User talk:Petrb/Archive

Hello Petrb. Thanks for your contribution to this article. Please, don't forget to cite reliable sources, especially when you write about a living person. John is a highly visible politician in the Czech Republic and any information in the article should be properly referenced. Thanks for your understanding. Welcome to Wikipedia. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"m (as we decided to list primarily only currencies issued by EU or member states (EU talk) it would be good to somehow split this table or add note for !both! currencies)"

While I am fine with a distinction somehow, nothing of the sort was "decided" on the talk page. No consensus has been reached.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi J.Logan.See European Union, you will find it on the talk page there, I think it should be same in all EU related articles, thank you Petrb (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You just accepted an edit to Mallika Sherawat adding a birth date without a source. Why? BollyJeff || talk 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello as long as it was only birthdate ever added to that article and it was looking quite possible I didn't asked user for verification, now I see it was a mistake, I apologize and promise that I will be much more carefull next time, thank you for you notification Petrb (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

If you think that Afghanistan had been historically used as a source of Donuts, then the edit wasn't vandalism.

Many Thanks.

--92.3.246.50 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No I do not, stop adding that to the article. Petrb (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello? I removed that statement from the article. Thanks for the co-operation. --92.3.246.50 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see just I reverted it, please note it was you who added donuts to that article, if it was in mistake please take care next time you try to revert something. Petrb (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi PetrB, please note - it wasn't me that created the page. It has been repeatedly vandalised though so it probably should be deleted. Thanks.

MidiotOne (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia, in that case ignore my previous message and have a nice day. Petrb (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much PetrB, appreciated. Best wishes. MidiotOne (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Letendre is not american football player. His name is french cyclist fr:Eugène Letendre. How solve this case ?--Tiyoringo (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

First ensure it is not some another Eugene, google says there are many people with exact name, then check if references in the article are incorrect you should rather start thread concerning this matter on the talk page of Letendres's article. Petrb (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page. Keep up the good work :D - methecooldude ^Contact 10:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

same here :D Sophie ^(Talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to know my comments are helpful. I do not watch peer reviews as I do a lot of them. If you want me to look at the article again, please let me know on my talk page once you think all of the issues I raised have been addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Děkuji mnohokrát! I've been editing for some time but only recently created an account. I appreciate the warm welcome and will try to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Hezký den!!--Macarenses (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've reverted your edit and undone the warning on the user account for Sameer otoom as it was blanked by the creator Vrenator (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice he was to remove it, thanks Petrb (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I just thought I'd leave a note regarding your revert at William Martyn Conboy. The creator and sole contributor to the article blanked the page in good faith, and so the typical response to this is to tag it with the G7 speedy deletion tag and let it be. You reverted the editor's page blanking, and while I notice you removed the warning on his or her talkpage, the article itself was left as it was before the blanking. I realise it's easy to press the big red button on Huggle when you see page blanking like that (I've done it plenty of times myself), but when it's a small article and the blanking editor's userpage is a redlink, it pays to have a quick look at the history to make sure it isn't the creator requesting deletion per G7. You can even tag it for speedy deletion with Huggle. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know. Keep up the good work, and feel free to leave me a note if you have any questions!  -- Lear's Fool 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understood your question, but here goes- Rationales are required as per the non-free content criteria, they are basically an explanation of how an image meets the other criteria. Help in writing them can be found here. Of course, the mere fact someone has written the words "non-free use rationale" does not mean that an image does meet the NFCC; it's merely a requirement to help prevent non-compliant usages. On Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an "almost free" image- either the image is free, and can be used as and when, or the image is non-free, and so its use is strictly determined by the NFCC. Images that are free do not require non-free use rationales. However, the images in the EU article seem to almost certainly fail the non-free content criteria (specifically, criterion 8) because they are really not showing anything that needs to be illustrated. Yes, the events were important- talk about them, by all means. However, the fact you have talked about them in the article does not mean that there's some kind of entitlement to a non-free image to illustrate them. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Petrb. I have a few reasons for why i have been making these mistakes. 1) I applied CSD to User:Tbr793 because i didnt know that the user pages can be used for experimenting. 2) I have issued only warning with no related article because i already mentioned " If you vandalize my talk page or the ITN page again....." on their talk page. Just have a look at these(, , , , & ). As the administrator mentioned, There can be no excuse whatsoever for calling another editor an "asshole". So, he would be blocked even though i did not warn or notify him about that. Now explain me, how i have misused the warning or blocking template. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is {{uw-npa4im}} which is more appropriate, anyway this is just friendly notification not warning Petrb (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont have much knowledge about those templates, so i chose what i first found. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly that does not allow you to place inappropriate templates, and I still can't find reason for that warning - link you provided or some of them were not related to this user. Petrb (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

for the cookie :) - Sophie ^(Talk) 01:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please limit your discussion on article talk pages to improvements to the article, rather than general discussion about the topic of the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not me I was just reverting one message with huggle, see history I did not send anything to discussion Petrb (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:European_Union#"Institutions" under "Governance" ? "Governance" without "Institutions" ? Or just "Institutions" ?

Tell me what do you think about this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Union&diff=400463671&oldid=400458408

If you do not like it, I do revert.

Ciao! ----insilvis (talk) 10.13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:NuGoth, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You have no right to remove a warning that I placed on that user's page: it is not up to you to judge whether it was a "mistake" and in any case the user needs to be made aware that removing csd templates is not allowed. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, please consider reading basic rules of wikipedia, WP:AGF and WP:BITE, you may be right that talk pages are for discussion, but unfortunatelly in certain cases warnings may be removed if they were placed in mistake. Petrb (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this as out of scope for two reasons:

• Firstly the RFC is about the block of Sophie not her actions
• The block was made on behalf of the arbitration committee that involved access to private data that ordinary admins do not have access to. Consequently the community or ordinary admins cannot review the action and the foundation's privacy policy prevents the arbitration committee from explaining.

The correct avenues of appeal are a) directly to the arbitration committee via email, b) to Jimbo or c) appealing to the Ombudsman Committee. Before you do any of these things I suggest you consider the gravity of the actions taken by the committee and whether the committee would have done this lightly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. When you don't like something it's best to remove it from public especially when someone disagree with decisions made by arbcom, if they responded to our mail be sure I would not start any comment. Petrb (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you on Jimbo's talk page. I agree that this is crap, but you need to accept that there are things we don't know and trust the judgement of those who do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi petrb, I corrected a typo (?) in Cornish_language#Revived_language, where a link to an image was missing two brackets, resulting in

[[File:Szyld kornwalijski w Penzance.jpg|thumb|right|Cornish can be seen in many places in Cornwall. In the 20th century a conscious effort was made ...

You undid this change. Why? --92.206.108.238 (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello it was a mistake I've seen [[]]]], now it's correct thank you. Petrb (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For beating me to vandalism on a handful of occasions - and for seeing you revert vandalism on even more occasions - I award you this barnstar. Slow down so that others can get a chance to revert vandalism! :P Piast93 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at Piast93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Piast93 19:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. --Nlu (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

whaaaat so i cant even put that nicki minaj is playing the paradise theater ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.209.208 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, what you mean? Petrb (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yum! :-) — DVdm (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, i am responding to your verifiability comment on my edits to Big Trouble in Little China. The page is riddled with factual errors. I am the co-writer of Big Trouble, David Z. Weinstein. If you would like to cite the source of these corrections, it is not form an article but better - first person. If you wish, you may include my name in a first-person citation on each edit, as there appears to be no option for this as far as i can tell. If, for example, you are writng an article about the battle of The Bulge, you might want to have some corrections by WWII veterans who fought there instead of the Nazi propganda as found in dubious articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wileyprescott (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure if that is enough, if you look on WP:References you would find that addition of controversial content must be sourced, being someone who understand the subject is not enough, I will check again what exactly I removed. Petrb (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look, Petrb. I am more though than a person who understands the subject. I am, literally, the subject! Much, unfortunately here, is already controversial in so far as it is one-sided in selective quotes if not directly untrue in many assertions of fact. The experience is, as i noted, first hand. The corrections i made are factual. If another party wants to dispute them, i invite them to do so. It's sort of like writing an article about the Queen of England and not letting her correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wileyprescott (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about COI if you are subject I am sure you could add these facts somewhere and use them to proove that, I don't know that movie so I drop reverting it more, but saying that you are author is definitely not enough to be able to add anything there, you must follow guidelines as anyone else, if I was author of some movie and wanted to add something important I would publish it on my website or something so others would see it is truth, you have no proof that you are who you say (I am fine with that but many others would not). Petrb (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

- i am the subject and might do as you suggested given time limitations. There is also the question of assertion of facts in this article that are not cited and would, i assume, fall into the category of the personal opinion of the author of this article that violates the guidelines as i see them. What do you suggest n this case? btw do you work for WP or are you a freelancer? If you work for them i have two questions - if as the subject i find the slant and fact assertion of this article both inaccurate and slanderous to my work and reputation, what recourse do i have? Do you know ho wrote this article? I guess that it is by someone in the director or rewriter's pay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wileyprescott (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not member of WMF staff, but anyway best way how to solve this would be a discussion on article's talk page, the article was written by many people who understand the subject more than me and know the guidelines well too, best resolution of conflict of interest is to ask someone neutral to fix all the issues in the article, if you find inappropriate content which is not sourced you can remove it but don't forget to fill in why you did that Petrb (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your admin rights has been granted in test.wiki. Regards --@lestaty ^discuţie 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I am wondering how to set up pending changes there. Petrb (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You reverted an edit on this page where the only substantial contributor blanked the page. That is a criteria for speedy deletion and should not have been reverted. Reverting should only be used for blatant vandalism.--v/r - TP 18:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a mistake I didn't know he was the original author. Petrb (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. He seems really confused and I'm trying to help him out. It might help if you deleted the warning on his talk page. He thinks people are mad at him.--v/r - TP 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it as I don't like newbie bitting too I didn't know he got so overtemplated because of this certain page, I understand that edits were done in a good faith. Petrb (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Epeghin has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

!

