User talk:Harej/Archive13

Apparently premature tag removal by User:RFC bot
RFCbot has just removed a RFC tag from the active policy RFC at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. I added the RFC tag on September 30th and it's still very busy with comments although there was a long hiatus between 8th and 27th of October. Does the bot automatically consider all RFCs to have expired after one month?

I've restored the tag so no harm done. -TS 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, that was exactly by design. However it is now established precedent that RFCs can last however long as necessary. The current workaround to extend the lives of an RFC is to put in a new timestamp. A more elegant fix, where the tag would be removed when it was good and ready, rather than after an arbitrary 30 days, is in the works. harej  03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're curious, the origins of this was when Betacommand wrote the original bot and brought over the 30-day expiration date, which I think is a tradition in user RFCs. When I later rewrote the bot, I lacked the foresight to replace it with something better. I could replace it right now, but I would really need to think it through given the idiosyncratic circumstances under which RFC tags pop up. harej  03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One bot mis-ordering MFD date sections
It appears that the last two nights, One bot has rotated the previous November MFD dates to be below the October dates. So the current day shows at the top, then October appears in reverse chronological order, then the prior dates of November appear in reverse chronological order. See here and here. Easy enough to fix manually, so it's not a crisis, but hopefully something you can fix soon. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A trip through the archives tells me that this is probably related to a previously discovered issue. Sorry if I've been redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with bringing up the problem again. It just means I keep delaying to fix it! harej  20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RM bot
Just a quick question - was this the intended behaviour of the bot? Or just a glitch of some sort? It seemed to sort itself out 15 mins later so no harm done anyway. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What must have happened was that the bot couldn't retrieve a list of pages transcluding the move request template, thus giving it this idea that there were no requested moves. I thought I had fixed this problem but it must've been another bot I fixed it for. Anyways, this doesn't bother me much because it's a self-correcting issue anyway. harej  19:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I guess it is a minor inconvenience for users to go to the WP:RM page and find no entries listed, but not a showstopper! Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
Harej, for my own, personal purposes, I would like to view somehow a list of GAN reviews I have done. Is there a way for me to easily access this data somehow, so that I can place within a subpage of my userspace articles I have reviewed at GAN? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Perhaps someday, but such a thing does not exist yet. harej  11:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries, keep me posted. -- Cirt (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Karma system
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations. Any ideas on a timeframe to implementation, and how this would work? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, know that it would be interesting to see such data. Apparently would also find it useful. That makes at least two editors that would like to see it. Separate from any discussion over applications to processes, could you at least place this info within a subpage of your userspace, to be made available to satisfy the curiosity of users such as myself and Wizardman? -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have indeed been paying attention to the discussion on WT:GAN. I cannot guarantee that the system will account for past reviews or that it will be completed anytime soon, but I will do my best to get something going. I'll give it a neutral name like "Review statistics," unrelated to the concept of karma, and it can be housed under WP:GAN as that would be an appropriate place. All caveats will be in place. harej  04:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the ensuing exchange because I will not have my talk page be a forum for petty vindictive. I will do my best to present the data in such a way that it will not rank individuals or otherwise perpetuate a system of quid-pro-quo; simply, it would allow one to see the past GAN activities of a user. harej 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please revisit? If it is opt-in, it seems to be not controversial. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One: I don't beleive that there is any concensus yet for a Karma system (even under the bland name of "Review statistics"); nor for a data capture system to support such a system of control. Two: Cirt states that it is merely data collection and/or for personal information only; and on that basis I can't object if every nominator/reviewer is allowed to option in (some users already provide that information on their talkpage, but many don't). Three: I would strongly object if it was then used as a snooping system, i.e. "fred" has not provided GAN nomination/review data, let's surreptitiously find out using a bot/tool; or a "poking" system for block-reviewing GAN nominations/reviews to discover those editors with the "wrong" nomination/review ratio. Covertly implementing a system for that (intended) use without prior agreement of everyone at GAN would certainly be a waste of your time; particularly as there is no agreement on what is a "wrong" ratio. However, your statement above about Rank, seems to belie the concept of obtaining personal data only. Four: "All caveats will be in place", is meaningless twaddle. Safeguards, if any, should unabiguously stated prior to any data capture, and made "public", not hidden using techno-babble: and I would have through that it was necessary to obtain bot approval. Five: personally, I do regard it as a waste of your time, but that do doubt could be discounted on bias on my part. Pyrotec (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem to be bias on the part of, to the extent of his inability to make cogent arguments without simultaneously attacking other users individually. -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, those that don't wish their data to be used in ways that they don't like, and have no respect the fair collection and use of personal data, certainly should not be covertly commissioning and collecting personal data on other people in concert with people who appear to wish to use that data contrary to what is claimed. Pyrotec (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "covert" going on. Quit seeing paranoid conspiracy where there is none. I have had the same request and discussion with at WT:GAN as had gone on here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not appropriate use of the RfC tag?
As far as I know the RfC tag is for requesting 3rd party comment on an article or particular editing practice, which is what I was doing; requesting a 3rd party comment. I have restored the template as I want a 3rd party to comment on this situation Barts1a (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the confusion on my part. In any case, RfC tags should be correctly categorized (see Template:RFC list footer) and should be followed up with a neutral summary of the dispute at hand. harej  22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two problems with the above comment: One; there is no clear category that this fits into and 2: It's impossible to be neutral when you have recently been targeted by certain editors and are under way more scrutiny than anyone else for no valid reason. Barts1a (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

