User talk:NaomiAmethyst/Archives/2012/February

Report problems with report??
Another user (174.45.173.135) made an update to the Struck by the Ree article on 05:03, 30 June 2011‎. Cluebot thought the new heading and date of birth were vandalism, and reverted them. That user managed to get the changes into the article anyways, but I figured the bot should learn from this, so I tried to report it as a false positive. The instructions said to take the identifier (487350) from the history, which I did. But... it looks like the generated report is for something totally else. I can't even figure out what article. But it's talking about: Latest revision as of 17:28, 26 January 2012 (view source) Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Magioladitis (talk) to last version by David Levy)

And since I'm not the original user who was reverted, I only have the report number from the history of the Struck by the Ree article. (which has never been editted by David Levy, near as I can tell.)

Please fix the reporting, to match up the identifier with the right article/edit. (maybe the counter rolled over?)

And... by the way, I still think it was a false positive, but I don't know how else to report that, since your prefered way is broken. The Struck by the Ree hasn't had a lot of edit traffic, so it should be easy to see the 05:03, 30 June 2011‎ Cluebot revert. 173.206.177.118 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Cobi,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Making Cluebot III chase its tail
Hi Cobi, here's something amusing. I noticed this page earlier: User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Pluma/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1 Looking at how this happened, I noticed that in Cluebot archived the ArchiveThis template since it was mistakenly placed in a section. Since the user also used an invalid archiveprefix, ClueBot's default of using the relative /Archives/ subpage kicked in so, in turn,, and so on. :) Amalthea  10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... it does that. Example of GIGO.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, happened before? I assume the archive template will eventually stop or self destruct if the path becomes long enough, but you could of course make it "garbage in, error out", like not archive the section where you detected the template, or default the archive to /Archives/ (while not archiving into itself), or something. Amalthea  12:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)