Hello, Petrb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Biathlon (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning russian wiki I have started discussion there on Project:Huggle2 (see talk), you can test it Petrb (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Would it be easier if we kept huggle all under one name and continue developing on the google code project? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, maybe it would be easier it's a shame I got this message so late, you have write access to repository on google? Gurch told me that it was disabled, or that development was stopped, that is why I started version 2 in new repo and it also has separate configuration (that is advance as new changed do not affect old versions) if I had access to google code I would continue with previous one, huggle2 was installed also on russian wiki, now all the users who switched to it might be too confused, I am not sure what would be best now. Petrb (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the updated list :) https://code.google.com/p/huggle/people/list I just had a look and it seems that many more people are still using the old huggle rather than HG2 so I think it would be best if we try and move back! You up for it? :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply to hg2 talk, what do you think about it? we could keep the current pages. And users of hg2 would not be affected, just merge both versions to one. Petrb (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied there. Can you send me an email with your email in it so that I can add you to the project? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My e-mail is not anything secret benapetr@gmail.com Petrb (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added you to the project, you should now be able to commit to https://code.google.com/p/huggle/ . Has anyone else done any work on HG2 I should / could add? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not over svn Petrb (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.. You should be able to. Check https://code.google.com/p/huggle/source/checkout ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it works. I have begun works as I said, if you have different plan, let me know asap. I would like to handle this till end of this week. Petrb (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the old huggle is still pre version 1. It might be an idea to make the new release with all update and fixes version 1! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you need it to be 1 well then, but there might be problem with updates from 2.0.2, I will try to find out a way, I am now updating sources, checkout and try, I am using vb 2010 I hope it would work for you. Petrb (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't access repository, what password I need to use? I am trying the one for my e-mail it does not allow me to write that Petrb (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me rollback and reviewer on testwiki? WAYNESLAM 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is not possible on test wiki. Petrb (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no place on testwiki that I can edit because there's very few articles. How am I going to test Huggle on testwiki without rollback? Does it still work without rollback? WAYNESLAM 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Petrb (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Huggle2 and the Huggle feedback page? What do you think? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy it, that would be much better. Petrb (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant yes. Merge it. Petrb (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw I just wanted to do that :D Petrb (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

beat you :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Petrb! Thanks for leaving Huggle version 0.9.11 still active as the min version in the Huggle config. I’m not quite ready to switch yet. I like all of my customized summaries that I set up for version 0.9.11. Plus, it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have nothing to be afraid of, there is no reason to disable previous versions. I will not even probably disable it in future. Petrb (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One day, when I’m feeling brave, I’ll back up my version 0.9.11 Huggle config files and give version 2.x.x a try. It’s great that you have continued to maintain such a great and powerful piece of software as Huggle. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about changing the huggle2 config from min-version:2.0.0 version:2.0.0 to min-version:2.1.0 version:2.1.0 ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's important then we could but I don't think it does matter. Petrb (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not important, but it would just get everyone moving over to the 'mainstream' versions. Atleast change it to version:2.1.0 :P Maybe wait a bit for the min-vrsion ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Version in local does not do anything, concerning your report on irc it seem to work? Petrb (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Addshore: I think you should leave min version set at 0.9.11, like it is now. It is still working, we get the upgrade notice when we launch it, and when we’re ready we’ll switch to version 2.x.y Why force everyone to switch en masse when 0.9.11 is still working? I experience no bugs with it and am perfectly comfortable using it. Not all of us like upgrading to new versions of software until they’ve been rolled out for some time. (See also discussion here.)

Or, have I completely misunderstood? In which case, hit me with a big fish and accept my apology in advance! — SpikeToronto 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about changing the HG2 config, not the normal HG config. HG config for now will stay at 0.9.11. Some time in the future this will probably be changed ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 11:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When would that occur? Like if the IRC channel changed? What might be some other reasons? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, gratefully received. The html was accepted so I thought I had done it correctly. Next time I am going to attribute multiple references to the same source, I'll have a look at the html for that article and note how you did it. Dommar (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have time, would you check my contributions and comment on them where appropriate. I have been improving the English on some sections of Ehab Tawfik (+discussion) and Tamer Hosny. I have also been working on adding more information to Khaled Abol Naga. I am working on understanding tables but am struggling with citation syntax. Any thoughts or assistance welcome. I apologise if this is not the right page to ask on and I have done it all wrong... "Please teacher, teach me something, nice teacher, teach me something..." Aakheperure (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I will check them today Petrb (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. Aakheperure (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all right only the addition of link was reverted by a bot I will move you to the whitelist so bot will ignore you. Petrb (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea what that means but thank you, you have definitely earned a cookie.

Aakheperure has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just a quick note, When you commit to the svn please make sure that you don't totally overwrite other people changes. Make sure you update your local copy regularly and if something has changed before you commit then please try to merge. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know about that I tried to revert it back I know it was wrong but I have no clue how to restore previous verion in interface of web. If there are still things which are lost now feel free to reupload it. Petrb (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also it kind of sucks to upload a version that doesn't work xD r580 ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, if you were on irc sometimes we could handle it before that happens, it looks like it needs some fix. Petrb (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I see that you have uploaded 2.1.2 but havent updated the repo... r580 doesnt work. Any chance you could commit? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about this warning? If not, you can consider removing it. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted it. It was not vandalism in any sense at WP:VANDTYPES. Subject dies in 2004, was born in 1902: 2004-1902=102 years old. While IP-only editor may have made other vandalizing edits, that one was not. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE:  I reviewed all of that IP’s edits that were still showing at his contribs to be at the top, assuming that any other edits had been reviewed by subsequent editors to those articles. In most cases, while his edits were okay, an inline, citation needed template was necessary for them to remain in the articles. Those edits were not so egregious that they warranted removal or merited a warning to the anon.

I did, however, have to revert some of his edits as being factually incorrect, even though they seem to have been made in good faith. (Example: This edit where he wrote, Since World War II, every man to serve as Vice-President, with the exception of Spiro T. Agnew and Walter Mondale had become President. That is factually incorrect since Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's veep, never became President.) Thanks!

— SpikeToronto 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I undid some of their (strong-claiming) edits as unreferenced, but wasn't sure for others. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a mistake feel free to revert such things Petrb (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made 2 practice pages, as you suggested. (links on my user page) I would appreciate your input when you have time. One page has been moved because it is an entire article (?) - I intended it to be a draft re-write of the live article. Because it is structurally quite different from the existing entry I thought as a new editor it would be best to experiment on a user page. Let me know if I did something wrong. The second page is a new article. Tarek Naga is listed in Wikipedia's list of Egyptian Architects but has no entry so I decided to write one... Aakheperure (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Another user has moved my page back, but deleted the main space page... I think the person who moved it meant well, and did not understand the problem. I have updated him on his talk page. Meanwhile, I will work to get the page actually live to avoid some other poor editor doing it...Aakheperure (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had questions just ask ;) I assume this is already sorted although article was untouched by you. Petrb (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

the routes were not runign so i deleted the same-finw will do it from next time when i delete ss87 (talk)

Hello you should definitely type some reason when you are removing things like that I removed the template from your talk but next time, please be more specific. Petrb (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Explains specifically why you reverted the Mackinac center version...what specifically was inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.252.107 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you tell me what you mean? What mackinac? Petrb (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hymn to Liberty, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Cheers! ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wireless Keyboard: The edit by Peterb that you are referring to was this one. However, Petrb was reverting vandalism; he was not vandalizing. On the other hand, your revert of Petrb put the vandalism back in! (Your clues would be fit footballers and fetta cheese.) Also, his edit was made with Huggle, which means that he has been entrusted with rollback privileges. This should have suggested to you that, as a Huggler, there would have been bona fides with his edit, and not the bad intentions of a vandal.

I restored the correct version with this edit. WK, you should consider striking out the warning above as it was improperly applied: Petrb’s edit did not merit it. Thanks!