one bot is making a mess of wp:MFD
Hey, one bot seems to be screwing up the listing by date of Wp:MFD. See for example this edit. Yoenit (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My ACE question
Hi Harej, thanks for your answer. As the question itself has become the survivor of me asking duplicate questions because I didn't read the rules, it remains with your batch only because you answered it where others hadn't before the election coordinators cleaned house behind me.

As an isolated question, it has become completely arbitrary and makes little sense to have it asked to you specifically, even to me. I'd have absolutely no objections if you'd prefer the question to be moved to the questions talk page, your own talk here or outright deleted. And please accept my apologies for having botched the whole thing. MLauba (Talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You offer a very impressive wall of text. Here's my question: would it be okay if I didn't get back to all of them right away? It may take a while to answer them, and there is a possibility I won't get to all of them, but I want to at least take a shot at them. harej  02:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everyone answered them right away last year, or the year before, so sure. The first question to answer though is whether you want them posted at your questions talk page, or somewhere else, or what. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I already took the liberty to copy them over to my questions talk page. I even answered the first question! The rest will come in time. harej  06:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think you had them somewhere else before (on your candidate discussion page) maybe? but now all is well. I was concerned that the link to your answers from User:Lar/ACE2010 wouldn't work, but now it does. (perhaps due to a redirect that Sk set up?) Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved these from your candidate talkpage to your questions talkpage Harej, as Lar was rightly concerned at them overwhelming the centralized discussion page. Sorry for any trouble,  Skomorokh   14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) harej  19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RM bot code change?
I'm going to be presumptuous enough to suggest a code change to RM bot, although I realise you may not have the time to make the change or indeed want to. Anyway I think adding:

after

should fix the problem of links in the section titles breaking the listing. Dpmuk (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done! And because you wrote the line of code, you have contributor credit in  now. Feel free to offer changes to my other scripts.  harej  01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest my knowledge of php is minimal. I was able to come up with this change due to mimicking previous lines and a not so minimal knowledge of regexs. I regularly use Perl/Java (hence my knowledge of regexs), both of which I am a competent programmer in (I'm also competent in FORTRAN although I struggle to see how that's relevant here or indeed, in today's world full stop).  I've been meaning to get more involved in bot type work but have been struggling to know were to get started.  That said I do now have an idea that I want to develop into a bot at some point soon. Dpmuk (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections
Dear Harej, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh  00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
Harej, if you wouldn't mind adding language to your nomination statement to the effect of ""I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than those listed here", or whatever is appropriate to your situation? I am asking all the candidates to make sure their account disclosure is full and categorical. Thanks,  Skomorokh   12:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Bot Glitch
Efforts have been made to fix the problems with GAbot in your absence. They have not been successful, but have at least suggested that the problems were caused by the addition of a blank line after Jezhotwells signature which the bot insists on adding. I would be grateful if you would attend to this at an early opportunity! Thanks, Geometry guy 21:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have indeed been watching the conversation. This is so weird because this glitch is one-of-a-kind. I'm doing some kind of forensic investigation of my own code (i.e. I am reading it and trying to make sense of all of this) and I will get back to you when I can. harej  21:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been reading your code too, but am not well versed in php. What did you do when you "copied over" Jezhotwells signature? Does the bot have a memory, or does it only compare information from GA nominee to the current contents of WP:GAN? Geometry guy 21:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot has a database which records the reviewer and the subtopic. This is to save time, to prevent the bot from doing redundant work. When I fixed the record to make it read Jezhotwells instead of the other guy I just went into the database and did it manually. Thinking that I did something to screw it up, I've just purged that record to make the bot do a new one. Maybe that'll fix it. harej  22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, that concurs exactly with my guess at the problem (which is why I thought only you could fix it, despite my best efforts and those of others): I think that when you manually copied Jezhotwells timestamp, you added a blank line to the bot's database. If so, your purge will fix the problem. Lets hope! Geometry guy 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks okay to me so far! Geometry guy 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Absent content
Would you happen to know why the bot is pruning this RfC of its content on the noticeboards? It was displaying properly for a few hours, but then it denigrated into a one-liner. —  C M B J  11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a timestamp. harej  17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange. I had wondered if the absence of a timestamp was causing it, but it seemed odd that it would have ever worked in the first place if that were the case. In any event, it did fix the problem and all is well. —  C M B J   03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Important question
When mentally pronouncing your username, does one say "hair-jay", like an African-American kindergartener might be nicknamed, or "har-ezh", like an elusive zorro-esque Arabian bandit-prince? I always imagined the latter, until learning of the name's deflatingly quotidian origin. The electorate deserves to know! Skomorokh  11:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard both used. I suppose "hair jay" is more accurate, given that that's the breakdown of my handle (last name, first initial). harej  13:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much! Quick request, could you amend your candidate statement to indicate if you have ever edited under an account other than messedrocker or harej? Cheers,  Skomorokh   16:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, even though I know your real name, "harr-edge" always sounded more natural to me. Not a clue why, but I thought I should orange bar you and tell you this. Back to whatever you were doing now. NW ( Talk ) 23:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always said hairidge, like Tom Ridge but hairy. harej  23:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom elections
I was pleased to see you among the candidates for the 2010 Arbcom elections, as Wikipedia needs intelligent arbitrators who work on content review and automation to help other editors. Nevertheless, I can imagine that your candidacy might cause stress, self-censorship, and a wish to present yourself in the best light. Even though I would not be as brave as you to subject myself to the challenge of an Arbcom election, I would advise you to relax and be yourself as far as possible.

Don't be afraid to make mistakes! Arbitrators are not infallible. Kiril Lokshin made a mistake and resigned, but was reelected last year with enthusiasm. Similarly, Casliber's nomination explicitly addresses the mistake he made last year, and he may well be reelected this year. Both editors have my admiration and support. We all make mistakes; it is how we deal with those mistakes that matters, and they both handled their mistakes with grace and honor.

In my view, the ability to communicate is one of the most important skills in avoiding mistakes and dealing with them when they happen. Staying quiet and hoping it will all work out was the mistake Casliber made and now regrets. You have to trust that there are other good editors out there, talk with them, share information. Problems on Wikipedia cannot be solved by one editor alone.

