Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 23 January 2014

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 9 as User talk:Hasteur/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Missing Section?

If you've come here because I or HasteurBot notified you about an Articles for Creation submission I regret to inform you that I am no longer associated with the Articles for Creation process. It has been asserted that my actions with respect to the project have been indicative of Ownership and enough to cause sanctions including admonishment and topic banning at the hands of ArbCom. I disagree with this statement and positively assert that it is the malfeasance of editors who are conducting a vendetta against myself that motivates this. Nontheless it is probably time I move on as I appear out of touch with general consensus, and because I've pissed off enough editors. I'm going back to 100% ineffectual wiki-gnoming as established editors who have GA and FA credits are worth more than editors who try to uphold standards on Misplaced Pages. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wbb standings templates

Hi Hasteur, Part of me thinks I ought to learn how to program a bot, but a larger part of me is convinced that I ought to leave it to editors with the right skill set.

I see you weighed in at Misplaced Pages:Vpt#auto_updating_templates. I am intrigued about the possibility of doing something with Wikidata, but I see that as a long term solution. Plus, I reached out to Andy, and do not yet have a response, but even if I do, it will take months.

I am updating the templates daily, and it is boring me to tears.

The full process is as follows:

I use data at ESPN Standings to update an Excel sheet. One minor pain is that the data has some errors, which I have to manually fix. I run a macro to convert the raw data to Wikitemplates, then copy the 32 templates (all at once) to ].

Then my manual process starts.

1. Open each of the 32 templates listed in the collapsed Standings list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Basketball/Women's_basketball/US_College_Division_1. (The count goes to 33, there is a single Independent, which is ignored)
2. Cycle through each of the open tabs to see if someone has manually updated the template. I confirm this through the As of date at the bottom of the temple. In other words, If, As of Date equals today's date minus one day, close template Else leave open for updating.
3. Starting with first remaining open template, check to see if any team are ranked (indicated with a number sign). If so, manually change the sandbox.
4. Copy the code from the sandbox to the same section of the template. (Easy to do manually, if automated, I assume we need to identify start and end position in template, as well as identifying the conference in the sandbox.)
5. Update the As of date in the template to the current date (typically, the day before current date).
6. Add an edit summary, typically "Updated as of date "
7. Save template

Automation challenges.

1. Some of the conferences have divisions. For example, {{2013–14 OVC women's basketball standings}} has an East and West division. The "copy" step really is two sub steps, one for each division. Easy to do manually, adds a challenge to the automation.
2. The addition of the rankings is tedious to do manually , and may be harder automatically. The information exists, for example at , but I have not tried to copy to the spreadsheet and figure out how to incorporate into the macro. I am intrigued that a source such as this does have the rankings, and is better suited in some ways, but that site does not break out the divisions. For example, they treat Ohio Valley as a single division. I've written to them a few times, but my emails seem to be swallowed up by a black hole.

My hope is to persuade someone to help with a bot that could be run on command. My anticipated process:

1. Update my spreadsheet in morning with ESPN data.
2. Copy results to sandbox, including adjustments to the rankings.
3. Run a bat which would:
   1. Check each of the 32 templates to see which ones were not current
   2. Update, copying from the sandbox, and save.

What do you think?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Hrm... I think I might be able to do you one better. It looks like there's an API I can grab at ESPN that I can grab the standings from each side (Mens-college-basketball/Women's College basketball) and then traverse through the result set making the mapping from the leagues/teams in the result set to the templates they belong in. I'm still interested in working on this task, but I need to complete Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 first before I start really rolling on this task unless this is a more urgent need. I'll let you make the call, but if I need to pivot, I need to start getting accounts registered, tool-labs accounts registered, BRFA started, etc. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy I listed the entire process, not just the step I wanted automated. That does sound like a better approach. It is not urgent. The current process works, it is merely tedious, and the world is unlikely to notice if I miss a day or two, so no problem if it takes some time to get started. Sounds like it is likely to more than I anticipated. I take it as obvious, that if it can be done for the women, it can be done for the men. My plan was to get it working for the women first, then check with those who are updating the men's side.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thought. At present, the templates do not identify a data source. I would like to add the source of the data to the templates. I haven't done so yet, partly because I didn't design the original templates, but partly because I was exploring alternative sources. However, if we settle on using ESPN, we ought to modify the templates to indicate the source. It occurs to me that I should do that, it isn't an item that needs to be updated regularly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, my interest in task 6 is waning, and this is the new shiney. User:BasketBallStatsBot is alive and is ready. I'll start the BRFA, file the tool labs request, set up the code repository, and file the registration paperwork with ESPN to ask for access to the API. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow that sounds great!--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Ping! The Director of Business Development for ESPN is finally responding to the request to get access to the more premium tier of data. I'm coordinating some time to talk with him so we can move forward with this project. Sorry for the long delay, but until we have a API to harvest from, it doesn't make sense to code a screen scraping bot. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. user:Bigddan11 has been updating them all manually, but is now doing a subset (I think, we haven't chatted recently.) It is a lot to do manually. I will do the whole set on occasion, but it will be great if automated. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I always update the WCC standings at the end of their game nights, but I do the others when I've gotten some spare time or on weekends. I don't have any problem doing them Friday- Sunday, but once that work week starts, my availability becomes very unpredictable. Since I'm going through and updating all the Texas schools schedules and records, then I'm updating those conferences as i get to them (Southland, WAC, SWAC done today so far, and I'm looking at the American and Big 12 as well), but if there is a way to make it easier, as long as it is accurate, then I'm all for it. To be honest, I've been spending a lot of time working on my sports blog, which is the one site I know of that lists all the women's games on Tv or ESPN3 during the week. For example, here's my entry for January 6- 12. Getting all the broadcast information probably takes me up to 2 to 3 hours each day, depending on the number of games.Bigddan11 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick & Bigddan11 my plan is:

At 4 AM Central time fire up the API call to get all the data

Start composing the data into the template format

Write the data into a userspace page for each template (so it doesn't affect the current templates) including a individual version link to the one it would replace.

Once we agree that all the bugs are ironed out, I'll change the configuration of the bot so that it writes the template fresh each time it runs. Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. One thing I'm not sure you thought about - the AP rankings are used. I guess those are in the API, btu I do not know. They typically change Monday early afternoon. Currently I manually change them Monday afternoon. If they are in the API, I will probably just let them fix themselves Tuesday morning. I am pretty sure if I stepped in and did them manually Monday PM, it would not be a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

I appreciate that the actions of Kafziel have led to levels of frustration. Unfortunately, that frustration is evident in the opening statement of the request for Arbitration. Fortunately, the committee decided to take the case, so one can hope that the case will now be based upon evidence. Would you be willing to collaborate on a statement of evidence? I don't know whether such a concept is allowed, but I have the luxury of not having endured the pain, and may be able to write a bit more dispassionately, which I firmly believe will be help to achieve a good result.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

All things being equal, I think it is fairly evident in the User's talk page, in the ANI thread, in the request for Arbitration, and even in Kafziel's OWN RfA promotion (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3 question 4) that their interactions with editors who challange them that they are unfit for holding Admin bits. Perhaps if they had improved, but their interactions when being challenged (even by newbies) is to the level of habitually in-civil editors that ArbCom has previously sanctioned. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, I really hope your action here will not backfire, not just on you, but on the entire project. Provided an admin follows the actual guidelines, we have each usually taken a good deal of independence in how we interpret them. When we really disagree, we deal with it by persuasion, which sometimes works. or by patiently dealing with individual instances. It's certainly the rule that no project is autonomous, and an argument that it should be will not succeed. Had you asked me, I would have given my usual advice: nobody who every goes to arbcom comes out the better for it. The better remedy would have been to continue to deal with his improper deletions in detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DGG If Kafziel had agreed to abide by consensus or let other admins deal with AfC, I would have dropped the issue. When they repeatedly continued to assert that they were right and promised to continue acting the same way it moved from an isolated incident to a Rogue Admin who needed to be leashed in. In my mind, WP:NOTPERFECT covered the initial mistakes, WP:ADMINACCT covered the calling the question (including their serious failure to adhere to the guidelines), and WP:ADMINABUSE/WP:TOOLMISUSE covers what we're in now. Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a helpful edit summary

Hasteur, this is not a helpful edit summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The appropriateness of answering questions on Kafziel's talk page

You, of all people, really should not be answering questions on Kafziel's talk page--irregardless whether your answer is appropriate or not. It's in poor taste, and quite presumptuous of you. I, personally, consider it akin to gravedancing--especially after your vile behaviour towards Kafziel. FYI, I don't need you to reply to me--I'd prefer it if you didn't. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request HasteurBot 6

Someone has marked Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 6 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

MfD nomination of User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany

User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision

A proposed decision has been posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision in the arbitration case that you are a party to. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 09:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

