User talk:Download/Archives/2012/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is important to carefully review every change made using AWB. Your edit to this article removed brackets, unbalancing them; I am assuming AWB mistakenly reported an "unbalanced bracket" error. Please make sure you do not blindly trust a piece of software and look at the edit yourself before doing it. :) Salvidrim! 08:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the same issue happened with your edit to The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. I urge you to start reviewing every edit made with AWB, as failing to do so contravenes to the rules of usage may put your AWB permission in jeopardy. Salvidrim! 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strange, I don't recall noticing any change with brackets like this. I do review all edits I make and try to make my edits/min under 4 but I'll try to pay more attention to something like this in the future. -download ׀ message 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I just plugged the pages back into AWB and see why I didn't notice the change - I'll pay more attention to this in the future. I'll see if I can submit a suggestion regarding this to the AWB developers later today as well. Sorry for the trouble! -download ׀ message 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I know you're no newbie. :) And yea, AWB does have some weird bracket detection from time to time. :) Salvidrim! 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, just started a new report here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Strange bracket detection - hopefully an exception can be added. Typically I don't pay as much attention to general fixes if there aren't any typos but thanks for reminding me that AWB can make mistakes even when doing gen fixes :) -download ׀ message 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've also come across a few example where unbalanced brackets are needed, like in the |title= field of cite web templates. Salvidrim! 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, just started a new report here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Strange bracket detection - hopefully an exception can be added. Typically I don't pay as much attention to general fixes if there aren't any typos but thanks for reminding me that AWB can make mistakes even when doing gen fixes :) -download ׀ message 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I know you're no newbie. :) And yea, AWB does have some weird bracket detection from time to time. :) Salvidrim! 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I just plugged the pages back into AWB and see why I didn't notice the change - I'll pay more attention to this in the future. I'll see if I can submit a suggestion regarding this to the AWB developers later today as well. Sorry for the trouble! -download ׀ message 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strange, I don't recall noticing any change with brackets like this. I do review all edits I make and try to make my edits/min under 4 but I'll try to pay more attention to something like this in the future. -download ׀ message 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
English
Hi Download. Please note in any pool and billiards articles that english, when used to refer to side-spin placed on a cue ball, is not capitalized. Think "french" as in french fries. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Fuhghettaboutit, could you give me an example of what you're talking about? I'll watch out for it in the future. :) -download ׀ message 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sure. This was regarding your edit to Cue sports techniques, if that wasn't clear. In article like that one about pool/billiards, the word english refers to side spin placed on the cue ball and on object balls. It is a ubiquitous word: "placing english on the cue ball"; "he hit the cue ball with left english"; the "ball picked up running english off the rail"; "reverse english into a cushion slows down your ball" and so on. When used in this fashion it is not capitalized. So I was alerting you to watch for that issue when you come across articles in this area. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - I actually was wondering why there were so many lowercased "english" typos - sorry about that. Don't know what's going on with me today. Best, -download ׀ message 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. It's one of those things people who are unfamiliar with the sport may never have come across before. Possibly interesting side note; although the exact origin of use of the term is unknown, the most common theory for is that during the 1800s Englishmen either visiting or or who had emigrated to America, may have introduced sidespin and their nation of origin was applied to the technique. If you were wondering, the English, for obvious reasons, do not call it english but call it just "side".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - I actually was wondering why there were so many lowercased "english" typos - sorry about that. Don't know what's going on with me today. Best, -download ׀ message 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, sure. This was regarding your edit to Cue sports techniques, if that wasn't clear. In article like that one about pool/billiards, the word english refers to side spin placed on the cue ball and on object balls. It is a ubiquitous word: "placing english on the cue ball"; "he hit the cue ball with left english"; the "ball picked up running english off the rail"; "reverse english into a cushion slows down your ball" and so on. When used in this fashion it is not capitalized. So I was alerting you to watch for that issue when you come across articles in this area. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeannette Balou Tchichelle
Hi. You now twice added the {{wikify}} tag to the Jeannette Balou Tchichelle article without explaining why it needs wikification. I reverted your first entry. Can you please explain what it is that needs wikification in that article? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Whpq, I added it since AWB apparently automatically determined that the article needed more internal links - which I disagree with as well. I added another internal link to France which should hopefully stop triggering this issue. Best, -download ׀ message 06:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- AWB prepends {{wikify}} if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Salvidrim! 07:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but my understanding is that the editor behind AWB has responsibility to review the edits. -- Whpq (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Especially considering concerns about a similar issue with lack of reviewing AWB edits were aised shortly ago higher on this page. Salvidrim! 07:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do review the edit before I make it; adding the wikify template to a page typically isn't a mistake. The edit does not seem to have been technically incorrect considering that based on the definitions in AWB the article was in need of wikification. Perhaps the definitions need to be changed. -download ׀ message 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- You as the editor are responsible for everything that is changed. This means that you, as the editor, are responsible for reviewing what AWB has suggested, and determining if the change is appropriate. Blindly accepting what AWB put out there is not reviewing a change. I will point out that in this particular example, the only change made to the article was the addition of the wikification tag. In the above comment, you also state that you agree the wikification tag was inappropriate. Given the circumstance, I don't see how you can say you actually reviewed this change. If you had reviewed it, would you not have come the conclusion that no wikification was needed? -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do take full responsibility for my edits. Given that it is defined that an article needs wikification if it has "< 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size" the addition of the template was totally justified and not incorrect. While it is true that I don't think there is much wikification needed, that calls for a change in the definitions if consensus is reached that such articles do not, in fact, need to be wikified. However, I'd rather not argue with the predetermined definition of whether an article should be wikified or not. -download ׀ message 18:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The calculation used by AWB to determine that wikification is needed is not a hard and fast rule, and is most certainly not the "definition" of what needs wikification. It is an heuristic and does not necessarily mean that an article actually needs wikification. It's your role as the editor to review the suggested changes and accept or reject them as appropriate. If the suggestion is wrong, as it is in this case, then you should reject it. If none of this stuff needed any human judgement, then it would simply be a task for a bot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- How would you define whether or not an article needs wikification? In this case perhaps a rule could be added to prevent AWB from adding the tag to articles under a certain length and with at least one internal link. Best, -download ׀ message 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are looking for an answer that does not exist. WP:WIKIFY explains the basics of what wikification is. There's no hard and fast rule. It's based on the content, and the context in which links might make sense. Unless AWB can read and interpret the content (semantic understanding), as opposed to simply syntactic parsing, then there is no way that you will define a rule which will work for all cases. And that's why it is essential for editors to review what AWB is suggesting before saving the changes. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- How would you define whether or not an article needs wikification? In this case perhaps a rule could be added to prevent AWB from adding the tag to articles under a certain length and with at least one internal link. Best, -download ׀ message 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The calculation used by AWB to determine that wikification is needed is not a hard and fast rule, and is most certainly not the "definition" of what needs wikification. It is an heuristic and does not necessarily mean that an article actually needs wikification. It's your role as the editor to review the suggested changes and accept or reject them as appropriate. If the suggestion is wrong, as it is in this case, then you should reject it. If none of this stuff needed any human judgement, then it would simply be a task for a bot. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do take full responsibility for my edits. Given that it is defined that an article needs wikification if it has "< 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size" the addition of the template was totally justified and not incorrect. While it is true that I don't think there is much wikification needed, that calls for a change in the definitions if consensus is reached that such articles do not, in fact, need to be wikified. However, I'd rather not argue with the predetermined definition of whether an article should be wikified or not. -download ׀ message 18:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- You as the editor are responsible for everything that is changed. This means that you, as the editor, are responsible for reviewing what AWB has suggested, and determining if the change is appropriate. Blindly accepting what AWB put out there is not reviewing a change. I will point out that in this particular example, the only change made to the article was the addition of the wikification tag. In the above comment, you also state that you agree the wikification tag was inappropriate. Given the circumstance, I don't see how you can say you actually reviewed this change. If you had reviewed it, would you not have come the conclusion that no wikification was needed? -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I do review the edit before I make it; adding the wikify template to a page typically isn't a mistake. The edit does not seem to have been technically incorrect considering that based on the definitions in AWB the article was in need of wikification. Perhaps the definitions need to be changed. -download ׀ message 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Especially considering concerns about a similar issue with lack of reviewing AWB edits were aised shortly ago higher on this page. Salvidrim! 07:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but my understanding is that the editor behind AWB has responsibility to review the edits. -- Whpq (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- AWB prepends {{wikify}} if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Salvidrim! 07:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I will chime in; I have had similar issues with AWB and stub tags. It adds them <500chars and removes >500chars... but (and for obvious reasons) this is far from always correct. Articles with 501chars are often stubs, and articles with 499chars may be Start articles. Whenever I am faced with the proposed addition/removal of a stub tag, I take some time to skim through the article, its talk page and referencing to determine whether it's a stub or not. I believe AWB proposes changes and the editor needs to decide. AWB proposed that you might want to add a Wikify tag on the article, and it was up to you to decide whether such a tag is warranted or not. AWB makes no claim that the addition is "justified and valid". Salvidrim!