Some editors may oppose your candidacy because you are idiosyncratic. I would not. However, you need to convince the community (and me) that you won't approach a problem as something to take home and think about until you come up with a solution. Many minds make illumination work. Geometry guy 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you support! harej  22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GA bot malfunction
Misplacing Good article is to be placed "at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis" not at the top of the article, as with Magnapop. A small matter, but one you might want to fix. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does that by design, but I get your point. I decided that the template went on the top based on what I saw with other articles, and it made sense to me anyway. I'll shortly update the bot to make it put the template at the bottom instead of the top. harej  19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC bot problem
I created this RFC last night, the bot doesn't seem to have listed it. -- G W … 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Barts1a
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Barts1a. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

possible RFC Bot bug
I know you've been tinkering with the code, and I just saw a bug that you may want to get ironed out. It first removed an expired tag, but then it invited Hellknowz to comment at the expired rfc (it also didn't follow a redirect here, which may be desired behavior) and then listed the rfc as unsorted. I apologize if this is correct behavior and I've overlooked something. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will probably be rewriting RFC bot at some point this month. I have finals this week so I am sorry that I cannot be more responsive, especially since my implementation of comment duty kinda sucks. harej  05:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just thought you may want to know for future reference. Good luck on your finals. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RM Bot
Hi Harej. I noticed you operate RM Bot. If you get the time, could you see into this and see how you could help? We need all the help we could get :) Reh  man  10:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Stupid" bot
I passed a WP:GAN at GA/2 (Tvrđa). Shortly afterwards GABot did this "maintenance" operation which appears to be removing the review from WP:GAN and resequencing the article's position in the list. Then about 12 minutes later it removed the entry from WP:GAN with the edit summary "failed" Tvrđa; and also from the section list  with the same summary statement, i.e., "failed" Tvrđa. I assume that Bot has not been programmed to make use of data from GA/2. The article was failed at GA/1, which is why I assume that that the edit summary for GA/2 was marked as a "failure". Pyrotec (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would explain several other weirdnesses. Obnviously the GA van be any number from 1 to ∞ (well perhaps not ∞!!). Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I would quick fail any nomination that had been submitted an ∞ (infinitive) number of times. I've seen GA/3 and possibly GA/4, but I'd be supprised at GA/10 and above. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly it did the same "maintenance operation" on this one, which appeared to be a /GA1 rather than a /GA2, but afterwards it removed it under the edit summary "pass" - which was correct. Pyrotec (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request RFC bot 2
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/RFC bot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Editor codes
Hope this helps. AGK  [&bull; ] 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind blowing! harej  19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with GABot
Hi, User:Teancum passed a WP:GAN at GA/2 (Perfect Dark Zero), however it appears the GABot did the wrong operation, as it marked the article with the edit summary "failed" in the Revision history of Good article nominations --Niwi3 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2010 (CET)
 * The issue was having GA and FailedGA on the same page together like that. Here is the necessary condition for the bot to deem an article "passed":
 * In English: If  appears on the page &mdash; or if   appears on the page, so long as it's not   &mdash; and   specifically does not appear on the page, then the article is one that has passed GA review. I'm starting to question whether that last bit is necessary. What do you think?  harej  22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In English: If  appears on the page &mdash; or if   appears on the page, so long as it's not   &mdash; and   specifically does not appear on the page, then the article is one that has passed GA review. I'm starting to question whether that last bit is necessary. What do you think?  harej  22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