— SpikeToronto 06:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the right thread! Yes, I'm sorry that I reverted that, I might have looked over the Huggle aspect of the revert (I'm using Wkiki or whatever iti is) and the edit summary is at the bottom. I'll try to be more cautious next time! Cheers! ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to SpikeToronto for explaining this. Petrb (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Heyho Petrb,
since longer time it is not possible for me to login with 0.9.11 in en:wp. Versions before there were no problems. Thank you for adive, Conny (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Try downloading latest version and tell me what reason you get Petrb (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still logging in okay with 0.9.11. Is there a way Petrb to determine how many Hugglers are still using 0.9.11 and how many are using 2.x.x.? Is there a way to see such statistics? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's easy to determine version of certain user. Petrb (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But, only of a particular user? I assume by looking at their huggle.css file. What I was asking was, is there a way to find out how many are using each version? What is the total using each version? Is that something that can be determined? Is there a tool for it? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No there is no such thing (fortunately), but hundres of people downloaded huggle 2 so far. Petrb (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I testet with 2.1.3 and Huggle says: Unable to login. Thanks for help, Conny (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps you are not allowed to access api, you need to be autoconfirmed and have rollback Petrb (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the rollback status, but my autoconfirmed status is gone, maybe because of haveing to less edits in the last time. But I do not become smart in reading the rules. Can you give me a hint? Thank you, did some edits manually last days (maybe that helps), Conny (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Ok, that seems not the problem, today I'm autoconfirmed and rollbacker, but can not login en or es, but it works on de. Thanks for help, Conny (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Today I tested the new version - it works! I'm very happy :) . Greetings, Conny (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

I made a comment here that I think you should address. Thank you. Silverseren^C 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please reply this answer: "What is wrong?". Thanks. Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for warning Robg2690, but it turns out that this user was a clueless newbie that was trying to deal with a rather sudden radio station renames with cut and paste moves. I left an apology and a link to WP:MOVE on this user's talk page for dealing with this situation in the future. Jesse Viviano (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned all the messages including bot hope it's better now. Petrb (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome. In the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_della_Nobilt%C3%A0_Italiana there is an old and very know (in it.wikipedia)italian troll-at-work. See discussion page. Can you block this page? Thanks.--Contebragheonte (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to see WP:AN/I there you can handle it, anyway the page is no longer being vandalised so it's not needed now Petrb (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost every edit he made had to do with promoting the European Union Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine and included an xlink. In addition there was edit warring across several articles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How it violates spam rules? EUBAM is EU mission and eubam.org is a good reference. Petrb (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is for that article. To continue to add inline xlinks to other articles in that fashion, after other people have reverted them, violates both the spam policy and the edit-warring policy. In addition the user's name is problematic as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the block is not the best solution assuming he is new to wikipedia the user who warned him was warring too by reverting him. Petrb (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The user was warned several times to stop and continued without discussing. That mitigates against edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I Was Giving Him A Template He Asked For At School. I Gave It to Him And Posted Instructions. We Agreed It Should Be thEre. He Didnt Mind. --Mr ArticleEditor (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed. How could I know it? Petrb (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not been vandalized that article. It has no importance/significance. It is a member of a famous group who was kicked out before they became mainstream. Other then that he has no credibility or recognition. I have been in a revert war with a fan girl who has stalked my youtube and facebook and harassed me non stop. The article simply cannot exist. There is no significance or importance, hence why I reverted it to the band he was actually in (the only notable thing about him which isn't enough for his own article). - User:D33deed33guy

Why don't you nominate it for deletion then? Petrb (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the only people editing the page are two obsessed fan girls who site unreliable/ no sources whatsoever and have harassed me on a constant youtube and facebook. I even posted a section on the Talk page for Escape the Fate requesting administrative help. Plus every edit I made they revert so I have no doubt they would have reverted me adding the template. If you look at the contributions, they made their accounts for the sole sake of promoting this one guy. - User:d33deed33guy —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Try to handle it on talk page then, redirecting a page if you want to remove it, is inacceptable. Petrb (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, I can't. I have literally no one but the two fan girls to argue with who think they know what they are talking about. I have no legit users on my side cause no legit user has really even heard of the guy. Hence why I have requested help from administrators, because I can't handle it. They aren't even posting on the talk page themselves, In fact I doubt they know what that is. - user:d33deed33guy

In that case visit this. Or request a comment. Petrb (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a talk page edit on the article like you said. I would greatly appreciate your input. - user:d33deed33guy —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Okay thanks. I appreciate your help - user:d33deed33guy —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Kevinmon•talk•trib 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder to fill in edit summaries. I will pay more attention to that from now on. Kerani (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This time my other article was actually stolen while incomplete and another user apparently claimed he created it by copying and pasting it. Some other editors have put it back for me. Just to let you know what is happening with me and why I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with Wikipedia. If you have advice about what I can do to edit more effectively please let me know. I can't work live, (my vision is just too poor) I have to use a local editor to get the text large enough to see, but then I need to see the page on a user space (for example) so I can read it without the wiki markup or get the computer to read it to me and to check how it renders and that the wording is ok. Please help me if you can. Aakheperure (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I will handle it asap, best would be to edit this in your editor and not publish it anywhere untill you are ready to post it to mainspace. Petrb (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Who did it I ask him for explanation then Petrb (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The person responsible has been tagged as a sock and permanently blocked. If you think its best to edit locally, I will complete the articles I am writing on and then not compose any more new articles, as it is just too difficult to see what I am doing. I will just do some copy edits or something like that perhaps. Thanks for your response. Aakheperure (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why you don't want to add them to wiki, you can see what you edit even without saving it. Petrb (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• To what does the pronoun "them" refer in your previous post? I don't understand what you mean by add to wiki. Sorry. Aakheperure (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your articles :) Petrb (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are trying to say. In the meantime, the Tarek Naga article was stolen AGAIN. See my talk page. Aakheperure (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For Wing Derringer--Lyncs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you reply my two comments in Huggle feedback, please? Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 23:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see visited links, the colour is too similar to black... can I change it? Aakheperure (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes open User:Aakheperure/common.css and put in:
a:visited { color:blue; }

to change it to blue. Petrb (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you. That blue is very bright...can I make it the same as non visited link please? Aakheperure (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can change the word "blue" to any of these: aqua, black, blue, fuchsia, gray, grey, green, lime, maroon, navy, olive, purple, red, silver, teal, white, and yellow. That is,

• Aqua: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Black: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Blue: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Fuschia:: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Grey: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Green: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Lime: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Maroon: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Navy: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Olive: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Purple: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Red: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Silver: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Teal: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• White: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• Yellow: Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890

You could also specify any HTML colour. For example, if you change "blue" to "#0000CC" you get a darker blue. Some dark blues are;

• #0000CC Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• #0000DD Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• #000066 Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890
• #330066 Example text. Abc def ghi jkl mnopq rstuv wxyz 123 45,67,890

I hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now I see this, answer for your question is: insert

a { color:blue; }

Petrb (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on the Vladimir Komarov article. One thing I did was remove all unsubstantiated rumours and replace with information from reputable sources. User:Petadeo has put one of these rumours back in and his source is a blog that contains many more rumours which have been disproved. What can I do about that? Aakheperure (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss it on talk page, revert it. Petrb (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding comments to the Pending Changes discussion.

Could you please read WP:PCRFC#Consensus, and see if you've got any ideas that can help us come to some agreement? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer for the bot. I left a couple question on the bot request page but please let me know what you need me to do. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could ask what the capabilities of your bot are? --Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. I am going to be submitting a number of requests including tagging and assessment, bot actions for WikiProject and Portal support, etc. I am currently working with a couple of projects to do a tagging run but because its such a monstrous list (about 40, 000 articles not already tagged with a US project but starts with US, U.S., United States, USA, American or list as one of the previous) with multiple WikiProjects affected and some pages I need to remove because they don't pertain to US aside from the title. I am going to be submitting them in chunks though and of course there is no requirement that you do them but I wanted to find out more about the bots flexibility. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That is no problem you can submit it. Petrb (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reveted your edits to this template - the format is fine, you need to change your bot coding instead. Regards, GiantSnowman 22:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRFA#Feedback navigation links

Hey - I've copied that thread back from the archive, so we can discuss it / see it kick in. Hope that's OK - please see my small q there. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  22:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. At John Beresford (footballer), the bot failed to recognise a <br > i.e. br with a space after it, as a break in the caps(goals) line, so it set caps5 to "179 <br > 17 ", goals5 to "3 0", and allocated what should have been caps/goals7 and 8 to clubs6 and 7. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, and this one might well be a bit more frequent. If the closing }} of the infobox template is on the same line as the caps(goals) parameter, the bot doesn't cope. It puts the }} on the last caps= row, which closes the infobox template, leaving a mess of goals= outside the infobox. As at Fred Barber. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. another minor one. Your bot is doing a generally very good job. I have a few of these deprecated parameter articles on my watchlist so I'm just doing a quick glance over as they pop up on my watchlist each day. ISSUE: some editors have used "</br />" instead of "<br>" or "<br />", and your bot doesn't use that as a stepping stone to next parameter. refer Ljubiša Broćić for example. Cheers.--ClubOranje^T 09:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

and this edit to Ihor Bazhan changed "| nationalcaps(goals) = 1 (?)" to "| nationalcaps1 = 1 (?) | nationalgoals1 = ". Didn't seem to recognise (?) for the goals

• ps. I shut down the bot....per shutdown message--ClubOranje^T 10:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed both Petrb (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if you have already started Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Category:Football_biography_using_deprecated_parameters or not. Can you please start it? It turned out I can't do it with my bot. Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is happening in regards to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot task8? Do you have a list of the 50 trial edits your bot made? -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I found the list and had a look please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot task8, I sorry but it is not good news. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed a bug TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Petrb (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Petrb,

I just answered the request you made on testwiki.

