User talk:GreenC/2019: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:54, 21 June 2019

Talk Page 2019
--> 2018 Talk Page

Happy New Year!

GreenC,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Awesome North America ! -- GreenC 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding a user script

Hi. Recently, a request was made for someone to revise the User:Bility/convert24hourtime.js user script. I (DannyS712) took up that challenge, and have fixed the bug with the "thanks" button, fixed the bug regarding blocked users, fixed the bug regarding converting the times when examining a diff, and even added the feature to convert times when looking at logs. I have some more features planned, but I thought that, since you are currently importing Bility's script, you may want to know that a less buggy version is available at User:DannyS712/12Hours. This is intended as a one-time note. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

Please sir, I need your help with User:GreenC/WaybackMedic 2.5. I am trying to fix Dean Ambrose but my potato computer apparently has loading issues and so I need your help. Also, this is random, what are your thoughts on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia? Which side are you more inclined to? Thanks? ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sustainability Initiative

Hello GreenC: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- GreenC 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error

Your bot made an error at Talk:Josh White, in this edit - now reverted. I've no idea how or why it happened.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle, hey thanks for the heads up. It did it for 13 pages (fixed). Pretty sure what caused it (fixed) and will keep an eye out. -- GreenC 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it back!

Hi GreenC. Please bring back the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cult_films to the way it was, before being categorized by alphabet. that was better and more accessible. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayhamed (talk • contribs) 08:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not more accessible. Pages this long cause problems with some browsers or systems, and some people in some countries report they don't work at all. Can't keep making lists longer and longer forever there comes a time they need to be split. -- GreenC 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your work to ensure that thousands of links to Highbeam remain accessible to editors and readers - thank you! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links to www3.interscience.wiley.com

Is this something you can handle with one of your bots? Nemo 10:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo, yes will do. -- GreenC 14:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nemo 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- GreenC 12:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I still see some 500 URLs of the kind http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/ (like [1]) which are still broken, any chance for those? (I see they're mostly bare external links, which maybe you left alone intentionally, but also some in cite templates.) Nemo 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a list of the articles or some example articles? Not finding with URL search. -- GreenC 18:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. These were the top results of Special:Search/insource:"http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/" for me: special:diff/887209551, special:diff/887209622, special:diff/887209651, special:diff/887209777. Nemo 07:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is a dead link fixer. If it finds a dead link, it adds an |archiveurl= if one exists otherwise adds a {{dead link}} tag. Example. It will never delete the source URL entirely as you did here. Understand this could be done in certain cases because of DOI, but the bot has no way of verifying the content in the |archiveurl= can be replaced with the content in the DOI. That would be up to manual edits. -- GreenC 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. I thought you were using some normal replace (with replace.py or others) for this case. All the archived URLs are broken too, because they were taken in 2012 or later. URLs like [2] return a 403. Nemo 07:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: The URL [3] is located in this article where GreenC bot made this edit which added this archive. Seems ok? -- GreenC 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, that URL will need to be removed as it's redundant with the DOI anyway (and even someone with subscription cannot proceed from that archived URL to the full text). Nemo 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot can save dead links or mark them dead is what it did. To do those other things, start a consensus discussion and take the support result to BOTREQ. This isn't the only domain, highbeam.com is dead and has similar redundancy with DOI, do em all at the same time. -- GreenC 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also you mentioned something about "mostly bare external links" I'd be interested how to find those, if they were not already converted to archive URLs or had a {{dead link}} tag added. -- GreenC 14:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check that, because I don't think it matters. We're talking of URLs which are complete garbage and don't add any information, don't aid the identification of the target in any way. It's like having links to an URL shortener which died a decade ago and was never archived, or URLs composed of random characters, or C:\ links which were "valid" only on the original editor's computer in the first place. They should just be removed altogether.

