User talk:Dfrankow/Archives/2005

WikiLens
Hi, thanks very much for your thoughtful message. Firstly, here is the text of the deleted page:


 * WikiLens "is a way for anyone to rate things, and add more things (e.g., movies, books, classes, software projects) to allow anyone to rate them. Once there are ratings, we can do useful things with them....Collaborative recommenders allow people to express their opinions about things, then get things recommended to them that they don't know about yet. The simplest description is 'automated word of mouth': I like "The Matrix", you like "The Matrix", you like "Reservoir Dogs" and I haven't seen it, so recommend it to me. That basic concept is extended using computers to sum across many users and many items." ~ What is WikiLens? (link)

From my personal standpoint, the article as it was written above is basically an advertisement, doesn't comport with Wikipedia style, doesn't really convey much useful information, doesn't assert notability or significance, and uses too conversational a tone. All of this worked against it in the last deletion round. WP editors -- including myself -- are extremely averse to having Wikipedia be used as essentially a press release. With that being said, if you can make a case in the article as to the subject's significance (or notability), then you may have a greater chance to have it be retained. In my opinion, taking the page to votes for undeletion likely won't get you far. VFU is only supposed to be for deciding whether the deletion process was properly followed, not whether or not the deleted content should've been deleted. The community already took a vote on that, and the vote was delete. However, articles aren't necessarily deleted for all time. Generally re-creating an article that's been deleted is frowned upon, unless the re-created article is substantially different/better than the previous one. As you can see that would not be hard to do in this case. What I would recommend to you is that you hang around WP, get the hang of style and what articles should look like, then re-create the article if you want. While WP:VANITY strongly discourages editors from writing about themselves, it doesn't strictly prohibit them from doing so, as long as that editor makes sure that the article is fair and balanced. This means including any pertinent criticisms as warranted. I hope this helps and good luck! &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've copied your reply to Katefan0, as I think that you sent it to me by mistake. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Cool Cat/IRC Bot
How does it work? How do you run it? --dfrankow 15:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The bot is a MIRC script. You do not need to run the code to use it, you can simply join #wikipedia-en-vandalism channel on irc.freenode.net server and start using the bot. -- Cool Cat Talk 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

solve_disambiguation bot
I have a brief description in my user space - and I have been meaning to make it much better.

The bot provides a set of options, and then the operator chooses one. Most (all but 300 of the 9000) of the edits my bot made involved me choosing the correct option. So although it is a bot, it's not making any descisions. That's why the edit summary says "Robot assisted".

Please ask me all you want to know about the bot, I want improve the explanation available.--Commander Keane 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)