Have a nice week-end. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Feedback_navigation_links - sorry, didn't see that until now. Yes - please - can it happen, ASAP? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

moment, running - preparing... Petrb (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

31 days in May, not 30 though :-) (Thanks for working on this)  Chzz  ►  02:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

+Glad to see "June" get sorted out  :-)

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I think you need to adjust the coding to include those infoboxes which previously used the <br/> as Petan-bot isn't converting them properly - have a look at this, for instance. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That edit was from 30 April and I think this issue was fixed already per. --ClubOranje^T 06:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps not, that edit was after the April 28 restart of the bot...Maybe that answers my own question below?--ClubOranje^T 06:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice the bot has stopped, with still nearly 14000 articles left in Category:Football biography using deprecated parameters. Any particular reason?--ClubOranje^T 06:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes bot is not working good so it was terminated I will try to somehow fix it but many of the pages will not be converted Petrb (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See here. I reverted it after it missed the nationalcaps(goals) conversion. My bot completed the conversion. I find it's useful to just have it abort if the pattern "caps\(goals\)" is still there, or if there is a "br" tag in clubs, teams, years, caps, goals, ... sections. The second check can be a bit too cautious, but there aren't that many. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this as approved, please see the request page for details. One other thing I wanted to mention: Does the location of the <!-- BOT --> tag effect the location of the new section? If so it needs to be on a new line (here you can see it's on the same line as the links in the May section, whereas previously it was on a new line from the April links). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's ok as bot only see the text between it's there just to not let it mess up the syntax of rest of the page. Petrb (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me, I know that the <!-- tags mean that the text is not visible to readers. But what I'm wondering is if the bot decides where to start the next section based on where that tag is located? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

This page just got moved out for review. I seem to have a message from your bot saying that it has been and to direct questions to your talk page. The organization is mentioned in two existing Wiki pages but shows in red as lacking an actual page, so I expect having it out there is basically a good thing. But I just caught the item about declaring my interest in some advice - and can't seem to find out exactly how I do that in a way that assures everyone sees it. Wiki seems to work by editor of the moment so I don't know that there is a way to let the correct people know. Advice? cemmmur user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemmur (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the message you sent about the edits I made: the link added in is for an informative, pictorial site with content (images) that is/are not available on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. The information is all referenced from the Chalet School Books, it goes in-depth in to the similarities and differences between the fictional 'Briesau' and its basis 'Pertisau'. I realise the bot probably highlighted the link as problematic because it is hosted on a blogsite - however, hosting aside, it is still relevant material that cannot otherwise be added to wikipedia for copyright reasons. It is not an individual site, but put together by a group of people knowledgeable on the subject. However, if it can't be added that is fine - but I noticed the other edit I made, to the Background Characters had also been removed, presumably because the bot thinks if I have made a mess of one edit, I must be wrong on the others. The reference to the edit I made can be found repeatedly in the first chapter of School at the Chalet (1925) - Dick is not taking up a new job in India, he is returning to his job out there after a furlough, or time of leave. He has been in the job in India for a number of years. I can see no reason why an edit to correct a factual error cannot be made. 85.211.227.230 (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but you should always put such links to section for links outside of wikipedia. Petrb (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you place a link to external, then it shouldn't be reverted even by any bots Petrb (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what I was doing wrong before. It seems to be ok now. Cheers! 85.211.227.230 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot task8 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hi, I am a sysop of hindi wikipedia, we have translated all messages for huggle.Please help us to enable for hindi Wikipedia.Thanks in Advance--Mayur (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi I already imported configuration on it, now you have to translate main templates for reverting so that I can set up rest of config. Petrb (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Main templates? Sorry but i didn't understand that. Can you give the link where they are listed or you meant by the main templates of Wikipedia? :) Vibhijain (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mayur has got all of them ready now. Please enable huggle on hiwiki now. Thanks. :) Vibhijain (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there an incubator or sandbox to test it out beforehand? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's enabled Petrb (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a Lot!--Mayur (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not abble to login to huggle, Please check this Bug!!--Mayur (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an option of Hindi, neither am I asked to update Huggle. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

NOW I see it an am able to use it in Hindi, but the options for choosing warning types is still in English. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes because it needs to be translated it Petrb (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am still not able to login in huggle for hi wiki, it doesn't load anything after showing "checking user list"--Mayur (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that odd considering the fact that the entire page has been translated? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No there is no translation yet on hindi wiki, I will be available on irc today Petrb (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As per my IRC discussion with you, i shall translate configuration messages soon.Thanks--Mayur (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot task 6 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

I did not understand what did u say? please can u help me with my article and how do i put my article on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalini61290 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at this when you have time. Thank you. — OrderOfThePhoenix 07:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that your bot has made a few unnecessary moves of Afc pages (2 examples):

• 23:19, 28 June 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Chief Emmanual Oyedele Ashamu ‎ (moved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Chief Emmanual Oyedele Ashamu to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Chief Emmanual Oyedele Ashamu: Moving to AFC space (bot)) (top) [rollback] [vandalism]

Unneeded as the only thing wrong with the name is the extra space at the beginning (something that happens sometimes: If the move just removed the space then everything is ok, adding the extra Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ is not helpful). It was in the proper namespace already.

• (Move log); 23:15 . . Petan-Bot (talk | contribs) moved User:Angelinaleanne/How to add footnotes to wikipedia to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/How to add footnotes to wikipedia (Moving to AFC space (bot))

This was a duplicate of another Afc submission (since accepted). It's name does not reflect the contents of the article. Both were articles that were already reviewed and in my opinion didn't need to be moved. Jarkeld (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One was fixed, the second one is not easy to be fixed, I don't know how bot can avoid this, probably afc members should remove duplicate pages? Petrb (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as it is a userspace located version and we already have an Afc page with the same name, in this case I chose to leave it where it was, on other occasions I added (duplicate) to the title. The best option is to either have the bot move the page when it's not yet reviewed or the Afc members should move it to a proper title. Mfd is deletion-wise the only proper deletion method. Jarkeld (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But how could bot recognize it, it already check if there is not a same page (same title) but not content Petrb (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Submissions_in_userspace.
Message added mabdul 11:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you also remove the userspacedraft-template from articles which are already moved? (So look up regular at the WP:AFC-space) mabdul 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Task is already approved and changing it means I would have to start it again Petrb (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, when you have time, could you pop by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot and let us know if you still wish this BRFA to remain open? SQL^{Query me!} 08:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See . I hope this hasn't caused many submitted articles to get lost. Monty₈₄₅ 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a bug it will be fixed in few hours. Petrb (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I created a page for IPR2 and I received the message that it had been moved to 'user talk' but it still hasn't appeared on the userface. What is the next step in this process? Thanks Jaswiki13 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk Petrb (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Using DownThemAll, I downloaded all files from http://huggle.googlecode.com/svn/trunk, but I perceived that German (de), Spanish (es) and Portuguese (pt) are out of date. These files were written in 2008. Could you update these files, please, in the trunk?

Regards,

Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 23:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In Meta, I moved Huggle/Localization/pt-br to Huggle/Localization/ptb because Visual Studio did not recognize the hyphen as a valid character. Could you fix this language in the trunk and include it in the next version? Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 00:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks in advance for your help. The article named Bill Brand located here: User:Monicasaviron/Bill Brand has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Brand. Now, how to make the article Bill Brand go directly live? I mean, what's left for me to do, so I (and other people) can find the article typing "Bill Brand" in the search box. Thanks for your kind attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicasaviron (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the bot moves articles to AFC space that have already been declined in userspace. It seems to me that moving them after they are already declined is likely to create confusion, and as far as I know, doesn't really serve a purpose. Monty₈₄₅ 04:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's based on discussion with person who requested this, if you wish to change it, start a talk in afc project please Petrb (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Task 9 of your bot currently moves userspace drafts into an AfC submission page, and removes the {{Userspace draft}} template if it exists. A recent change to the Userspace draft template added a link which adds the AfC submission template to the very bottom of the article, as a new section. See, for instance, this edit. Is there any way you can add some code to your bot to detect when the AfC template has been added to the bottom of the article, and if so, move it to the top (and get rid of the "== Request review at WP:AFC ==" section header)? There is more discussion on this topic at Template_talk:Userspace_draft#Finished.3F_do_something...but_what.3F. Thanks. —SW— ^speak 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was sure it already does it? Petrb (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't do this and I can try to update it but keep in mind that my bot doesn't check the articles it only moves them from userspace watching the automaticaly generated list, so first I need to make it check also existing articles for changes in order to do that. (which eats a lot of time, so maybe if you could point me to existing c# code which checks rc feed for changes, I could try) Petrb (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the prefix "Gx" to "ERx" in this diff, but, in order to function correctly, I had to include this line below in DeleteForm.vb and SpeedyForm.vb files:

OrElse (Item.Code.StartsWith("ER") AndAlso Config.Project = "pt.wikipedia") _

Can you see this revision and include this change in the next version? Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 20:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You already have commit access I guess? Petrb (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Francisco ^{talk-contribs} 14:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This mean you can do that Petrb (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was denied because of my lists of sources. Most are for local newspapers, that when published had over 600,000 readers. Can you tell me which of the sources listed were denied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erock101 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on that. If it's sending the wrong messages that would screw up the test data for sure, so we don't want that. ;-) Sorry for the trouble, and gracias amigo, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to wikipedia family. So, please kindly assist me. I did not understand why my article is moved to "Articles for creation". Rashmi.baruah (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that is all about, but I suspect it's because the page transcluded another of my test pages, which temporarily had an AFC template on it (because I copy-pasted an old AFC to my test page, briefly, to check something) - .

Maybe the bot should check to make sure that an AFC submission is not via transclusion, before moving a page?  Chzz  ►  16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot moves all in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_in_userspace Petrb (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but, the only reason that page was in the cat was, because it transcluded another (test) page - which, a year later, was temporarily in that category. Look at the pages history - it was never an AFC at all.  Chzz  ►  23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue is now fixed and discussed with people from afc project. I apologize for all problems caused by it. Petrb (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem at all, really. I just wanted to tell you, to avoid it potentially being a problem one day in the future - if e.g. someone added an AfC submission on a userbox, or something mad, and 100's of pages got moved :-)

Thanks for sorting it out.  Chzz  ►  01:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently created a page for Jason Plummer (politician) and it was sent to the Articles for creation page. I was just wondering when I should expect the page to go online. Thanks. Pplasse (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation%2FJason_Plummer_%28politician%29&action=historysubmit&diff=457252434&oldid=457252417 Check that diff, the bot doesn't remove the userspace draft template! mabdul 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ok now, I hope Petrb (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Peter,

Thanks for volunteering to help with the archiving! I'll let you know when the exact parameters get decided.