The eventual fix is for someone to search the work by its title, usually manually, but that's done normally by scanning references and bibliography for unlinked/untemplated lines anyway, not by looking for warnings. Nemo 07:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately it's beyond the scope of what the bot was designed or approved for to delete entire domains. Removal of an entire domain because it contains useless information is a subjective call, it would mean in some cases deleting a whole citation even though an archive URL exists and returns some info such as an abstract - if that info is useful or not is WP:CONTEXTBOT. -- GreenC 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found another 3000 or so pages with URLs beginning http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL which, based on a random samples checked with lynx, are all broken... These should be removed as well. Nemo 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can work in this. Will wait to see what happened with the above first in case there is a code change. -- GreenC 18:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Nemo 07:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think at a minimum they should be archived or marked dead, since they are dead, and archives do exist with some content (abstract, citation etc). Later on, if there is consensus to selectively (such as a DOI exists) or entirely delete the domain, or some other solution. I've never seen a discussion of this kind before where an entire domain is deleted but would be interested in what happens, it's an interesting question really. -- GreenC 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not an entire domain, just an URL format for that domain. Nemo 15:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either way deleting tons of URLs. Gotta have consensus. -- GreenC 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IABot - CAS

hi! IABot indicate domain "research.calacademy.org" as unavailable. Please, edit IABot for replase domain "research.calacademy.org" to "researcharchive.calacademy.org". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazapura (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it out on the links listed here and it doesn't really work. Either way the links are dead. Not sure what would be done. -- GreenC 12:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion

i would need a third opinion on whenever italy should be included as totaliatarian, as most acedemic sources consider italy NOT totalitarian, can you please give a third opinion on Talk:List of totalitarian regimes 83.185.94.196 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a [test] section title

test

Reverted edits on Internet Hall of Fame

Dear GreenC, Can you explain why you revert this edit ? (actu | diff) 23 mars 2019 à 21:42‎ GreenC (discussion | contributions)‎ m . . (14 284 octets) +1 135‎ . . (Reverted edits by Franck.schneider (talk) to last version by GreenC) (annuler | remercier) Balise : Révocation
The chapter "Advisory Board" appears twice in the article. It's obviously a mistake. I do not understand why you have removed my edits. I contribute more on wikipedia in french and little in english. Thank you for your explanation, then, I could delete this duplicate chapter. Kind regards, --Franck.schneider (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sorry. The diff at first looked like a vandalism. -- GreenC 15:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA (12)

Hello GreenC, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 12) has been approved. Please review the closing notes before executing. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux and Underlying lk: Thank you, Xaosflux! Ideally, longer term, the data would be kept fresh on Wikidata with another automated process so users will not see a reason to revert back to static in wiki (though they are free to do so for any reason). What do you think of that eh bien, mon prince? -- GreenC 20:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: I already wrote Wikipedia:Uploading metadata to Wikidata to explain the updating process, but it still needs a human to download the Statistik Austria figures and turn them into a csv format that QuickStatements understands; I don't think it can be automated more than that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NoRef bot

Hi. I saw this edit you made - what do you mean by "Template filter added"? My point was that if there are citation needed tags, they should probably be removed when tagging the article as unreferenced, not that the article should be skipped. (Though your option is more conservative) - am I misunderstanding your comment? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: In this case you are right it should be removed but the bot has no way to determine it was a stray. I believe evidence of a cite needed tag shows someone has made a critical review of the article, so an automated banner might not be advisable. -- GreenC 16:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: oh, okay --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD

An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion

Click the image for an important message.

Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So...

Keep

on

keepin'

	on! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal

Is it legal for readers to download images from Wikipedia articles and use them for personal uses, such as prints, desktop wallpaper, or editing? 2600:1:F1A8:AC53:F50F:EE64:20F7:849E (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question which depends on the individual licenses of each image. While in principle all Wikipedia text is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and can be used free of charge for any purpose, images are identified as being subject to any of several licenses. Therefore it is advisable to check the image information page for the source and/or licensing information. Clicking on the image will lead you to the image information page. Most images are usually free to use as long as you give the proper credits and follow the terms of the license indicated on the image description page.