- Really? Salvidrim! 02:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't notice the unbalanced bracket problem at first. You might notice that I reverted it immediately. :) -download ׀ message 02:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- What worries me is that you did the edit in the first place; it agains shows a lack of "reviewing every edit". In addition, there is no reason to run AWB clean-up on the same article three times in a matter of days; also note that regularly making edits that are only general fixes and no content changes is a practice frowned upon as pointless and an artificial inflation of edit count. Salvidrim! 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well I am human and I do make mistakes. As for this edit I'd estimate that it's the one mistake that I've made in the last week which by my standards is OK, not to mention that I reverted it immediately. (Not trying to defend myself here or anything, I admit I made a mistake.) Nevertheless I'll try to pay more attention in the future. As for the multiple edits, can you give an example? If you look at my contributions the vast majority of them are typo fixes and I do use different search terms when populating my AWB list. -download ׀ message 03:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the nearly every single one of your contributions is semi-automated, it'd be recommended to use an alternate account to avoid artificially inflating your edit count. As for the multiple edits, you've made the same "mistake" on the same article three times in a matter of days, as I've said above. Salvidrim! 03:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but I'd rather not have to go through the trouble of having to switch between accounts just to avoid "artificially" inflating my edit count (especially since it means close to nothing since I already have 40 thousand edits). Where is this recommended? -download ׀ message 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- AWB requires in-application sign-in. If heavy use of AWB is made and an account is created, it should only be used to sign-in fom AWB; your "normal" browser editing should still be done on your "main" account; there is no notion of "switching". Point 2 of the Rules of use covers the area of heavy use; while it specifically mentions edits per minute, the same intention can be applied to "edits per day" or "per week". Heavy use over a week or a month is no different than heavy use over an hour. Salvidrim! 03:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Rule number two seems to be intended to prevent clogging up the recent changes feed and not a problem with edit count. It also recommends a bot account, which is not the same thing as an alternate account. Seeing as I am not a bot and mainly do typo fixes (which probably wouldn't fall under the guidelines of "repetitive and mundane"), it doesn't seem like an option. -download ׀ message 03:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- AWB requires in-application sign-in. If heavy use of AWB is made and an account is created, it should only be used to sign-in fom AWB; your "normal" browser editing should still be done on your "main" account; there is no notion of "switching". Point 2 of the Rules of use covers the area of heavy use; while it specifically mentions edits per minute, the same intention can be applied to "edits per day" or "per week". Heavy use over a week or a month is no different than heavy use over an hour. Salvidrim! 03:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but I'd rather not have to go through the trouble of having to switch between accounts just to avoid "artificially" inflating my edit count (especially since it means close to nothing since I already have 40 thousand edits). Where is this recommended? -download ׀ message 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the nearly every single one of your contributions is semi-automated, it'd be recommended to use an alternate account to avoid artificially inflating your edit count. As for the multiple edits, you've made the same "mistake" on the same article three times in a matter of days, as I've said above. Salvidrim! 03:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well I am human and I do make mistakes. As for this edit I'd estimate that it's the one mistake that I've made in the last week which by my standards is OK, not to mention that I reverted it immediately. (Not trying to defend myself here or anything, I admit I made a mistake.) Nevertheless I'll try to pay more attention in the future. As for the multiple edits, can you give an example? If you look at my contributions the vast majority of them are typo fixes and I do use different search terms when populating my AWB list. -download ׀ message 03:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- What worries me is that you did the edit in the first place; it agains shows a lack of "reviewing every edit". In addition, there is no reason to run AWB clean-up on the same article three times in a matter of days; also note that regularly making edits that are only general fixes and no content changes is a practice frowned upon as pointless and an artificial inflation of edit count. Salvidrim! 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't notice the unbalanced bracket problem at first. You might notice that I reverted it immediately. :) -download ׀ message 02:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I noticed that I had the "minor edit" box unchecked for some reason, which I've fixed. That should address that issue a bit. -download ׀ message 03:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)