Also, mluvim trochu česky :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey I'm a nice guy and i know some things about wikipedia. I use it every days and when i see minor mistakes i fix them. Stickuli (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

My article has been moved today to AFC When will it be an accepted wikipedia page/article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amolkchaudhari (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See here for old & new templates. I'll move the new ones to the template ns tomorrow. Cheers! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And what's actually useful for you, template names, here :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I added some more detail to the bot task list. I hope it's actually technically possible – the block notification part may be a little tricky, since we shouldn't remove block notices while the user is blocked, but should remove them once the block expires. Let me know if all that stuff makes sense or if you need more info (feel free to ping me on IRC if you're around). And thanks again for working on this! You rock :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that your bot removes "unused templates" (duplicates) from AfC submissions, which is very useful, but that apparently includes previously declined templates on articles that have been re-submitted, which IMO is not so useful. Was this discussed somewhere? I for one like to see whether a submission has been previously declined and why, so I know what areas to check for improvement, and can tailor my reasons if I decline it again. joe•roe^t•c 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was discussed, but on irc, anyway the main reason was that multiple temlates made some afc tools unusable. May I ask what do you need the old template active for? it's in history... Petrb (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose they need to remain visible on the page, but it certainly saves time being able to see them stacked up in front of you versus picking through the history. Leaving old templates has been the done thing as long as I've been reviewing AfCs, and {{Afc decline}} does instruct people to add an additional template when resubmitting, not replace the old one(s), so I'm curious which tools it was breaking and whether they're new. Either way, I feel a bit uncomfortable that this was decided off-wiki. joe•roe^t•c 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that requester Alpha_Quadrant (talk · contribs) would tell you more, however he is not online now, if it's some big problem I can terminate the bot until it's resolved. Petrb (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also if you list on top, you would see a message from AndrewN who also requested it. He might be online? Petrb (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no, it's not that big a problem, I just think it should've been discussed properly. I'll take this to WT:WPAFC. joe•roe^t•c 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I turned it off. Petrb (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that it doesn't need to run since I was informed that broken script was fixed. Petrb (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Right now, draft Articles for Creation submissions have two templates when they are submitted for review. They should only have the latest template. Rather than asking the new user to remove the obsolete template, there bot performing this task. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point with it removing the |d|reason| template. Usually we remove decline templates if three or more AfC templates are used on a submission. If a reviewer wants to check to see how many times a submission was declined, they can always access the page history. I don't see much of a problem with a bot auto-removing the now irrelevant reviews. Having multiple decline templates do make it more difficult for the submitter to remember which decline template has the current decline reason. So this action saves us the time of manually removing the old decline templates. This was a side effect of the true purpose (removing duplicate review templates and old |t| parameter templates), but it is a helpful side effect. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is a useful side effect and I don't think you have the grounds for maintaining such a sweeping change without on-wiki consensus. I've never removed old templates from a page, whether there's three or thirty, and I can't recall seeing anyone else do it either. The newest one is generally at the top. joe•roe^t•c 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Other users used to remove duplicates once there are too many. Now that a bot has been doing this for over a month, there has been no need for us to do it manually. (i.e. ) If you would like more diffs, I can provide them. If an article has 3 or more decline templates, it becomes unmanageably difficult to make future reviews, and is discouraging for new users. Not all new users put the template near the top, they sometimes do, but not always. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are simply asserting that and I don't agree. The more important issue is that a bot was set up to do this task, a major task affecting almost all AfC submissions, apparently without any discussion on-wiki. In fact, there apparently wasn't even a consensus of one, since this was an unintended side effect you are only now attempting to justify after the fact. I think Petrb ought to disable this task for now (and, in the friendliest way because I know this bot has been very useful for WP:AFC: maybe take more care to check there is consensus before you implement a request in future?) and if you think it is worth re-implemented you should seek consensus for it at WT:WPAFC first. joe•roe^t•c 10:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Beside the problem where to gain consens: The old decline templates are mostly useless of two reasons:

• sometimes the user removes/replaces the old submission templates without any notice and
• the page gets unreadable.

That means: every reviewer should: a) check the history with review, except it is (still) a clear decline; and b) if the reviewer reviews the draft, he/she should be neutral and not be biased by other reviewers, only if the review is not sure about. (then it might be better not to review the article and leave the review for anybody other). So as a conclusion: please read the history every time if it is not a clear decline! mabdul 10:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've been waiting for review for about a week, could you please let me know what you think of the article. I'll make changes if you feel necessar to and then set it online. Thank you ! Arseguet (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, What am I supposed to see there? Petrb (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The {{anchor}} template has some significant problems which might be resolved by the development of a parser function. I am wondering if you would be interested in investigating the feasibility of the following idea.

The hope would be to make wikitext like the following (where {{anchor}} is some special parser function):

==Example heading==
{{anchor|example one|example two}}
Text in section.

be the equivalent of:

==<span id="example one"><span id="example two">Example heading</span></span>==
Text in section.

If interested, I would explain the issues. In brief, discussions at Template talk:Anchor have shown that the anchor template has some problems: using the template in the heading line gives ugly edit summaries and bad anchor results in some browsers; using it before the heading line breaks future edits which move the heading without its anchor; using it after the heading line gives bad anchor results in many browsers. Thanks for any ideas you may have on this. If it is feasible, I guess the next step would be to provide some tests showing the problems, then make a proposal at WP:VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure I can help you, if you describe it more ;) you provided one example, for h2 header what if it was placed somewhere else? Petrb (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that hardest part it getting the consensus for that Petrb (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this is a bit long...

A complete specification, and community support, would be tricky. By far the most common usage occurs with headings (generally h2, but any heading level). The existing template is used before, within, and after the heading line (each having a disadvantage as I briefly mentioned). I was thinking of a replacement that would be only after the heading. However, as a transitional measure, and subject to the ugly complexity required, a parser function might work in any of these three positions (checking in order, and using the first found: within, after, before). If none of these apply (i.e. no adjacent heading), apply the span anchor to the following text (probably best to limit that text to something small like 30 characters, that is, put the start of the span where the parser function is invoked, and the end of the span after the next appoximately 30 characters of rendered text. An example of the template being used not adjacent to a heading occurs at Achilles#Fatalwound.

If you have Firefox 3 handy, or other browsers not mentioned below, you might like to look at one problem where the within heading fails because the browser scrolls the page to show the first line after the heading at the top of the page (the section heading is not visible).

I created a small test which includes this wikitext at different locations:

== {{anchor|before}} Wikiquette alerts ==
== Canvassing {{anchor|after}} ==
== {{anchor|before2}} meatpuppet accusation {{anchor|after2}} ==

Links to these are:

• User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 6#before
• User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 6#after
• User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 6#before2
• User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 6#after2

The above examples:

• Work in IE6 and IE8.
• Work in Firefox 6 and 7.
• Fail in Firefox 3.6 (heading line is not visible).
• Work in Firefox 3 after selecting: View, Page Style, No Style.

I don't know whether this proposal would get community support—it's one of those minor irritations that would never be noticed by most editors (although some articles have ugly history pages because a long anchor within the heading becomes part of the edit summary). I think a first step would be to estimate how achievable a parser function would be, given the complexity of the requirement to go back in the wikitext and alter the generated html by inserting the span tags around the last adjacent heading.

An alternative to a parser function would be to continue using the anchor template within the heading line and ignore the fact that it gives a poor result on some browsers (or consider whether some style tweak might workaround the issue). In that case, the requested MediaWiki enhancement would be to suppress display of the template in the edit summary (for an example of that issue, search here for "anchor").

I will be away for the next 24 hours or so, but would like to hear your reaction then. The anchor issue is rather minor, but worth solving, although I'm not sure of the best approach. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to play with that a bit. Thanks for suggestion Petrb (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Was wondering why your Bot archived all the posts except the oldest one (from 2009) in this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharedIPArchiveBot/Config Petrb (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In this edit your bot archived all the posts from July 2008 through February 2011 but left the {{Old IP warnings top| Warnings and IP-Blocks date from July 2008 through January 2010.}} and {{Old IP warnings bottom}} intact. But they're empty now, so there's nothing to hide-show... Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's solved, thanks for your report Petrb (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you, but your bot were reviewing my article about PROMT. It wrote me to provide more inline citations. Since that time I`ve provided citations to all claims, but once and once again he writes me the same. Would you be so kind as to review my article, and tell me if there is anything that doesn`t match the rules of Wikipedia. I compared it with other articles about companies and think it is of the same quality. Please help. Yours, November86 November86 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please link me to article you talk about, thanks Petrb (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it`s hereNovember86 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Although the discussion has been archived, I've taken the liberty of commenting on it. . As a proponent I would welcome some action - it has not been open for 30 days yet, and although it has a strong consensus, it has not been reviewed and officially closed. If however the tool requires installation by an authorised tech through Bugzilla rather than the simple installation of a js script, there is no guarantee that the WMF will adopt it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I was firmly against WikiLove, and nothing has done more to turn Wikipedia into a game for children and a social media site. I wish it had an opt-out, while I appreciate the good will of the senders, those banners on my talk page make it look as if I am an adolescent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not the author of wikilove so I can hardly comment on that, I unarchived the discussion and will wait for its closure before taking some more actions related to deployment, wmf devs were already told about this extension and made some reviews, however its deployment will probably take some time (maybe months), also it's now about to get reviewed more deeply (that is what needs to happen at first place), but it's not really easy to request review for something about what we are not sure if community want it or not Petrb (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you move the comment from archive to current discussion? Thanks! Petrb (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done.You may also wish to add the discussion to RfC/Cent. I know you are not the author of Wikilove, that's why I mentioned it. I think there will be a lot of support for your status idea. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Účet je volný. --Tchoř (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm mentioning that the proposal was closed as successful in the upcoming issue of the Signpost discussion report, and was looking to get something along the lines of "Petrb, the developer of the display, expects it to be operational by MM DD." Could you give me said date? Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Wha? 10:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No I can't it's currently in review queue, after it's reviewed it will be in deployment queue and then it will be deployed. It can take even several months, depends on load of other devs who are doing review. I am sorry I can't tell you exact date now. Petrb (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan (2nd nomination), please do not move a page whilst there is an ongoing deletion discussion - and especially not saying "per request on irc". It's important to follow due process; even if the author changes their mind and decides they no longer want the article, it's worth letting the discussions continue. However, in this specific case, there's no real harm done; nor is there a point to bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. So, I've closed the AfD. Just, in future, please let such discussions take their course. I know you meant well; I appreciate that you were trying to help the user. So please don't think I'm shouting at you; I'm not. Just advice: next time, don't move pages during discussion. Please take this message as a very very small trout. But, keep up the good work helping people. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