For more information please see: Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content, Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Reusing content outside Wikimedia

If the licensing conditions of one image do not suit you, it may be possible to contact the author of that image for alternate conditions. See in the description page if the author's name is present.

Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteer editors provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Hersey Hopkins

In the spirit of WP:AGF, I'm going to assume it's a coincidence that you're now making the same arguments about primary sources I made, which you so vehemently disagreed with, on pages that I've created. That's fine, but in this instance, you're mistaken; the content on William Hersey Hopkins is largely derivative of a book, which qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, you made so many arguments and linked to so many CAPS I don't remember. William Hersey Hopkins by all appearances has a problem, it has 7 citations with 6 are to a primary source. Further discussion on article talk. -- GreenC 21:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your arguments on the talk page. Hopefully we're done here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA 14

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 14 was approved. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandDoctor! -- GreenC 13:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Access to IP address

In this you phrase your message such that it suggests it is obviously and self-evidently impossible for a bot to have access to its invoking user's IP address. I am aware of no factor in the web stack in general, Mediawiki as a platform, or WMF wikis as an environment that would make this so. I would expect that, say, Toolserver takes steps to clean the environment so that something like IA Bot's management console isn't passed the client's IP in CGI variables, but I've never seen that actually documented anywhere (not that I've been looking for it); and nothing but policy (i.e. no technical measure) would prevent it from capturing the IP through JavaScript or similar client-side chicanery. Most non-toolserver based bot architectures I can think of off the top of my head would have even more ready access to the IP. What am I missing? --Xover (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few highly placed admins can access IP logs, they have WP:CHECKUSER rights. Typically only for security issues like WP:SPIs. I once modified a Lua external link templates to redirect to a page on Toolforge (which then redirected to the target page) and this allowed the web server on Toolforge to log the incoming IP. They all show up as internal WMF IPs (BTW I wasn't doing this to gain IP information but to gather usage stats). User privacy is a very serious concern, so is Checkuser access. I've never heard of anyone gaining access to IP logs, but if they did and were caught, my guess is they would be immediately and permanently banished to the 9th level, one should be careful. -- GreenC 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there you're talking about the Mediawiki-internal edit logs. I am aware of nothing (technical) that would prevent https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/ from capturing the client IP address. The page is running non-WMF client-side JavaScript, so if the bot's operators through deliberate choice or some bug propogated that data to the edit summary there would be no technical measures to prevent that. Using the Gadget or the user script is the same story: they are executing in the user's browser, has access to the client's IP address before Mediawiki ever sees it, and there is no technical measure preventing them from using it. That's why Interface Admin rights were separated from regular sysop rights, and requires 2FA: if you can edit user scripts or css/js in the Mediawiki:-namespace, you can execute code in the end user's browser. I agree that user privacy is a very serious issue, and I agree with your assessment that even negligent (nevermind deliberate or malicious) access to this information would be likely to have dire consequences (not everyone agrees, it seems).

But, in any case, then I conclude that there isn't anything that is actually preventing Citation bot from seeing the IP that you are aware of. In fact, in order for it to insert the IP of non-logged in users into the edit summary it must have the client IP address, it just doesn't use it when it has a username available. --Xover (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about JS. Looking at the source it is PhP but there is one JavaScript here that contains something about saving username, but it's 5 months old, and the IP stuff is more recent. -- GreenC 17:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(trying the editing interface on a phone for the first time. apologies if I mess anything up)

Yeah, I’m pretty sure those changes are serverside and running on toolforge/toolserver (not sure about the name; there’s been changes recently and I’m not watching the area very closely). The Gadget lives at mediawiki:Gadget-citations.js, and it hasn’t been substantially changed in a while either. But judging by a quick scan of its code, all it does is forward a request to the server side running on toolserver which is where all the logic lives. Which is just as I would have expected (it’s a typical way to design an app like this). And getting the client’s IP address when it’s executing your javascript is nearly trivial for someone determined (there’s no built-in facility for it in the language, but there’re tons of loopholes I’m not going to describe per WP:BEANS).

