User talk:Tedder: Difference between revisions

New Article Bot archive pages

what's going on?

[1] ? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! TedderBot is filling in for the missing-in-action User:AlexNewArtBot. Hopefully we can get the article feeds updated on a regular basis now. tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tedderbot action on WP:HWY

Just curious about this edit by the bot. Did someone manage to request that the bot output onto the project page not realizing it would completely overwrite it? At least no real harm was done. –Fredddie™ 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha- yep, that is what happened. Just a sec, I'll analyze, fix , and get back to you in more detail. tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop!

you're overwriting pages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which pages? The bot is intended to overwrite the search results pages, and there is a highways problem. Any others that are problematic? tedder (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate talk:Did you knowWikipedia:WikiProject Estonia... countless more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going through the list. The master list was misconfigured: User:AlexNewArtBot/Master. I'm rolling back the projects that were affected, and the bot is only making one pass through there. tedder (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright... I thought we had a vandal-bot going berserk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

TedderBot is going crazy! Stop it! Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is stopped. tedder (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

good :) Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{:::Sign mine} 04:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it stopped? I do not see any changes to its status page. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 04:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's manually stopped. I can override it locally as well as by the wiki. tedder (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Given this bot effectively nuked the entire Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Noticeboard page from orbit (see [2] for an example) I suggest keeping it off until the code has been put through a few more paces.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but it was intentional that it blew away COIN. Yeah, oops. If it was an unknown cause, I'd be more leery. tedder (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh why on Earth would you want a bot to blow COIN to the four winds? That makes no sense to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That is sort of my point. Again, it was from a misinterpretation of the righthand of each line at User:AlexNewArtBot/Master. Removing any processing of the righthand means it won't happen again. tedder (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article Bot archive pages

I noticed in this edit to the WP:NRHP search results that you overwrote the previous results (visible here). Previously, old items were moved to archives (see this one for WP:NRHP) before new ones were copied in. I liked this option because sometimes there are long stretches when I or other members of the project do not get around to looking over the bot output before the bot has been run several times. Having the archive allows us never to miss anything. Is there anyway that on the next bot run, it would be possible to utilize these archives? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not currently archiving, but I'm going to 'band' the results. So if I run daily, it'll include not only the past 24 hours, but the week before that. It gives time for the entries to fall off. I might archive, I'll keep it in mind- my solution is probably a little different than the original solution was. tedder (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The way the bot is editing the search pages is causing me slight difficulties. I use the search page to annotate that articles on it have been assessed by the project but the bot overwrites my annotations each time (see this [[3]]). Is there a way it can be modified to leave exsiting entries and add new entires rather than its current behaviour. I don't mean to sound ungrateful as after a long absence just to have the regular flow is great but to keep re-adding annotations is a bit furstrating. NtheP (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand. You are the second person to want an "interactive" format like this. (see "Manual removal of articles") below. I might be able to accommodate it- the problem is that entries come and go and scores change. But I will look at editing it and leaving information afterwards. Can you give me a link to a diff where you edit the entries? Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause

Hey all, here's what happened. For my first run, I was taking the master page and using results on the right as a target to place the results. That's clearly not how the list was used (in some cases it was totally wrong, in many cases it tried to show who "owns" a list).

I reverted every case that wasn't in the User:AlexNewArtBot space, and I'll recode the bot not to write outside of that space going forward. It actually means I can remove a few lines of code. The bot takes a good 14 hours to run, so if there were any more problems with this 'pass', let me know. tedder (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the removal of the "target" code. tedder (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New Article Bot thanks

A quick thank you for getting a new article bot running! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. after a few speed bumps (like blowing away WikiProject pages and a noticeboard), it's nice to know it's still appreciated tedder (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, looking forward to the new article reports coming back. Few hickups are always to be expected :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. This is an invaluable service. The graph in the editnotice is cute!-gadfium 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And big thanks from me too. One suggestion though is to flip the list so that the newest is at the top - that way when you review the list each day you just start at the top and work down, rather than having to jump to the end. OUTSTANDING WORK! The-Pope (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I haven't even looked at the list yet. I'll definitely flip it. For the stalkers, add User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch to your watchlist, that's where I'll put features and status. tedder (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for reviving the newartbot. I've always felt that it was one of the most important bots operating on WP. After months of neglect and absentee status I'm glad someone decided enough was enough. Brad (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rules question

