2010 (UTC) run of DYKUpdateBot? The bot was processing this queue and seemed to have problems dealing with getting past Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie. I have done what I can to manually complete the update, so things should be in good shape for the 06:00 update. --Allen3talk00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This credit was throwing the bot: *{{DYKmake|David Watts Morgan|FruitMonkey|Pondle}}. Because of the extra "|", the credit got past the bot's usual error checks. I'll make tweaks to the code over the weekend. For now I've jumpstarted the bot. (In situations like this where the error is caused by something in the queue rather than network connectivity, the bot needs to be manually restarted.) Thank you for noticing and posting here. Shubinator (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The nasty part, it is visible only in the raw code, not in the output (and credits are often messed up). Thus the bot needs to be stable against such errors. Can we make such lines visible by tweaking the DYKmake template, so that it throws out something unusual with 3x | lines? Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Added auto-reset. If the bot is caught in an error loop (like above) for more than ~23 minutes, it will check to see if Template:Did you know/Queue/Next has been changed manually. If so, the bot will reset itself. It's still possible for the bot to crash completely, but this should cover most situations. Shubinator (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Good. Naive comment: I hope the bot will check it not once, but periodically (it is well possible that the fixing editor will reset the next queue not after 23 min, but 30 min). Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it checks on each attempt after the ~30 minute mark (my math was wrong before, it's 30 minutes, not 23). And for clarification, this specific bug (three "|" in DYKmake) has been fixed in the bot code; the auto-reset is for the general type of failure. Shubinator (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get consensus to move on with the article overhaul. So, I don't care. you can change anything to get the purpose of the "poll." Thanks--intelati(Call)00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a bystander offering an opinion. The "poll" is worded vaguely, but since I'm not involved in the article or the recent discussions, it's not my place to change it. If you truly want a poll on whether the article could use improvement, that's a given for any article: it can be improved. So there's no need for a poll if that's really what you're getting at. Shubinator (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Could you provide a diff for this claim? Seems like Lester just wants discussions before major edits. The "Changes" section does exactly that, and I don't see Lester complaining about it. Shubinator (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks for working with me. I changed the lead to the poll to just the "Changes section." Would that be fine for now to get the major sections and wording under control?--intelati(Call)01:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Then wait a day or two for Lester to come back. Now that a discussion has started, don't co-opt it by ramming it through RFC. Shubinator (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems Lester thinks he's the dictator of the article. He and Interframe have the bulk of the edits. Now that interframe is onboard, we have to see about lester.--intelati(Call)02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems like Lester wants more organization and less chaotic editing. Revert wars are rarely productive. Now that a discussion has been started, Lester can also participate, so everyone can (more or less) agree on changes. If Lester objects to all the changes...we'll see. Shubinator (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And why would you gloat? The discussion was pre-empted by a flurry of edits (not Lester's), which, of course, annoyed the other parties. It's rather like sitting down to play a game of chess and then getting punched in the face. If I see anything close to an edit war on that page, I'll fully protect it. Shubinator (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I apologized to Lester and now the conflict is over. Once again sorry. Ignore that Last comment, I was tired of the conflict by then. Now every thing is rosy pink. :)
Understood. I hope I won't have to intervene there :)
Be careful of editcountitis. But if you want a hard number, I'd say if you've got fewer than 10,000 edits you'll be scrutinized a lot closer. People also like to see nine months to a year of involvement in the community. Shubinator (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shubinator. I've lost contact with Ocyan. Is there a way to get in touch with another Wiki member that I don't know about? Thanks.