But just to be painfully clear: I have absolutely no reason to suspect, and do in no way mean to imply, any kind of malicious behaviour on the part of Citation bot! The only reason I’m digging into this is the sheer level of derision in response to my message (some was on my user talk page), and that even you—whom I know as someone who is both technically competent and who manages to stay polite and constructive even when everyone else involved (feel free to include me in that category if you like ;) ) have resorted to sniping and bickering—appeared to take the obvious impossibility as granted. I like to consider myself reasonably competent in technology, so I just had to dig a bit to see if I had misunderstood something pretty fundamental. I’ve never previously looked at how Citation bot is implemented, so it was always possible it was done in some novel way that obviated or severely mitigated this risk, for example. --Xover (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On IP leakage we are probably in WP:BIKESHED territory, the important thing is to get the bot working ASAP. Still, it is an interesting question. Looking at this thread it would not be simple (see post by Shog9) because dealing with local IPs (192.168.0.x) and third-party IP tracing services and browsers that support WebRTC etc. I doubt Citation bot is doing those sorts of things, probably it requests the User:name through an API and if it's an IP user it gets that, otherwise the name. -- GreenC 19:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely in bikeshed territory. As mentioned, I only pursued it to make sure I hadn't misunderstood anything.

I can state categorically that the Citation bot gadget does not engage in any such methods to obtain the IP: it's just asking Mediawiki for the username using mw.config.get('wgUserName'), documented at mw:Manual:Interface/JavaScript#User-specific. I haven't checked the scripts in the other frontend at the toolserver, but would assume it similarly just gets the username (from the form field, since toolserver isn't Mediawiki). What's happening server side would take more digging: the toolserver docs are woefully poor in regards what API is available for Mediawiki instances, so I'd have to look at the bot's source to see what it's actually doing.

Regarding getting the bot working again, it seems clear that anything from me now gets interpreted as an attack regardless of content, so I'll not be contributing to that effort. My previous message on that topic pointed to OAuth and explained why that's the most reasonable way to comply with the policy: they can heed that if they choose. --Xover (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batting average - Thanks!

Thanks for all your help, I see the job has run through and there are only 73 links to Batting average left. Some of these are valid links, others have section links that we didn't spot in the initial testing. I saw only one false positive, there was a link back from Batting average (cricket) to the parent page that was changed, but I have changed that back. Spike 'em (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Doesn't sound too bad. There were 15,377 page edits and 21,453 link conversions. Would be curious which one's it missed (the section links) but also probably no big deal since it won't run again. It did convert 343 section links mostly of the form [[batting average#Cricket|average]]. -- GreenC 13:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most common one I found was [[Batting average#Qualifications for the batting title|something]]. There were a number that I couldn't figure out why they were missed though, for example Jack Redmond, which hadn't been updated since 2016. Did you use a pre-generated list, as others I can understand only if your list was from about 2 weeks ago (e.g. players who have greatly expanded since then)? Anyway, as you said, it did generally work as expected and I knew there would be a bit of a tidy-up needed. I also realised there were a few redirects from Batting Average which I did via AWB. Spike 'em (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what happened, instead of dynamic matching "#any string" it was hard-coded for "#cricket" or "#baseball" or "#major league baseball". This method worked, except when not. I did a search for all possible "#string" and found those but something was missed in the search. Should have made it dynamic. For Jack Redmond looks like there was a problem during the API upload step, probably a maxlag timeout. That was the only timeout. Yeah I didn't think about the changes since the list was created. Well you got it cleared and if you think it ever would run again drop me a note! -- GreenC 14:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to remember to have a look in a couple of months, as it depends whether article creators notice the change in usage. Spike 'em (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Caucasian categories name change

Hello Do you think you can help me post a proposal for the category rename for the category People of Caucasus descent. With this rename, we can explain at the top of the page that while in the United States, the term "Caucasian" denotes people of white descent, Caucasian also refers to people of the Caucasus region.