I also join the throng in thanking you. WPConservatism just received our first results page! Question: I'm using \W but the bot still seems to be counting partial word matches. For example, "republican party" is a rule, but it seems to be counting "republican". The rules are here. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into it and let you know. tedder (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here are your results: User:AlexNewArtBot/ConservatismSearchResult. Is it matching articles it shouldn't, or not matching articles it should? Give me an example (or three) to look into. tedder (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the rules are the most undocumented thing. I'd like to remove pages with the {{surname}} template tag but when using /{{surname/ it gives an error. /surname/ works but then also picks up false positives of pages with the word 'surname' on them. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing you need this: /\{\{surname/. That's because {} in PCRE engines means something specific. (it means counting). However, I think that's why Alex added $$surname$$, which should do the same thing. (not that it does- it was poorly documented and lacking a test case). tedder (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a go. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. The bot listed Neil McAuley (using these rules [4]). The project is interested in capturing "right wing", the ideology, but not "right wing back", the position. Note we also don't want "right wing forward". Thanks! Lionel (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As you might have seen, this is fixed. The rule inhibitors were broken if there was more than one. I debugged it with Conservatism and it is fixed now. Here is the fixed code, with some other code thrown in for good measure. Thanks for your persistence. tedder (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect question

I mainly just wanted to join the crowd and to thank you for taking over while Alex seems to be missing, but I also have a question to ask. Now, I asked Alex this a while ago, but forgot to check whether he had time to implement it or not, but it doesn't look that your bot is doing it. In short, when a redirect is converted into an article, that triggers an edit filter rule, and a "Redirect becoming article" tag is added to the edit summary (I can dig up an example, if you need one). Would you be able to add these to the list of actual new articles? Redirects are seldom watched, and picking up such changes would prevent redirect vandalism (and catch the new articles which aren't technically new, of course).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2011; 13:26 (UTC)

Glad you are enjoying it! I'm still working on refining it . Redirects, especially using the edit filter, sound like something I should look for. I added it to the todo list. tedder (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm hoping you can give an example. I see a rule (342) that has been deleted, so I'm wondering if this is still active. It's certainly outside the scope of this bot to scan all pages to find removed redirects, but if there's an active filter I might be able to hook onto it. tedder (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the examples I have are quite old and yes, it's the rule 342. If it's been deleted, I guess there's not much that can be done there. Oh well. If I have any other bright ideas, I'll make sure to share them with you :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2011; 14:07 (UTC)

log page

As an example: User:AlexNewArtBot/ShipsLog would show every article the bot looked at for a possible match and the relevant scores each article received. The logs were good for spotting articles that were rejected or accepted and from there changes to the rules could be made to zero in closer to the scope of the project. Have the logs been discontinued or moved elsewhere? Brad (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know those logs existed. I'll add that to the todo list. They'll likely be in a different location and (obviously) won't be archived, but it's good for pinpointing. tedder (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

done! They are here: User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/Ships/errors, so make sure to watchlist it. Well, there aren't any *there* yet, but next time the bot runs, it'll populate. You can see this page for actual data: User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/Oregon/errors tedder (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work with this for a few days and see if any improvements can be made. Brad (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In what manner is the log page reporting results? I can't figure out if it's alphabetical, chronological etc. Would be nice to see a point total of each entry too. Thanks. Brad (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

They are somewhat random because that was easiest. I can add a point total. tedder (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well ok. Chronological would be nice but it's not a serious problem. Points total is good. Brad (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Manual removal of articles

After your bot runs, I usually go through and find all the irrelevant articles (i.e. false positives) and manually remove them from User:AlexNewArtBot/NRHPSearchResult. After I do this, though, your next bot run simply re-adds them to the list, and I have to do it all over again every time. When the former bot owner ran the bot a long time ago, it never re-added the ones I had removed. About a month before he disappeared, the removed articles started being added back, but I was fine with that since they were all at the top of the article in one spot and not distributed throughout it like your edits do; I could just remove them all at once.

