| Revision as of 08:29, 10 October 2011 editFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,478 edits Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:30, 10 October 2011 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,478 edits TypoNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :You might also check who raised the noticeboard item - or just take my word for it that it was Fram. No ill thing befalls me on Misplaced Pages unless Fram is there, it seems. | :You might also check who raised the noticeboard item - or just take my word for it that it was Fram. No ill thing befalls me on Misplaced Pages unless Fram is there, it seems. | ||
| :Nonethless do please consider, if you wish, articles such as ] and ] which was featured on the main page. ''] ]'', <small>22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> | :Nonethless do please consider, if you wish, articles such as ] and ] which was featured on the main page. ''] ]'', <small>22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> | ||
| ::No one claimed that ''nothing'' good came out of those creations, only that many of them contained serious errors. I don't see why it is relevant that I posted that WP:AN thread, it's not as if it was dismissed by others (in fact, it ended in a one week block for you. Note that ], the one "featured" (as a DYK, not a featured article), contained, after it had gone live and after you finished polishing it over 19 edits, still things like "categories: 1783 births (−) (±) | ::No one claimed that ''nothing'' good came out of those creations, only that many of them contained serious errors. I don't see why it is relevant that I posted that WP:AN thread, it's not as if it was dismissed by others (in fact, it ended in a one week block for you. Note that ], the one "featured" (as a DYK, not a featured article), contained, after it had gone live and after you finished polishing it over 19 edits, still things like "categories: 1783 births (−) (±) 1783 deaths", with the same two dates in the infobox at the top as well... Only after an IP corrected this in one place one week later, did you correct this at the other two places (ctas and persondata) as well. At that time, the page still contained other bot generated errors like an incorrect defaultsort and bolded name, and things like "4lst foot" instead of "41st Foot". All this from one of the ''best'' examples of these creations! The bot script you use to generate these articles is fairly buggy, and your manual work on them often inadequate. The minimum requirement, if this gets approved, should be that they are created in your userspace and only moved to mainspace after the blatant errors have been removed. Letting this bot loose on the mainspace is a bad idea. ] (]) 08:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| 1783 deaths", with the same two dates in the infobox at the top as well... Only after an IP corrected this in one place one week later, did you correct this at the other two places (ctas and persondata) as well. At that time, the page still contained other bot generated errors like an incorrect defaultsort and bolded name, and things like "4lst foot" instead of "41st Foot". All this from one of the ''best'' examples of these creations! The bot script you use to generate these articles is fairly buggy, and your manual work on them often inadequate. The minimum requirement, if this gets approved, should be that they are created in your userspace and only moved to mainspace after the blatant errors have been removed. Letting this bot loose on the mainspace is a bad idea. ] (]) 08:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:30, 10 October 2011
Rich Farmbrough (creating probably more than 25 articles if the bureaucrats don't destroy him first)
Operator: Not applicable. I am not a bot.
Time filed: 21:33, Friday October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manual
Programming language(s): n/a it is manual
Source code available: n/a
Function overview: Create missing articles on notable people based on text from files in my possession derived from their public domain DNB biographies.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography#Moving ahead
Edit period(s): Occasional
Estimated number of pages affected: 3,000 - 4,000 over three - four years
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): n/a
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): n/a
Function details: new articles will be created - not the stubs on which the VP discussion that botpol is based on was predicated. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
Discussion
Note: a parallel process is linking Wikisource DNB articles to existing WP articles, approximately 2000 have been linked in the past month. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
- Will the articles be created in a workspace first and then manually moved into mainspace after they are reviewed and fixed up? Or will the bot create the articles directly in mainspace? The WikiProject DNB discussion seems to encourage the former. —SW— 23:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter, they are not hanging around in an unfixed up form for days. I just paste a one or a few up and fix them up. I used to create them in my user space, but it essentially creates work of moving the article, and there is also a risk that someone else creates the same article when I have spent hours working on it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
- It really doesn't matter, they are not hanging around in an unfixed up form for days. I just paste a one or a few up and fix them up. I used to create them in my user space, but it essentially creates work of moving the article, and there is also a risk that someone else creates the same article when I have spent hours working on it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
Note: This bot has edited its own BRFA page. Bot policy states that the bot account is only for edits on approved tasks or trials approved by BAG; the operator must log into their normal account to make any non-bot edits. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dumb bots. For good reason this page was not under my name - since the process requires an entry of the bot name, and does not deal with the case where BAG has taken powers over the human contingent of editors. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
- Dumb bots. For good reason this page was not under my name - since the process requires an entry of the bot name, and does not deal with the case where BAG has taken powers over the human contingent of editors. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC).
For anyone considering this, please check Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction. Obviously, if he gets approval, he wouldn't be violating his editing restriction, so that's not the problem. The problem is that his previous attempt at creating such pages ended with very poor results, as detailed at that section. They were also script-created and then "fixed", but the result was not something that should be recommended to be repeated over thousands (or even dozens) of pages. Fram (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- You might also check who raised the noticeboard item - or just take my word for it that it was Fram. No ill thing befalls me on Misplaced Pages unless Fram is there, it seems.
- Nonethless do please consider, if you wish, articles such as John Shipp (soldier) and Henry Walton Ellis which was featured on the main page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
- No one claimed that nothing good came out of those creations, only that many of them contained serious errors. I don't see why it is relevant that I posted that WP:AN thread, it's not as if it was dismissed by others (in fact, it ended in a one week block for you. Note that Henry Walton Ellis, the one "featured" (as a DYK, not a featured article), contained, after it had gone live and after you finished polishing it over 19 edits, still things like "categories: 1783 births (−) (±) 1783 deaths", with the same two dates in the infobox at the top as well... Only after an IP corrected this in one place one week later, did you correct this at the other two places (ctas and persondata) as well. At that time, the page still contained other bot generated errors like an incorrect defaultsort and bolded name, and things like "4lst foot" instead of "41st Foot". All this from one of the best examples of these creations! The bot script you use to generate these articles is fairly buggy, and your manual work on them often inadequate. The minimum requirement, if this gets approved, should be that they are created in your userspace and only moved to mainspace after the blatant errors have been removed. Letting this bot loose on the mainspace is a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)