As for the American people of Caucasus descent, I think in that place it would be good to explain the bad grammar of the title there. However for the just people of caucasus descent, it must be renamed to people of Caucasian descent, with an explanation at the top, because people form the Caucasus are called Caucasian. We have to learn to maybe deamericanize Wikipedia a bit, sinc ewe are not an Americans only place. thanks.

Nahom 199.101.62.21 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about IABot

Hello. Since CP678 seems to be away for a bit and I know you know a lot about it, I'm wondering why the rio2016.com domain is whitelisted. Do you know why it is like that? Can it be switched to dead perhaps? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Guy, there is a mix of sub-domains but mostly www.rio2016.com which redirect to www.olympic.org/rio-2016 .. there are about 9,000 URLs in 5,000 articles. I agree they should be considered dead. Possibly they were auto whitelisted due to the redirect. I've set them to status "Blacklisted" and started a bot job but IABot is not working well at the moment and stuck with a large queue of unprocessed jobs. Only CP can fix that. I could process these with WaybackMedic if you think it's urgent, pls request at WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 14:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France pops for the bot

It's the turn of France; diff and query. Many thanks!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I am so sorry. I totally see why it felt like that was what I was saying, and I sincerely apologize. It was completely inadvertent and not intended to be linked to the rest of the conversation, was only intended to be a clarification of my advice not to edit directly. It was just stupidity on my part not to see how that could have been interpreted. --valereee (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: It is no problem, it was sort of subtle and I couldn't tell if you were sending a message so I wanted to clarify before they took it the wrong way as tacit approval to remove some things. But you clarified and I was wrong in my interpretation so my apologies also but it wasn't bad faith or anything just wanted to clarify. I'm also happy to see new perspectives with this article, it is controversy (NTE) on top of controversy (global warming) with a COI, so pretty complicated. -- GreenC 21:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never thought it could be bad faith on your part! In retrospect I totally understood that it could be interpreted that way, it just didn't occur to me at the time. I wrote the first bit, then realized that I hadn't mentioned that there were some exceptions for COI editors being asked not to edit directly (and I hate the thought of a basically well-intentioned COI editor finding really ugly vandalism and feeling like their hands were tied until someone showed up), so I went back and added that part. If I'd just mentioned it in passing as an aside during the original post, it probably wouldn't have been so ambiguous. Communication is so difficult lol --21:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Poland

Iran? What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs)

hah copy-paste typo. -- GreenC 14:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA

Hello GreenC, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 16) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreffed articles with ELs?

Hello! I've been going through some of the 180,000 articles in Category:All articles lacking sources, and noticed a large number of them appear to have one or more external links that are serving as references. These are particularly easy to deal with since I just check if the info in the article is at the link, and if so change it to a reference. Any chance you could easily generate a list of all articles in Category:All articles lacking sources that have any external links in them? It would just be helpful for those of us working on the category, so we can move quickly through the low-hanging fruit. No need for a bot to do any tagging/untagging. If it's a hassle, then no worries I can ask elsewhere. Thanks for all of your help with the unreffed bot (which hopefully can move forward at some point? I can check more of your test edits later today)! I hope all is well! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino, sounds like a good idea. It should be possible to turn around and report on a positive rather than negative. There is a large number so generating a list becomes awkward, overwhelming and outdated. Suggestion: a system to control the bot on-demand. I did this for Template:Cleanup bare URLs/bot. Basically the end user says "show me 5 articles that have this problem" and the bot goes looking and adds a new argument to the {{unreferenced}} template eg. |status=haslinks). This adds the article to a tracking category and the bot won't run again until the tracking category is mostly empty. Let me know what you think. -- GreenC 14:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! Good point; hadn't considered the unwieldiness of a list of tens of thousands of blue links. Whatever is easiest for you sounds good to me! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:Gutenberg