VPC pictures
Shouldn't the template for VPC be modified or removed? Probably a task for a bot to remove it all. — raeky  T  16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know what the relevant templates are, and I can handle it. (Or if you want to do it yourself, feel free. :) harej  22:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The template is Template:ValuedPicture and it puts the pictures in the category Category:Wikipedia valued pictures, so if you wanted to have a bot just remove the template you could hit all the pictures in that category, or would we prefer to just modify the template to indicate it's a closed project? To avoid confusion I vote removing the template altogether, but I don't what the precedent is here for this. — raeky  T  09:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! harej  09:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Multimove notifications
Hi Harej, I was wondering if it would be possible to make multimove notifications by a non-flagged bot so that the posts would show up on people's watchlists by default. What do you think? I started a section at WT:RM to get some opinions on the issue. It would be good to hear what you think about the proposal. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at RM
Harej, hi. I hope you're having a lovely holiday season, assuming that you're someone and somewhere that this is a holiday season. I'd like to draw your attention - with no urgency - to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, which follows from a discussion about some famous people with diacritics in their names. It seems that various people make claims about what our usual practice is, and I'm wondering if that's something we can pin down a bit more objectively. Please let me know what you think, if this idea is technically feasible and in accordance with how we do things 'round here. Thanks in advance. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating redirect at Template:Requested move
At Template:Requested move, I'd like to replace the transclusion of movereq, which is a redirect, with Requested move/dated, its target. But it looks like this was attempted in the past and impacted the operation of your bot. Could you assist me in seeing to this edit? --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The deed has been done. "Movereq" is deprecated but it will still work. harej  17:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Review deleted, still message..
Hello Harej! The GA bot is awesome. But, recently, I dropped a review and an administrator deleted the GA page (Talk:Myles Kennedy/GA1). But, the WP:GAN page still shows that I'm reviewing the article. I tried removing it, but it comes up again. Can you fix it, if possible? Btw, I'm not good at programming :( Novice7  |  Talk  14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The review should be restored and the article failed in the traditional manner. harej  17:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot down Jan 3
The bot appears to have stopped running. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Move-multi
Hey Harej. I just increased move-multi to a thirty title capacity. However, it now occurs to me that I don't know if RM bot's code needs to be tweaked at the same time, so I'm here asking its grand overlord.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Theoretically the bot should handle unlimited. In practice it only handles about nine. I don't know if this is an accidental hard-coded limit or a glitch. If you'd like to help me figure this out, the code is available at User:RM bot/requestedmoves.php. harej  08:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would help if I could but, no habla PHP. The documentation at the template page should probably have a note on this current limitation. I'll do so when I get a chance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I think I found the cause of the problem.  Within the for loop that handles multiple moves (for ($multi = 1; $multi < count($components); $multi++)), match for the digits uses "\d" (e.g. "new\d\s" or "current\d\s") so they are limited to single digit, from 1 to 9.  Change them to "\d+" and then "new11=", "current100=", etc. would be handled properly.  Hope this helps (sorry if I'm wrong) --Kusunose 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You just may be right! I knew it was some accident, rather than a hardcoded limit (since I do that very infrequently). harej  10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has this change been made then? If so the instructions at requested move need updating (by removing a section). Dpmuk (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

GA bot hates me
Hey, just having some trouble with the GA bot. I've recently reviewed Somerhill House and Robert and Thomas Wintour, and in neither case did the bot accept that I was reviewing the articles, or recognise that I had put them on hold. I just promoted Somerhill House, and instead of removing it from the list, it did this. What am I doing wrong?! J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Curiously, however, it did recognise that the article had been promoted... J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's passed it now. Still convinced it doesn't like me though... J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot does that sometimes; rather than straightaway promoting an article, it will put one in that weird purgatory state you noted above and then marked it as passed. I'd be more concerned if the bot didn't get its head in the game in the end. Still, it's a curious issue. harej 18:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea why it doesn't recognise that I am reviewing articles/putting them on hold? It's not a big deal, it just makes me worry I'm doing something wrong... J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this happen with others or does this happen exclusively when you try to review an article? harej  23:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's just me. Take Robert and Thomas Wintour, currently listed under royalty, nobility and heraldry. I started the review, and currently the link to the review page reads "discuss this review" rather than "start this review" on the GAC page, but the bot has not noted that I am reviewing. I put the article on hold, and the bot clearly noticed, but it didn't update the main page. Any idea what's going on? All I can say is that my username has caused problems before because it is a single letter then a space, and some bots would prefer it to be an underscore, but other than that, I have no idea. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just me, turns out. Another user is reviewing Mean (song), but the bot hasn't updated the main GAC page. J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot accepts me for who I am now. If you gave it a talking to, thanks. If not, we've made friends anyways. J Milburn (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the bot did some serious thinking while it was nonoperational. :-) harej  02:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RFC list footer unsorted
Template:RFC list footer unsorted has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 01:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiXTC? Sounds fun. harej  07:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Action at a distance (computer programming)
Hi, Harej. I'm curious how you found consensus at Talk:Action at a distance (computer programming) for the move? As far as I could tell, only one person was strongly in support of it. Powers T 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember myself. harej  16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you perhaps consider re-opening and relisting the discussion? Powers T 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