SaulK (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I've started DYKUpdateBot again. The code for the hook stats bot is pretty much done now; I might be able to start a BRfA this weekend. Shubinator (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the summary associated with this edit asking for reports of errors, the bot appears to have missed the fact that there is still one item listed under the August 31 header at Template talk:Did you know. My manual count of the ticked hooks under the September 4 also differs from the number reported by the bot (I count 5 hooks with approval ticks while the bot only shows 4). There is a match for the total number of hooks under September 4 with both the bot an my hand count showing 35 hooks at the time the bot ran. --Allen3talk16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the August 31st bug. The code I used to ignore the Special occasions holding area was also ignoring the last legitimate section. The September 4th discrepancy is because of the un-subst'ed DYKtick in the Albany Convention Center nom. I'll modify the bot code to count these too. Thanks for the feedback! Shubinator (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you be willing to help a newbie through a DYK? You look busy so "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Besides, I am more interested in fixing up articles so they are nice, but people have mentioned that I should do a DYK because of the work I do. I found an article in WP:DUSTY and am currently working on it. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading through all the DYK documents, and the process is much more labor intensive than I thought. I think I'll just stick to making good articles. Thanks anyway. - Hydroxonium (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help you out if/when you want to try for a DYK. The process isn't terrible; submitting takes 5-10 minutes, then it's just waiting. Shubinator (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking "longest running quilting show". Does the citation have to be from the front page of the New York Times or something super-ultra-reliable. The citation I am looking at is from a quilting website. Would that count? - Hydroxonium (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, first source isn't strong enough because it's essentially an archive of an email list. The book looks good though. Both "invented lap quilting" and "quilting show for over 30 years" would make decent hooks; your choice :) Shubinator (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. I think I submitted it properly, but it's hard to tell as my head is still swimming from all those pages and sub-pages of DYK I've been reading. Thanks for the encouragement. I appreciate the help. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The article isn't up to scratch. But does the editor know about Wikipedia guidelines? He's had a handful of warnings on his talk page but no guidance. Also, make sure you inform him about the AfD. Shubinator (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shubinator. Now that things have calmed, I'm taking the opportunity to pass on thanks to those who kept calm last night and eased the tension. I'd like to say thanks to you for that very action. Last night wasn't easy at all. I realise that my actions may have been misinterpreted as troublesome, but I would like to reaffirm that that wasn't the intention whatsoever. I did what I honestly thought was the best course of action, given the inflammatory nature of the comments up at the time. Given the criticism I faced, I'll not be doing that again obviously, so no worries there. Anyway, as you were one of only two people that I felt handled the situation correctly last night, I just want to congratulate you and say thank you. All the best. Paralympiakos(talk)17:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I never doubted you were acting in good faith; an editor like yourself doesn't go rogue like that. Happy editing :) Shubinator (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool. This will be a big help. Thanks for the work. I've ping MBisanz about when we can flag the bot. I've done bot flags, but not for awhile. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Traditional/simplified character order in Template:Zh: a new proposal
You are receiving this message because you participated in discussions about Template:zh.
As you probably know, currently if you want traditional characters to display before simplified characters when using this template, you have to write |first=t every time you use the template, which can be a pain in long articles, and which raises complaints about political and practical problems with making simplified characters the "default".
So I am trying to write up a version of the template in which you set a traditional/simplified choice setting just once (specifically, on a subpage of the article where you're using the template), and then every instance of the template on that article uses the ordering you set. Further details about the new setup are here; if you have a moment I would very much appreciate your input, specifically about any potential problems you can imagine or any ways this can be made better.
Yeah, I know about it. Its design is flawed though. The same bug that makes cascading protection not instantaneous also delays files that MPUploadBot sees as "on the Main Page". I've seen it protect an image more than an hour after it was transcluded on the Main Page. Even if MPUploadBot worked as expected, ie an unprotected image is c-uploaded the instant it hits the Main Page, it's still too predictable. (And no worries with POTD...I'm just surprised it stayed on the Main Page uncorrected for that long...) Shubinator (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Gratitude
Thanks for finishing the cleanup of the page-move vandalism at Appalachia. I had a couple of those pages watchlisted and I was online when the vandalism happened, so I was on the case pretty quickly -- but I'm glad you were on the case after I wandered away (and failed to finish the job). --Orlady (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For your outstanding long term, bot/script work. And yes the new DYK noms bot and the prep set script are working great! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, but I don't get why the prep sets are in the table with the queues on local update times. Prep sets are not auto updated, so I don't see how this works. EX: Prep 2 is the next to move, into 5, but you have prep 2 updating two days later. I am afraid I don't get it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It's the time that the set in that prep will move onto the Main page, assuming things run as scheduled. For your example, the set currently in prep 2 is scheduled to go on the main page in two days. This assumes that if there are any complete sets in the preps, all of the queues are full, and also assumes that admins will load the correct queue with the set from the correct prep. Shubinator (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah so. And assuming no special requests are made for timing ;-) So, the time and date that is showing in a prep set will later be the same time and date that will show in the queue that prep set is moved into, assumming all the above, eh? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you refresh my memory: When we apply the 5x expansion rule, are plot summaries to be counted? I believe they are, but I am asking just in case. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Odd. My bot on the toolserver seems to be having internet connection issues. I just did a run from my home computer and it worked. I'll see if I can get it up... Shubinator (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was really hoping to learn what MF found, if anything, as I don't like being accused of doing stuff that I don't think I did, but if it were true, then he would have one-up on me. Anyway, I can't think of why I would have called him a troll, as he's been around and established for awhile. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Being accused of calling someone a troll, without providing evidence, is a personal attack. Not that I really care. But I would like to know if I actually did call him a troll, or not. Should I proceed with a WQA complaint, or could you maybe have a chat with him? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A WQA complaint would get you nowhere. I'd suggest you (politely) ask Malleus about it in a few days after everything's settled. Shubinator (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that one, and maybe a followup comment, were the only places I mentioned MF during that stretch. I didn't call him a "troll", I was commenting on his frequent X-rated curmudgeonliness. I'm pretty much convinced that MF was mistaken about the "troll" thing, so we'll let it go at that. However, I'll curb my comments to and about him, as it's clearly not getting through. It's just bizarre, to watch a guy behave the way he does. It's like the users set these little traps for him and he walks into them every time. But I, at least, will leave him alone henceforth unless there's a reason to interact. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and about IE 6, IE in general is what I'm used to, and I'm not so keen on the way the later versions of IE look-and-feel. I've also got the wife urging me to switch to a different browser altogether. So I'm doing the logical thing: Staying status quo. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The comment could be interpreted a few ways, and Malleus took a different interpretation. It's a good idea to keep your distance, at least for the short term.