Would it be possible to at least get all of the removed articles to be output to the top of the page or ideally just not spit them out again? It appeared to me that the former owner would run the bot to a certain timestamp in the new pages log and then never run it there again. When the bot was run again, he simply picked up at the next new page after the last timestamp in the previous run and went from there. Doing this insured that manually removed articles would not be re-added. He didn't replace the results page like you do but rather added to it. Would that be possible or just wishful thinking?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dudemanfellabra- it's probably wishful thinking, unfortunately. I've chosen a design where I intentionally cover the same ground for a while. So instead of adding pages since the previous run (let's say 24 hours worth of new pages), I rerun the search against the previous week AND the new 24 hour period. This is advantageous for a few reasons- it means there will always be 7+ days of data on the search result page, and (perhaps more importantly) instead of simply seeing what the article looked like immediately upon creation, improved articles can surface in later searches.

Since it's a core design decision, the best way to handle it is by updating the search rules to more accurately define the search you are trying to achieve. tedder (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. Sounds good to me. There are usually just about 4-5% false positives anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Thanks for the explanation, and most of all for picking this bot back up!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments idea

It would be useful to be able to add some comment to both the rules(so other understand at a later date) and on the results, to give others an idea of what the results are suppose to represent. You might think it's obvious but with User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNT/User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNTSearchResult others don't have much of a clue what I'm doing there. I could document on the talk page, but would prefer to be able to comment on the rules/result pages directly. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to tasklist. tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Errors makes no sense

I'm not understanding the error messages. In User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/URTBLP/errors is listed the error message "no match: -100 (/\{\{Infobox single/)", yet a check through the articles reveals London (Pet Shop Boys song) which contains {{Infobox single}} that matches the rule. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "no match" indicate searches that are substantially broken. Nearly all rules for this search are broken. Here's the specific rule:

-100 (/\{\{Infobox single/)

And here is a version that should compile correctly:

-100 /\{\{Infobox\ssingle/

I'm still mulling over your documentation issue (above). It's a little hard because I'm built on top of User:AlexNewArtBot's pages, so I don't want to make a change that breaks his bot. tedder (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply. So a space has to be replaced with "\s", I would of not worked that out any time soon. I'm assuming the outer brackets are okay. So the following line " -100 (/\{\{Infobox\ssingle/)" would be okay. Is the pipe working for an or condition? i.e "-100 (condition1|condition2)" as I don't see any examples of that without an error. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The space doesn't need to be replaced, that was just habit on my part. And the parenthesis are okay but the real trick is that a search needs to start and end with a slash. And yes, the pipe should work. Here's your next one:

-100 /(condition1|condition2)/

tedder (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so four conditions would be in this syntax. Thank you!

-100 /(condition1|condition2|condition3|condition4)/

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you got it. But make my OCPD happy and put a space between the points and the search. tedder (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Even after my and your amendment of the rules all the same errors still occur. Very frustrating :( Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 08:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Let it run again- I think the bot picked up a cached copy of the rules page. tedder (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you make it run again. I'm testing the rules and once it's run I will have to tweak a few more times. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It takes ~20 hours to run, I'll kick off another pass soon. First I want to make it so it uses fresh copies of the rules pages though. tedder (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's running now, and the rules are explicitly uncached, so it'll pick up your most recent changes. tedder (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Still not using the rules at the time of the run. For example User:AlexNewArtBot/URBLPNT has the rule:

 50 /(\Wborn\W|\Wb. 19\W|\Wb. 20\W|\Wmarried\W|\Wdivorced\W)/

and the log (User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/URBLPNT/errors) list:

100, pattern: (\Wborn\W|\Wb. 19\W|\Wb. 20\W|\Wmarried\W|\Wdivorced\W), inhibitor count: 0

could list other examples, basically the scoring has been altered but that it's not being used. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I lied, the rules are imported when the process begins, which might be 12-18 hours before the specific ruleset is actually executed. In addition to putting a revid about when a given article is seen, I'll log the revid of the rules too. And I might make the rules load later in the process. tedder (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of line in rules

It there a limit to the length of a line in the rules. Can a line exceed 256 characters? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. No limit, as far as I know. I do think the "ignore" rules aren't being used, but independent of that, no actual limit. Just don't add linewraps for readability- let it horizontally scroll. tedder (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Will be testing this on the next run. Longest rule line is 1368 characters long. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Annotations

I see in your tasklist that you are planning to implement "Leave annotations alone on search result page (for User:Nthep, [5])". Can this also be made to skip annotations that are at the beginning of the line? For example, in this diff, I tagged all the unrelated items with the {{Unrelated}} template, similar to how Nthep tagged items with the {{Done}} tag. I think this is a good way to solve the repeated removal problem I mentioned above.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see how hard it is. If I can do it somewhat easily, I'll allow annotations at the beginning and end. tedder (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article version