At User talk:115.186.48.53 the bot archived two warnings on 11/6/11 that are still relevant if the IP continues to be used only for spam links. Archiving this aggressively makes it difficult to identify persistent problem accounts. Jojalozzo 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is to archive warnings older than 14 days. Petrb (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you point to the consensus? I can't find it. I would have said archiving away anything less than 6 months would be problematic in terms of hiding patterns of repeating misuse. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_80#Proposal:_Shared_IP_talk_page_archiving thank you for message Petrb (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The description page at User:SharedIPArchiveBot says it will archive the pages every 14 days unless there is a current block or a block that had expired within 14 days. There is nothing at all about it not archiving warnings given less than 14 days ago - and these must be retained, so please can this be clarified. Halsteadk (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, didn't notice that sorry Petrb (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As warning messages are now being erased after just a few days, when experience shows that abuse typically arises at less frequent intervals, what incentive is there for any of us to add a warning to an IP address talk page? GrahamSmith (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is performed only on shared ip's where it's very possible that user who is visiting the site is someone else than a person you sent a warning to, most of the tools are ignoring warning older than 3 days. Petrb (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of time-intervals, there is one apparent sockpuppetteer who is also using various IPs in the 209.221.34.xx/xxx, 209.221.35.xx/xxx and 208.101.233.xx/xxx ranges. This apparent sockmaster hops between the IPs, allowing one to die out for an interval of time and then starting it back up again later (in one recent case a little over two weeks), see User talk:208.101.233.36 and User talk:208.101.233.36/Archive 1. I am not sure that anything about the Shared IP Bot can be tweaked about this issue, but wanted to mention it here as an observation. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be tweaked a lot, see configuration page, it's even possible to make it ignore this page, since the bot skip pages excluded from bot edits Petrb (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Petrb/mabdul draft has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/mabdul draft, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job!! Petrb (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In follow-up to an IRC chat..

You stated that it might be 'resource intensive' but what would need to be done to generate a list of redirects in Template namespace?

The reasoning for this is : i) Begin a process to carefully prune obselete/deprecated usages. ii) Check that for retained templates, the redirect is not breaking stuff. iii) Allow for template migration to current usages where appropriate.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Petr, thank you for the welcome message. I appreciate the tips as well as the offer of assistance and will definitely let you know if I have any questions going forward. --Decimaestro (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Petrb (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've changed your info box because you are sysop in mediawiki.org. The edit is here i've made. If you do not want the change I made, feel free to undo it. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 23:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S: You can also reach me at Wikimedia incubator if you like. Kindly regards --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 23:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your changes to my userpage, but I don't think it's necessary to have any similar information there, anyway feel free to make any other changes to my userpage or user space pages! Petrb (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Please see latest edits at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/recent. Do an exception list for the pages containing the wikiproject banner for the next runs please... mabdul 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found indeed more project - tagged pages. Why did you bot tag: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sabrina_Butler&diff=next&oldid=466248767 that redirect? mabdul 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh... and exclude such pages: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ruth_Horam_-_Israeli_Painter - there is a WP page with a template! totally legit. mabdul 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

mmmh, there is even a tracking template for such talkpages, see for example Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Portal_ABBA, maybe simply tag these pages? (new BFRA?) mabdul 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of these IPs are suspected socks of a user called 1962monroe/Mmonroe1962 as seen at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 1962monroe and at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmonroe1962. When the Bot comes across a 'suspected sockpuppet' tag, I think it would make sense for it to at least leave the sockpuppet tag intact or to perhaps even leave some/all of the previous warnings/tags intact. If that is not possible on a systemic basis for this Bot trial, please consider restoring the previous warnings/tags to these two talkpages. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the purpose of the suspected sock template is to help Wikipedians catch sockpuppets, doing an A/B test with and without it means that for the first time, we'll actually have data about whether this template actually succeeds in doing that. Aren't you curious to see if it does? :) At any rate, it looks like the user still remains in that category even after the talk page is archived, so I don't see this having a huge impact on our ability to monitor suspected socks. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Having the suspected sockpuppet templates visible make my job easier, having them removed from immediate view and placed into archives makes my job harder. If I am checking, as a journeyman editor, to see if there are any suspected connections between IPs, it saves time and is helpful to actually have the suspected-sock templates on the page even though, yes, the IPs remain in the Categories:). I was unaware that templates were also going to be archived (along with notices/warnings/posts), but will keep that in mind for the duration of the Test. Shearonink (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dunno why some people are stupid or where they found some tasks, but can your bot also check if a {{userspacedraft}} template is not subst'ed? (e.g. subst in the first revision and "cleaned up" by your bot here). Crazy people. mabdul 00:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I found out the bug why we got so many userspacedraft template substitutions. :-( (see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Did_something_happen_when_I_was_not_looking). mabdul 15:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

link me to diff, I am lazy :) Petrb (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL: diff by Chzz. (See also the edit filter) mabdul 17:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right what should I do then? Petrb (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Either do nothing and ignore it or add to your tasks: removing a subst'ed userspacedraft. Maybe also add to your tasks (if not already done) that a {{AFC submission/pending}} should be substituted (with the correct user). mabdul 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

I think there are two things that would benefit Wikipedia but only the developers can do them:

• If one enters a text containing # in Special:WhatLinksHere, then the system should list only pages that link to the specified section (or even better if it works for any HTML anchor - the difference cannot be seen in the source code containing the link).
• If someone has recently opened a page for editing and has not submited or cancelled yet, then another user editing the same page should be warned that there is a high risk of edit conflict. (It would be even better if the server could tell with certainity, whether the first user is still editing, but I don't know if that is possible.)

What do you think about these ideas? Should I post this on some kind of developer forum?

-- Pavel Jelínek (talk) (my main account is on cs wiki) 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid it would be too complicated according to that how table of links is built. It would need a scheme updates which could cause a lot of performance troubles Petrb (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re #2 - this is possible and probably good point. I will try to ask others about it Petrb (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Díky, Petře,

As for #1, I know nothing about Wikipedia's table of links, but as I programmer, I would judge that when somebody types A#B to "What links here", then the system can use its usual algorithm to find all pages linking to A and then analyze their source code. This would put much load onto the server if 50% (maybe even if 2%) queries on "What links here" asked for a specific section/anchor, but I think that the percentage will actually be extremely low - even after people will know about this new feature.

However, I know too little about the "bowels" of Wikipedia, so I may be completely wrong. May I ask what is the problem with my proposal? If the problem is to implement the algorithm (which analyzes whether a source code links to A#B), then I think that a heuristics (that checks the code for occurrence of "#B" sequence of characters) would do well in (say) 98% (at least among those pages that do not use the templates to create the link to A#B) cases, so even this would be very useful (although using such heuristics might make Wikipedia look unprofessional, which is a problem which I respect). --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem is exactly with the load, it's not so easy to analyse every page for occurrence of header... I will try to ask Oren Bochman who is expert on search algoritms but I don't think it's possible Petrb (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible but we would need to index all headers of all pages, which is also a bit expensive task, it probably depends a lot on a number of people who would be supporting this idea, you said that you doubt many people would use it. That doesn't really sound convincing for developers as a reason to implement anything :) Petrb (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sections - they are not real object as far as MediaWiki is concerned only a convenience for editing - hence "what links here" refers to the page not the section. Another issue is that the tool would have to follow your eyes to know what section you are at - the alternative to use the anchor in the URI would be less than useful. I am seriously considering how to incorporate sections and other markup currently unused by search.

I'm also planning to add analytics capability into SearchNG. Once available they would be consumable via SOLR queries and could be exposed using special pages or extensions.