fix
Hey,

I noticed that the RfCbot included more text from my RfC than is really appropriate. I tried fixing it twice but kept getting undone. Can you advise? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction
I corrected the page from "Rosalie (play)" to "Rosalie (musical)". I made the amendment at both Talk:Rosalie and Requested moves for 14 January 2011. The bot put it back to "Rosalie play" on the Requested moves page, which is not what I want. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge
Can you revert your move please? (I'm guessing this request was in uncontroversial moves per WP:RM). Any move from this title ought to go through a move request as this is the most common name, and we continuously have editors changing the name from the most common one to excluding it. Thanks. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. harej  05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances - the socking and the creation of a duplicate article, and the amount of time spent discussing the title in the past, I feel we are wasting our time discussing this again. I don't think the request should have been made, can you withdraw it? Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New bot function
See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Small Change
In User:RFC bot/rfcbot.php, you currently have  . Could this be changed to   as I have moved the template to a new location. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Will take effect next run (at around 23:30). harej  23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That 2 thing
Well I asked the person who made the move a few days ago here but it's only just occurred to me looking at the list of requested moves that the bot takes no notice. It would appear to have been changed so as to allow the discussion to take place on a page other than the one to be moved. In this instance it would appear they were trying to say they'd like to move a lot of a pages and instead of listing each one they tried to just link to a list. I'm not sure that's a sensible idea as it means that notices aren't placed on every page, so that along with the bot taking no notice of it, made me decide that there was no point to it. Dpmuk (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about untranscluding
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BRFA for WAPLeaderboardBot
This is the BRFA I was talking about today: Bots/Requests_for_approval/WAPLeaderboardBot. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RM bot and admin backlog template
Think I've worked out why this is broken. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Dpmuk (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Update to Coordination/Help noticeboards
Hi Harej. I fixed the link so that it will go to the actual questions page. But I think the code in User:RFC bot still needs to be updated. :) Thanks, &oelig; &trade; 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfctag-alt
Template:Rfctag-alt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Improper restoration of non-free content in violation of policy by RM bot
The bot is restoring (example) non-free content to Wikipedia space in violation of WP:NFCC #9. The file in question is File:Portrait of Edward James.jpg, which is properly marked in machine readable format as a non-free file. Please shut down the bot until this error is corrected. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the requested move tag as this is the much easier way of temporarily solving this than shutting down the entire bot. Dpmuk (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it is a temporary solution. The bot should be looking for machine readable non-free tags. Either that, or it shouldn't be looking for requested moves on files. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The best solution, I think, would be not to show images on WP:RM pages. Just link them. Ucucha 17:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I was trying to do. The bot kept undoing me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:RM suggests RMs shouldn't be used for files anyway (which is probably why this hasn't cropped up before) but as far as I can see there is no where to discuss file names (rather than delete files). If we are to allow files at WP:RM then I'd agree that the long term solution is to change the bot's behaviour.  However shutting down the bot because of this would cause a lot of inconvience so as a temporary measure removing the tag seemed the best option. Dpmuk (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and that's great. But, if the bot is going to be working with files it should be cognizant of free/non-free differences. Else, it should stay away from files, even RMs. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested moves is not the appropriate venue for media files (at least I don't remember it being), it was not something I had kept in mind. However, something like this can easily be rectified. harej 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to just speedy-close all file move attempts, and relist them at WP:FFD. As it should be FFD that deals with file renames. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, that doesn't change. harej  08:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But in this case people aren't wanting to delete an image, they're wanting to rename it and at the moment there's no obvious place for this if the change is likely to be contentious. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot confusion
I'm confused about why the RFC bot removed an RFC tag here for being expired when it was just placed. Thanks. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 18:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It did it again here. I'm wondering if it's choking on my signature. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 19:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC bot has this nifty feature that automatically removes RFC tags from archives. Until I fixed it right now, it saw "archive" and thought HEY AN ARCHIVE TIME TO DE-LIST. And so guess what went down when it saw "archived citations". I made the criteria more strict so that it should only catch legit archives from now on. Enjoy! harej  00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA bot
Please fix your bot. It is making several mistakes, as documented at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. –MuZemike 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Probable mistake
The bot has notified a page "not" to refer to itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avatar_%28Hinduism%29#Requested_move. Please correct the edit ("not this page"). Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 14:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the second time someone attempts to remove the above stated mistaken redirect and the bot puts it back immediately. Can this be avoided? Hoverfish Talk 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that current1/new1 in the template have to refer to that page, i.e., the page the discussion takes place on. Fix this and the whole problem will be resolved. (This happens due to the unfortunate way I wrote the bot.) harej  19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See here and you'll get what I mean. harej  19:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of Racepacket
Please see User talk:Racepacket. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential bot corner case
Bot did, but reviewer had done. Is it possible the presence of the template, or the categories it produces, is a factor? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