Which version of the article is compares to the rules? Is it the first version, the version at the time of the run or something else? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Slightly complicated. It's a cached version of at runtime. Articles are cached up to 36 hours, so the version it sees is somewhere between 0-36 hours old. Hmm, maybe I should put a revid in with it. tedder (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

\W

10 /\Wborn\W/
10 /born/

What's the difference between the above two lines? The first requires a space before and after perhaps? Do both handle upper and lower case? what about reborn? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A \W is a "nonword character", like } or 0 or a space. It would be better to use a word boundary, which would be \b. So if I just wanted the word "born" and no words containing born, I'd do this:

10 /\bborn\b/

Really, word/nonword is an odd form to use, because it won't handle the beginning of a line (for instance). And matches with this tool are case insensitive. So BORN, Born, born will all match. tedder (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So if I'm looking for articles about certain types of people which of these would be best?

 10 /(\Wmusician\W|\Wplayer\W|\Wfootballer\W|\Wactress\W|\Wactor\W|\Wcontestant\W|\Wpolitician\W|\Wologist\W)/
 10 /(\bmusician\b|\bplayer\b|\bfootballer\b|\bactress\b|\bactor\b|\bcontestant\b|\bpolitician\b|\bologist\b)/
 10 /(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician|ologist)/

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would go with door number two, though "ologist" won't match because it's an incomplete word. Some optimization, it becomes two tests:

 10 /\b(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician)\b/
 10 /ologist\b/

tedder (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What effect will the last option have with /(musician|player|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician|ologist)/ - won't that do the same? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It would allow longer words in that match those things. For example, "players". It depends on your use case. Those are long enough words you probably don't have to worry about it or even care. But if you wanted "player" to match but not "players", you'd have to use /player\b/. tedder (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Seems clear now :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you use /players?/ to match either player or players? I seem to recall adding a question mark after a character in a rule makes the letter optional. Is that correct? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that works. tedder (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the above two lines of code is that if someone is a musician and a biologist they get double points. Also player is like ologist in that it's an ending match. Would the following work?

 10 /\b(musician|footballer|actress|actor|contestant|politician)\b|player\b|ologist\b/

If not then perhaps:

 10 /(\bmusician\b|\bfootballer\b|\bactress\b|\bactor\b|\bcontestant\b|\bpolitician\b|player\b|ologist\b)/

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing SearchResult

Today Tedderbot was doing the search result (I guess in order listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/Master) -> Taiwan, TamilNadu, Television and it got as far as TennesseeSearchResult then went back and started again to 13thCenturySearchResult. It appears those projects listed after Tennessee are missed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 09:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They'll get picked up in the next pass. I'm not sure why that ordering was chosen. tedder (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So the other day it stopped at Tennessee and then restarted at 13thCentury. An hour an a half ago it stopped at Opera, what's up with this, why doesn't it just continue on? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha- it's because it does one loop, but doesn't go A-Z. Instead, it starts whereever it stopped last time. So the first search result in this pass was Organizations, which makes sense why it stopped on Opera. Passes don't always complete- IIRC, the previous pass died because Wikipedia was having database/datacenter problems. tedder (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Logical AND

A logical OR can be done with | a pipe symbol as in the following example.

-100 /(condition1|condition2|condition3|condition4)/

How is a logical AND done? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me an example of text that should be matched with an AND. For instance, if it is "condition1 and condition2", you do this: /condition1.*condition2/. Of course, that is assuming the order of the two. You can do an OR to reverse it: /condition1.*condition2|condition2.*condition1/. tedder (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes like that, If contains "<Ref" and "ISBN", so the following?

-100 /<Ref.*ISBN/

By the way a bit confused about "order", do you mean order in rule or order occuring in the article? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean order of the two words in relation to each other. In this case, you know ISBN would always be after the ref (was the '1' an accident? Anyhow, the only problem with this is that .* will match all text of the article following the ref, so probably something like this is better: /<Ref.*?ISBN.*?<\/ref>/ .. hmm, that will still be too greedy. This isn't perfect, but it's better: /<Ref[^>]*?>[^>]*?ISBN[^>]*?<\/ref>/ .. this is an area that regexes fail- you really need a state engine to handle it. tedder (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes 1 on ref1 was in error, now corrected. Your losing me with this .* and .*? stuff. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

.* means "match anything, greedy", .*? means "match anything, nongreedy". So with text of "tedder says hello world", /t.*r/ would match "tedder says hello wor", /t.*?r/ matches "tedder". Think of [^>] as a replacement for the period. While the period matches anything, [^>] matches anything except the ">". Regexes are fun. tedder (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Is there a way to check against article title? I'd like to exclude those with disambiguation in the title. I have a line that excludes disambiguation templates(see line below), but that doesn't help if none of them get used i.e this.