Some wiki's will on an edit start event - will start a timer and inform all editors that the page is being edited for a duration once an edit is started. It would be cooler if the browser's editor will communicate with MediaWiki to update such a timer and auto-save the user's edit as a draft periodically. I know that the editor is getting a rewrite together with the parser. OrenBochman (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! When do you think that Huggle for Mac will be released? Cheers! --02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, When we get a dev who is able to work on mac, we would likely release one. Petrb (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ArticlesForCreationBot_5.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 14:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So it's called a message now? :-) Petrb (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

lol, answer in irc, and you won't get such talkbacks ^^ mabdul 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in work now, no idea what is happening on irc Petrb (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I proposed a userpage message. Only for interest: shouldn't User:Petan-Bot/message/move-afc moved to the AFC bot userspace? ;) mabdul 13:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticles_for_creation %2FIntegrative_Rehabilitation&action=historysubmit&diff=475859517&oldid=475858944 Check the diff] and add this template also to the bad list ;) - can you create such a list similar to the SharedIPArchivalBot? mabdul 01:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How does User:ArticlesForCreationBot decide which articles should automatically be moved to Articles for Creation? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rather easy: all which have the submission template of the AFC project on (so if "you" submitted your draft over the {{userspacedraft}} template). mabdul 12:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering because an editor created a spam article in their User space and it got moved over into the AfC space even though I had put a db-spam templated on it. Thanks for the explanation. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that anything with a {{userspace draft}} template gets automatically moved to AfC? Is that new? I have typically told newbies to take their time over developing an article by going via Help:Userspace draft, which sets them up with a draft page with a "userspace draft" at the top (which usefully prevents the page being indexed by Google, and also provides a helpful link to WP:So you made a userspace draft). That template also has a "Submit" button, and I think the right time to move a draft to AfC is when the author clicks that button. If they are sent to AfC at once, there will be a lot of empty or half-finished articles.

I came here because I just userfied an unsuitable essay, nominated it at MfD, and also put "userspace draft" to prevent it being indexed - next thing I knew AfCbot had put it in the AfC queue.

Please go back to waiting for the "Submit" button. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

^^What he said. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me: The bot only moves pages which contain {{AFC submission... on it's page. Many userspace drafts have {{userspacedraft}} on their top and only if a user hits "submit!“ on that template (and thus adding the named template at the bottom) the bot moves the pages and removes the userspacedraft from the draft. The Move!-link was replaced in October 2011 with the "new" submit link. After that the NPP backlog went down from ~31 days to 17 days. (and went again up because of the Indian Education drama). Regards, mabdul 19:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That's what I thought, and hoped, happened - sorry to panic unnecessarily. I had looked at the essay author's contributions and seen that he had not pressed "Submit", but now I look again at the page history I see that an IP did, no doubt the author logged out. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SharedIPArchiveBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hi Petrb,

I have found this problem several places now.  I'm not exactly sure why it is happening other than editor error.  The end result is the article gets submitted with the wrong user name.  Here is an example: .  It appears to happen when another editor comes in and touches up another editor's article before submission and if there are multiple templates existing.

Thanks,  :- ) DCS 18:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional info:  In two of the articles I found an open<ref>.  That fixed one problem child for me.  Maybe the submit template is the problem?  :- ) DCS 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For the "problem #1": i see no reason why this shouldn't be ok. Come'on it's a wiki! (and sometimes the usernames get renamed!)

related to #2: I recognizing that users removing only the end of HTML comments and / or using the ref-tags wrong - we can't fix that! mabdul 08:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and by the way: we can't do anything with such an edit -.- mabdul 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot fixed the name in diff, as you can see bot removed old templates and moved the correct one, why does it look as a bug? Thank you Petrb (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As to problem #1, I understand better what probably happened now, and perhaps it was the editor who should have reverted the user name.  I mentioned it because the editor has been receiving decline notices and not knowing why. I already left a note on his talk page.

I realize there is a practical limit to what errors a script can handle.  I just wanted to make sure that you knew the problem was happening. Thanks.  :- ) DCS 18:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Petr, can you be sure to switch off the archiving bot for now, since the two-month test is over? We'll work on getting results soon to see if anything cool happened :) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bot is separating AfC Reviews from their particular Comments. For an example, see this edit to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Spirtual Cure Team Lahore. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, not sure this has anything to do with the Bot, but when I Reviewed this AfC, my latest Comments were also separated from its connected Review. Shearonink (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what bot is supposed to do now, it move the latest afc template to top of page and comments behind it, what is wrong on that? Should it be left somewhere else? Thanks Petrb (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be harder for reviewers, but significantly better for authors of article who easily read all comments on top of page and not over the whole page, it's part of clean up Petrb (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this separation is making it harder for authors...the Bot is separating comments from their connected Reviews. If the authors are changing the draft according to what the latest Review/Comments are, shouldn't the Reviews/Comments be in complete order of posting with the most recent on top? For instance, this edit seems to have separated the reviews/comments and has placed ChzzBot's comments from February 20th directly underneath the most recent Review Request.... I had always thought that the Reviews/Comments stayed together. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really see any connection other than that it's bellow the old template, I think we should rather mark all addressed issues as resolved so that authors easily see what all problems remains in the article, keeping them bellow previous templates is still not clear to new users. Perhaps it would be best if resolved problems were somehow marked as "fixed" or something like that, so that author of article knows what needs to be fixed and what is already fixed. Petrb (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

AFC Bot appears to have stopped working... any ideas? Pol430 talk to me 21:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably bug, it's online Petrb (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Im currently doing a cleanup of the Huggle pages e.t.c and moving some stuff around. Are the pages listed below needed?

• WP:Huggle2
• WP:Huggle2/Config
• WP:Huggle2/Main

Cheers ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, delete it, or redirect to WP:Huggle Petrb (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks, appreciate it :) --RubenSchade (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petr, there are some lists of Buddhist technical terms that I would like to include in different articles, and I am trying to figure out the best way to do this.

I have set up some sample pages here:

• User:Dorje/Virtuous mental factors (Theravada Buddhism)
• User:Dorje/Virtuous mental factors (Mahayana Buddhism)
• User:Dorje/Virtuous mental factors (Buddhism)

In the above examples, the lists from the first two articles are included in the third article. Is this an acceptable approach to this problem? Are there guidelines for this sort of thing?

For reference, the main article for these terms is Mental factors (Buddhism). But these terms should also be included in other articles in different configuration.

Thanks for your help. - Dorje108 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I don't understand what you exactly want to do, if it's just inserting same content to multiple pages, see templates guide, also asking on Village pump would be likely better, since I don't watch my talk page so often Petrb (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Petrb, it appears ArticlesForCreationBot is down again. It looks like it stopped editing about 48 hours ago. If you have the time, could you please look into it. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the bot back online. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have for a long time thought that archiving of old shared or dynamic IP talk page messages should happen more often, and so I was interested to see that you now have the SharedIPArchiveBot to do just that. However, I see that the bot is also automatically replacing shared IP notices with a relatively new one which invites the user to create an account, and I am not so happy about that. While doing this is no doubt often a good move, I am by no means convinced that it is a good idea to have a bot doing it automatically. I have several times seen this done for IP addresses that have been heavily used by users who have had accounts blocked, and in some cases even banned users, and inviting such users to create accounts is not helpful. It seems that the bot is supposed to act only for shared or dynamic IP addresses, but in some cases dynamic IP addresses remain allocated to one user for quite a long time, and the trouble with having a bot do it is that it effectively prevents any user from making an intelligent decision that in a particular case the replacement is unsuitable. I would really prefer this not to be done by a bot, but perhaps an acceptable compromise would be for it to be done only for IPs that have not edited for a significant period, say at least a couple of months. (I also hope that the bot does not do this for currently blocked IPs, but I have not checked whether that is happening.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi James – glad to hear you're into the idea of archiving! This bot is actually part of a test to see whether archiving helps get more good IP editors to register and keeps bad IP editors from editing. Changing the header templates was a separate experiment but part of the same test. I definitely hear what you're saying on this, and it's something we'll look for when we get the data. For now, the bot isn't doing any more archiving or template switching (and it only affected some shared IP talk pages, not all), and if we find that there was no benefit from the change, we'll revert it and try something else. You should keep an eye on our testing project – we're always looking for more ideas about things to test! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been asked this previously. Would you be interested in adminship? The project would be advantaged giving you the bits. Kind regards.

Hi, it's cool to know that my little contribution to wikipedia is appreciated and someone trust me enough to make me a sysop. However I am afraid that I would be exactly that sysop we don't need on wikipedia, and that's a sysop who is not really helpful. I am a developer and most of time I work on wikimedia related engineering projects. Since this is quite time expensive I found myself more and more inactive on wikipedia and as you can see from my contributions I barely do any useful edits other than technical maintenance. Thank you anyway :-) (btw I think there are other wikipedians who might benefit from having the bit) Petrb (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No problems. Best. Wifione ^Message 05:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SharedIPArchiveBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hi, I am Rainer, an administrator on Wikimedia Commons.

Since a while we have a contributor on Commons who does some really strange things besides many good things. I don't know if you had interaction with this user in the past.

User:Katarighe

E.g. he/she messed up archives and the like. On his user page there is the claim of a native de-speaker but reading what (s)he wrote in German, I really doubt so. Also the simple-N is really strange :-)

What I in particular would like to know is whether the statements about Huggle are true. My intention is to talk with the user and I'd like to know whether my assumptions are right before doing so. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I only know they are or were interested in participating on huggle project in past. However they aren't even listen on member list, neither I interacted with them. Petrb (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I am new to Wikpedia, and trying to become a contributer. Can you give me some tips on how to make my article on Rana's Wedding better and to fit the Wiki formats? User:Raemm —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

Hi, I will try to help you with that Petrb (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Failing any commentary from you I'll be expiring this in the next day or so. Josh Parris 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petr. Thanks for your help in looking at my article. I think you turned down my article. Was this for copyright reasons or for something else? As I put in my notes to Dori Smith, I am new to wikipedia and, though having done the tutorials, am still learning about it. However after the amendments I made, following Dori Smith not accepting my page for copyright reasons, I cant see that there are any copyright issues. The structure of the page matches all comparable organisations in the field. The content is laid out in a different manner to the organisation's website and with different wording. Some of it is the same, but this is as some of the wording in the sector is fixed (and used across all relevant wikipedia pages), such as private sector development in conflict affected environments or sustainable poverty reduction/economic development. Numerous references are made in the article. I would be very grateful for any help here. I feel a bit confused about where I have gone wrong. Thanks very much for your time.Ashleyaak (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi the article wasn't closed by me, in fact it's still in queue :), please wait for someone to check it Petrb (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Maryana (WMF)'s talk page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Pol430 talk to me 08:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Petrb. You have new messages at WT:AFC.
Message added 22:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dunno, should be possible, is it worth? maybe another idea (like infoboxes?) mabdul 22:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh would you also check for {{userspacedraft}} and other redirects and for {{user sandbox}} (we get also submissions with that template). Regards, mabdul 09:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you ask me for, maybe make a specific summary of what is needed to do Petrb (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1. let AFC bot remove also redirects of {{userspacedraft}} and {{usersandbox}}
2. can the bot guess (maybe through infoboxes or first boldings ={{{1}}}) if a submission should be moved from User:XY/sandbox to WT:AFC/{{{1}}} (the afc thread)
3. (a new idea) list afc submission got "approved" and moved to WP:{{{1}}} instead of {{{1}}}? (or maybe 'CSD the wrong redirects if the submission were correctly moved in a second step)

Regards, mabdul 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

2 - No idea what you mean, the bot is moving all submissions from userspace which contains the template, based on what it should do that?