You can get some of the IE 6 look-and-feel in IE8 by bringing back the menu bar: 12 (follow link 1 until "Force the Menu Bar to Display...", then follow 2). I'd imagine something similar will work for IE 9 when it comes out. Shubinator (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, he said specifically that I called him a "troll", which I didn't, so dat's dat. I do have IE 8 my office computer. It's tolerable. I just don't have any particular reason to upgrade on my home PC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there has been a problem during the latest run of DYKUpdateBot. I am leaving things untouched for the moment in case you get a chance to look at things, but will attempt to perform a manual completion of the update around 23:00 (UTC) if there has been no change of status. --Allen3talk19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I stopped the bot. The log didn't show anything unusual, which is very odd. I'll do a dry run on this set; I'll finish off the update and restart the bot when I'm done. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hiccup during the 12:00 19 October 2010 (UTC) run of DYKUpdateBot
FYI, an oddity during the latest run of DYKUpdateBot. The previous set was archived twice, once at 12:00 and a second time at 12:01. Everything else appears to have worked just fine, so probably just a connectivity disruption of some type causing the bot to not see the successful completion of the first edit. --Allen3talk12:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The logs say the bot checked to see if the edit went through, saw that it didn't (for whatever reason), then attempted the same edit, got an edit conflict with itself, so added a new set. This seems rare; I added edit conflict handling a month ago and this is the first time it's happened. I'll keep an eye on it though; if needed I'll add code to avoid self edit-conflicts. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Doesn't sound too hard to implement. I'm really busy this week though, so it'll be next week at the earliest. Shubinator (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi - for some reason, Dypsis humilis didn't get DYK credit— it was part of a combined DYK with Dypsis brevicaulis, which did receive credit. I'm less concerned about my own part, but would like to see Talk:Dypsis humilis get that note, and also make sure the bot isn't hiccuping on combination DYKs. Thanks for operating a very active and efficient bot. First Light (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It's human error. The bot goes off of the credits that are generated when the hook is nominated. In your case, you added an article after nominating, so your nomination only had one credit for Dypsis brevicaulis. In the future you can add something like *{{DYKmake|Dypsis humilis|First Light}} to the credits list if you add an article to a hook (or ask that someone else do it for you if you're unsure how to). Shubinator (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I shan't be responding to it anymore, unless it is to correct misapprehensions or careful eliding of what actually happened. Amazing, really.. I can get blatantly attacked by a sitting Arb and nobody does anything about it. Yet I call someone who lies a liar, and I get blocked. Four legs bad, two legs good.. → ROUX₪02:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about your block log, but being attacked is (unfortunately) not unusual. Especially for someone who frequents ANI. Who it comes from makes no difference...we're all human. My opinion is that time heals this sort of stuff better than blocks (as you can tell from my blocking record). Shubinator (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does make a difference. Arbs are elected specifically because they are expected to show better judgement than the rest. That wasn't my point, however. Perhaps I picked the wrong quote; "some animals are more equal than others" may clarify things. It's not just the attacks, it is the bizarrely unconnected to reality nature of the subsequent comments, displaying an apparent lack of understanding on Rlevse's part that she was entirely in the wrong, and she was making personal something that was not ever made personal by me. → ROUX₪02:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
True. (And by the way, Rlevse is a he.) People's opinions on right/wrong or personal attack/not can vary by a wide margin though. Discussion usually helps, but it looks like the two of you aren't going to have a calm discussion any time soon. Shubinator (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I just saw in your contributions that you've already posted there. Then I am thinking that you may be getting at the fact that the discussion didn't propose an actuakl change to the DYk criteria. It didn't. But there was general consensus to try to do something about the perceived quality problem at DYK.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The changes to the criteria is me being bold and trying to do something about it. Subject to BRD of course.·Maunus·ƛ·15:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
JJ
You have new messagesHello, Shubinator. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
No problem. That discussion is fairly heated, so it's best (especially there) to gather evidence before making that type of claim. Shubinator (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
unwatching, but not in a pout
hey. I'm unwatching that page, but I'm not leaving in a huff. I have raised my concerns very publicly, and now I'm just quietly trusting you folks to sort things out. DYK is your house; I'm a visitor... Ping me if any of the editors I discussed comes back upset etc. Tks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