RM bot - slight change requested
Hi, as I think was discussed once before but not implemented, would it be possible when you have a spare moment to update the bot so that the "backlog" line that it adds or removes from WP:RM depending on whether there is a backlog reads as it does now, namely: If this is technically impossible for some reason, I'll change it back, but I'd have thought it would be fairly trivial to do. (Oh, the point of it is that the word "backlog" will actually link to the backlog further down the page, instead of a category of all backlogs.) Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  
 * The deed has been done. harej  06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! --Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

GA bot reviewer info problem
Hi -- trying to figure out what is going wrong at WT:Good article nominations, I looked over the php code for the bot. My php skills aren't very strong, but it looks to me like once the reviewer and subtopic info are placed in the database, the bot will always take them automatically from the database and there is no way to override this behavior -- hence, no way to correct an error. Did I miss something? If not, can the problem be fixed? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a feature, not a bug. A pretty lousy feature, but it was implemented so that the bot wouldn't have to load pages it didn't have to. I will one of these days get rid of that feature. harej  07:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, is there some way that you can manually clear that line of the database? It doesn't seem reasonable that the GAN page will show the wrong reviewer for the whole duration of the review. Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, as I tried to clear the data yesterday. We need a simple mechanism for doing this, even if it is a bit of a kludge (such as removing the nomination for an hour or two). Geometry guy 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the "feature" which causes this inflexibility. The bot now checks each time what the reviewer and subtopic are. Updates will take a little longer but the bot will be more responsive to changes. harej 00:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for handling it. Looie496 (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

 * 1) At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out.  You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
 * 2) To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter.  You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
 * 3) To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
 * I have indeed heard about Harej's call for a DC bid for Wikimania 2012. I very much support Harej's cause and plan on being involved post-haste! harej  22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Getty Villa GA relisting
Because of the block and subsquent unblock with mentor, I am contacting you as well as Racepacket of my intention to review this article.

It has a good deal of work ahead of it however, it is VERY possible it can be accomplished in a 7 day hold period, mainly because it is a matter of adding needed work with some copy editing of the prose and not nearly as much removal of un-needed fluff.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)