-300 /(\{\{dab|\{\{disamb|\{\{disambig|\{\{given name|\{\{hndis|\{\{surname)/

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

When I add the "what revision ID" is in there I can add special support for the article title. Go ahead and code a search using the following, I'll implement it later:

-300 /^__title:\s.*\(given name/

tedder (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kick start

Can you kick start TedderBot is seems to be doing not a lot on the NewArticle front. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I went away for a few days, and it isn't fully automated yet. Further, Amazon is having trouble. It should run soon. tedder (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

High schools in Jurupa Valley

Hi Tedder; I modified 3 high schools to reflect that they are part of the new city of Jurupa Valley. The city designation does not officially take place until July 1, 2011, so if the reason you reversed it is that, then I will wait until July 1, but please be aware that starting July 1 Mira Loma and Rubidoux will officially be part of the city of Jurupa Valley. Rubidoux has never been part of the city of Riverside, but because of its close proximity, the Post Office probably does accept Riverside as the city designation. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The zip codes indicate Rubidoux and Mira Loma, can you toss up a reference about the new city designation? tedder (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to wait until after July 1 to make the change. I will also include references at that time. Thank you. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Historic Preservation League of Oregon

Hey, nice work adding mention of all the Most Endangered Places, I somehow missed that before. I had a great talk with Brandon, the HPLO field programs manager--he even said to contact him--he's just finishing up at the UO's hist pres program, and he's enthusiastic about taking the field into the 21st century. Looks like he's the one that created the HPLO article and he's clueful so he will probably be a great resource for helping expand articles. Valfontis (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool! We (the WPORE we) should get those type of relationships going. Great resource. And as far as you and I are concerned, we have a lot of interest overlap with them. tedder (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

confused

Hi T. I'm confused ... I nominated an article for AFD via twinkle, and the link to the AFD on the article page -- Visible penis line -- appears to be red. But if you click on the AFD link, it works as a blue link, bringing you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line. Is there a step I am missing, and if so I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of what I am to do at this point (though I gather that if the redlink functioned as a real redlink, I would follow step 2 by copy and pasting the rationale as you suggested, following WP:AFDHOW ... but as it already appears, I'm not sure what to do. Sorry to be so slow in "getting" this one ... best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It appears correctly for me. It's sort of a common problem with caching. See WP:BYC and WP:PURGE, or just shift-reload on the article page. If clicking through works correct, that's a sign you are dealing with a cache issue rather than a real issue. And I love the slightly surreal article name. tedder (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahah ... thanks for holding my hand as I work through my confusion. Best. And yes -- the article name (and date started) reflect that events of the day spurred it ... of additional interest to you may be the photo that was first the focus of the article ... It states that a certain BLP is the "author" of the "visible penis line" photo, though it doesn't offer the requisite RS support for such a statement (and it also has been tagged as a copyvio). See [6].--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that image is certainly suspicious. As my friends say, the potato goes in front. tedder (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Schema.org

Schema.org is not speculative fiction. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What's the context on this? tedder (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your bot includes it in a list of such articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha. So if you look at the log for a day it showed up, you'll see it matched "science fiction", which makes sense- that's on the schema.org page. tedder (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(0000-0010)

If Tedder deletes this message, I will assume that he is just trying to ignore me, if that is not the message he is trying to get across to me, tell me. DonaldET3 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine chatting with you here, but I have no idea what the point was behind this comment. tedder (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Depression

How is a real list that pertains to the article at hand "spam?"

As you can see if you monitor my edits, I have actual contributions to this article and no stake in "promotion."

Pedantic souls such as yourself who secretly wish to rule the world but can only find power in the confines of a public wiki are a nothing but little Hitlers.

Maybe you're "depressed" because you actually think yourself the authentic arbiter of what is or is not informational, rather than any random person who can point, click and scold.

For God's sake, stop being a pretend cop and get out into the sunshine.