3 - I don't understand it, list afc submission which got approved where? Why is any submission moved to Wikipedia spacename? CSD which wrong redirects? How is it possible to make a wrong redirect? Petrb (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2 - we seeing an increasing of submitted userspacedrafts which were original located at User:example/sandbox because a) they are told to submit it in the IRC help channel and b) we trying to get consensus at WT:AFC to add the 'submit'-link to the {{user sandbox}} which is always located at User:example/sandbox since the implementation of the "My sandbox" "button" at the top (if not opt-out, was implemented after a VP discussion a few weeks (maybe months) ago). These submissions can't be moved by the bot because there is already a submission at WT:AFC/sandbox and thus this have to be done by hand - which costs time, the user isn't informed and is just stupid. Is there a possibility that the bot can move at least move some of these submissions by "guessing" the article name? (maybe the first bolding, the first headline before any content, or either by the name in an infobox, of course all optional)

3 - new reviewers who doesn't use the helper tool (or aren't aware of it) accepting submissions and miss to change the project space to article space in the new Special:MovePage design and thus many "accepted" submission accidentally get moved from 'WT:AFC/submission name' to 'WP:submission name'. These submissions are "hidden" and will create more problems in future. It would be great if the bot can track these submissions by either creating a list, move them to the correct place, or place a tracking template (with cat) on them similar to the submissions which doesn't have any submission template on. (similar to BFRA #4 )

Regards, mabdul 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I will look in that but as long as this version isn't on any production wiki, there is probably no need for any action right now Petrb (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Check Special:Contributions/ArticlesForCreationBot... mabdul 09:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

4/26/2012 12:14:25 PM  SYSTEM: Started petan-bot version 1.1.0, timeout disabled
4/26/2012 12:14:25 PM  SYSTEM: Connecting to english wp...
Logged in as ArticlesForCreationBot.
Site: Wikipedia (MediaWiki 1.20wmf1)
The remote server returned an error: (500) Internal Server Error. Retrying in 60 seconds.

Trying to resolve the issue, seems like the cluster is having troubles. Petrb (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's down again. Bot stopped working last night Pol430 talk to me 21:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, gluster went offline due to outage and it caused server to be rebooted Petrb (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again. AFC bot stopped editing at 0200hrs(ish) this morning. Pol430 talk to me 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArticlesForCreationBot 3 was suspended five months back for lack of communication. As far as I know, everone at AfC belives this service to be running. When will this be turned on? Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 04:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Who is thinking that? :/ mabdul 07:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the reply wait, after the big watchlist scare I haven't been keeping up with my watchlisted pages. Anyway, it says right in the draft box "This is a draft Articles for Creation submission. It is not currently pending review. There is no deadline, you can take your time writing this draft. However, if you do not make any edits to the draft, and a week passes, the draft will be automatically declined, but it will still be here and you can update it at any time." I believe this was intended functionality in the final format of drafts, but it's you're call. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 14:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the idea last October... Since then many things have been changed, more and new reviewers, but the drafted solution is not really "finished". Feel free to learn programming if Petrb is too slow for you. ;) mabdul 13:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason for this is that it says in the Draft template that this bot service is running. Can this be removed since it won't be auto-declined? _{NathanBot is in the works...} --Nathan2055^talk 16:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't harm anybody, so let it in. We don't have to remember to get the sentence back in if NathanBot runs. mabdul 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Willdude123|Ƹ21ɘbublliW (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

AfC bot is down as of about 0500hrs this morning. Pol430 talk to me 20:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petrb,

I'm currently reviewing this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/%22The_Life_of_Nancy%22_-_Sarah_Orne_Jewett

... and I'm wondering if your bot could clear it up for me?

Thanks! Loriski (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot runs over all articles, if it didn't fix this one, there is a bug I will check it Petrb (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with huggle (and most anti-vandal tools for that matter) is the lack of detail when viewing changes. Often times it is difficult in determining context of an edit when reviewing it. It is difficult to determine if the edit is in fact vandalism if all you see is the one paragraph or sentence made because of a change. A useful way to improve huggle would be for it to render a similar page to what you view edits such as here . From this view I can almost always can gather enough intel on an edit to determine that it is in fact vandalism, much moreso than simply viewing the change made. I will think some more on how I would improve the program as I continue to revert with it.

<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, I will insert that to our list of stuff we need to do Petrb (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Petrb, can you mail be the source code for the modification of Huggle you made via Wikipedia email?, thanks,W.D. 16:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, excuse me please, but my English is not so good so I hope, You can understand what I mean. In Germany Wiki has a "BEITRAGSZÄHLER" and there is a mistake, because you can't see the %-numbers completely. My nex question: Why has the English Wikipedia no "Counter"? Thanks and greetings -- 217.227.205.169 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@217.227.205.169 schreib es in deutsch, ich übersetz es für ihn. ;-) mabdul 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Translation Notification Bot (talk • contribs)

Please, remove this image: perhaps you do not know but it's a political-religious propagandist logo. (Sorry for my English) --Micione (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I found that picture on commons, what is wrong on that we are using it? Can you give me a reference that proves what you say? And can you explain to me how does it harm anyone? Thanks Petrb (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References are here. And propagandism is denied by Wikipedia (Wikimedia Labs is same thing). --Micione (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unicorn is a very common symbol, you can't just say that we can't use it as a logo because it's used by someone else. If there is a certain symbol other than unicorn itself we should remove, I will be happy to do that. Petrb (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. That is a very specific unicorn with a very specific meaning, not is a common logo. Please. --Micione (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We changed the color. Petrb (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But is only an other version of the same image, this not change the meaning of it. Can't you change logo? --Micione (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I proposed this warning message. Sorry for not responding earlier.Sole Soul (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I created the requested page, if you need any other help, please tell me :) Petrb (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could be of help? I have, maybe an intermediate level of experience with C & C++. I have written a parser that processed C style equations in an interpreter which I also wrote essentially by myself. I have written GUI based apps. An image processing program and an editor for the Lode Runner game (Hacker's editor). I have been away from it for awhile. I do not have a current compiler, so I would need to obtain one. I have used huggle fairly heavily with an edit count over 60K; mostly huggle. I am unemployed consulting and have time on my hands... Anything I can help with? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, your help would be great. We use #huggle ^connect as a main channel where we all talk and discuss huggle related stuff. Developers are usually there, however you can contact me just using Wiki, of course. You will need only 1 thing in order to be able to work as dev. That is commit access. Once you send me your google ID I will give you the permissions in our repository. Thank you! Petrb (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

At the AfC help desk a user asked about your bot not cleaning up "Article not currently submitted for review" messages from drafts that have been submitted from review. I believe I have seen the bot doing such cleanup in the past and couldn't tell why it didn't do so here (draft not edited by bot for six days after submission) - is the current backlog simply too big for the bot to handle? Is something subtly wrong with the draft so the bot doesn't recognize it should be cleaned up? Huon (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you check the bot contributions, it's doing all it is supposed to. no idea what you mean Petrb (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 4253 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

cs:Kostel Narození Panny Marie (Záběhlice) is the subject of a QRpedia plaque, as part of a multilingual project. Please could you translate it into English? It's not very long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Petrb (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Still testing.--GoShow (............................) 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Login Successful. Thank you!--GoShow (............................) 22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed two problems with the bot. The first is that it doesn't seem to be removing duplicate tags on a regular basis. See CatScan results. The second is that I noticed some odd behavior such as here and in the subsequent edits it made to the page. Please let me know if you are able to fix it. Thanks Odie5533 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

See WT:AFC#Any way to not have the "userspace draft" template turn to that huge error message when moved to AFC?. The automatic move function is down? mabdul 00:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem I know of, the bot is moving pages from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_in_userspace There are no pages that can be moved because all pages in there are already existing in AfC space (bot can't move page over an existing page) --Petr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.23.27 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Petr, I went through a bunch of pending AfC submissions yesterday and found multiple pages in userspace that the bot could have moved but hasn't. They all had valid titles the bot could have picked up and the suggested titles were redlinks, so they did not already exist. When I moved them manually, I didn't have any problems with title-blacklist, create protection or edit filters. It would seem that, for some reason, the bot isn't picking up these pages. Many of them were several days old. Is this task programmed to AFC Bot or Petan Bot? Because I see Petan Bot is now inactive. Pol430 talk to me 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I left you a message on your meta talk page. Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)