Module:Gutenberg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 6

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (May 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 6th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here

userRightsManager

Opencooper's domainRedirect • Danski454's hotcat-summary • Guywan's 12HourFormat • DannyS712's Subcategories

Twinkle (commit 53b6bf4)

Pending requests

Help with helping
List annotator
...and many more, all available at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests

Enjoy your summer, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Holmes Lead

Rather than reverting your edit I wanted to start a discussion. To start, I am not sure you are using "pithily" correctly in this context. "Pithily" as I understand it, means "brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning; terse; forcible" 1, there is nothing "pithily" about this wording, in fact, it makes the sentence bulky, seems to editorialize or express an opinion, and does not fit with the linear fashion of the lead. For example, "unlikely" claims is not brief when the nature of the claim need not be explained when the rest of the lead explains the veracity of the claim. Similarly, I also find "surprisingly" out of place for the same reasons. Next, with "surprisingly" could not other words be used to describe the claims, such as revolutionary or groundbreaking? People called what the company was doing revolutionary at one point, and then there was surprise later according to other sources. This is the problem with using this type of wording in this context. For these reasons I think these two words should be removed. I would like to hear your thoughts as I came back to this article a couple times before making this edit as each time I read it the wording of the lead seemed to be out of place for how we normally write our BLPs. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is pithily because to emphasize these things correctly another way would require a much longer or multiple sentences. To remove those words underplays the severity of the situation which would be a form of bias. When the article previously had only 'claims' other editors were adding in things like "fraudulent claims". It _must_ be clarified what kinds of claims these were, and how outside the bounds of expectations they were. To call them "revolutionary claims" in the first sentence of the lead section is in hindsight laughable, and not much different than 'fraudulent claims' depending on your perspective of time, so that would require further clarification introducing more complexity. The first sentence is a summary then it goes into further detail as you read on which is how Wikipedia is meant to operate. -- GreenC 18:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some help from someone with template editor rights.

See this. I just nominated some templates for TfD, but they're template editor-protected so I can't add the appropriate notices. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it was already done a few minutes before I posted this. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. 27.72.88.186 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richard Haine

On 21 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Haine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dickie Haine flew in the RAF's first night fighter patrol of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Haine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Haine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response

GC, I would kindly request that you retract your recent off-topic personal attack against me at ANI, and not attempt to engage me in discussion about users with whom I am IBANned. My past interactions none of the editors you named were relevant, except insofar as Thirteen was engaged in blatant trolling, name-calling and harassment of me (per the diffs) and Andrew was engaged in hounding, revenge-reverting, and so on of me (per the diffs -- technically the hounding was in a permalink archive thread linked in an unrelated context). I ... am frankly quite disappointed to see you make such a remark, since you and I have collaborated positively in the past, including in one of the cases of fringe content I referred to in my ANI post (and self-promotion I referred to in my MFD post). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 311: / Line 311: @@
 |text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#21 June 2019|21 June 2019]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Richard Haine]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''[[Richard Haine|Dickie Haine]]''' flew in the [[Royal Air Force|RAF]]'s first night fighter patrol of World {{nowrap|War II?}}'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Haine]]. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-06-11&end=2019-07-01&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Richard_Haine Richard Haine])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
 }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK -->  [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 00:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
+== Response ==
+GC, I would kindly request that you retract your recent off-topic personal attack against me at ANI, and not attempt to engage me in discussion about users with whom I am IBANned. My past interactions none of the editors you named were relevant, except insofar as Thirteen was engaged in blatant trolling, name-calling and harassment ''of me'' (per the diffs) and Andrew was engaged in hounding, revenge-reverting, and so on ''of me'' (per the diffs -- technically the hounding was in a permalink archive thread linked in an unrelated context). I ... am frankly quite disappointed to see you make such a remark, since you and I have collaborated positively in the past, including in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanka_prose&oldid=517556939 one of the cases] of fringe content I referred to in my ANI post (and self-promotion I referred to in my MFD post). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)