G13 deletions/restorations

Do you have any statistics about the rate of G13 deletions? I am planing a survey of a week or so's undeletion requests at WP:REFUND, and it would be interesting to know the percentage being restored. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD Unfortunately I clean out the records of nominations that have either succeed or fallen out of eligibility every day. I can stop the cleaning process for a week if you want that kind of information, but I do have other bits of information. The bot has notified on 88786 stale drafts (Letting the creator know that their submission is in danger of being deleted). The internal database shows we're on ID 70543 in the sequence of evaluating the drafts that nave been notified on. The bot is currently working through drafts that were notified on on 2013-09-22 (at around 2 AM UTC). Each day the bot scans all the "Submissions by Date" categories that are known to still have pages that could be eligible for G13. Based on the fact that the Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions has ~15k submissions in it, this indicates to me that there are submissions that were identified by the bot (and notified on) that are no longer eligible for G13 (They have been edited in some maner, have already been G13ed, or were promoted to article space). When the page does come up for review by the bot, the bot will remove the record from it's database because the page is no longer eligible. Sorry if this is a great information overload, just trying to answer your question. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD Ok, the bot nominated approximately 321 articles on the 16th, has nominated 408 on the 17th (There was a Tool Labs network outage that prevented the bot from nominating for ~4 hours). Let me know if this is the kind of information you're looking for. Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is, thanks - a few more days would be useful. I am just looking to get a rough idea of what percentage of G13 deletions are being restored at REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD I hope these are more useful.

321 | 2014-01-16 |

408 | 2014-01-17 |

397 | 2014-01-18 |

309 | 2014-01-19 |

Society and Medicine bot

Hello Hasteur! I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New Year period, and I would just like to inquire as to how the bot for Society & Medicine taskforce is coming along? Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_57 I have been greatly looking forward to its arrival! --LT910001 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 Not done anything with it recently. I'll look at it again and start fiddling with it today. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Essay

I took the liberty of fixing the spelling error in the title of your essay. Note the move-reason summary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DRNBot

Hi! if you look at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Please put cases on separate subpages you will se that re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools from top to bottom as we discussed at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 56#Dispute resolution noticeboard is still very much needed. Are you still interested, or should I post a new request? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon Did a consensus ever materialize about what the plan is? I got an impression that the last time we thought about it there was great thoughts, but nobody wanted to commit to the changes. Hasteur (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has ever attempted to make a plan that involves improved automation, because the other DRN volunteers aren't programmers and I specialize in tiny microcontrollers with 128 Bytes of RAM. No point specifying a program if you have no programmer to write the code... That being said, I am confident that everyone involved will be glad to support pretty much anything that doesn't actually suck. DRN is a pretty non-contentious bunch.

The basic idea is to pretty much have what we have now with the user filling out a form to initiate the case, and that the form will not allow submission if there are any of the errors that plague us now (nobody listed as a disputant, nonexistent page, cases filed that are the editor's very first edit to Misplaced Pages (thus clearly not meeting our "there must be talk page discussion first" criteria), etc.)

We have a form. It is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Go ahead and try it, answering "Not Yet" to the first question. Useless. Everyone ends up selecting "Yes it has" and every case ends up with "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already." at the top. If selecting "no" causes you to start over, of course everyone selects "yes" the second time around. The next page on the form does impose a 500-character limit, but it doesn't do basic error checking like "does the page exist" or "does the user exist"?

Likewise, we have a bot. It is at User:EarwigBot. The bot operator is very helpful and responsive, but we are basically adapting a tool that was meant to do something else, with decidedly mixed results. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

You've helped me a few times now - just wanted to thank you - it's appreciated. Julie JSFarman (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I'm making some presumptions about your username, but if I'm right you might be interested that Carcosa and The King in Yellow were mentioned on HBO's new series True Detective tonight. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Youre correct about the inspiration for my username, unfortunately, I don't get HBO I'll take a look at the series in the future. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Proposed Decision

Findings of fact and remedies involving you have been proposed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed_decision. You may wish to comment on them before they are voted on. Thanks, NativeForeigner 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

June Julian

Thank you for reviewing my edits for June Julian. I am trying to establish notability for the subject as a pioneer in the field of art education, not as an artist specifically. However, a simple google search does bring up many published images. That said, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Can you please advise?Lincolnspencer (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lincolnspencer I'd love to assist you, but I have been encouraged to walk away from the AFC process. I suggest you ask the question at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk as they can assist you there. Per the Edit notice, I will be archiving this thread in 5 days. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you reword and apologise

I've just looked at the ArbCom talkpage and noted this: "jump up and down like screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement against those they don't like". It's difficult to see that comment as something positive or helpful. I understand that feelings can run high when editing Misplaced Pages, and that at times we may say inappropriate things. However, the community asks that users restrain themselves as much as possible, and if they do slip up, they apologise and withdraw offensive comments. Something that I do when anoyed is to type out the angry response, and then gradually edit it until it is acceptable before posting it. That gets the anger out of my system without needlessly upsetting others. Others suggest taking a walk round the block. Whatever works - it's each to their own, as they say. Anyway, in the meantime, it would be a good idea to cross out the offensive statement and apologise to the two users you were insulting. SilkTork 09:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster/ColonelHenry/Hasteur

I've just been reading the talkpage of the ArbCom Kafziel case and noted that you three sometimes make unnecessary personal remarks. Editors are encouraged to comment on the case, and to make factual statements, however, comments which are worded as insults such as "Yawn. No wonder Kafziel gave up dealing with you.", "screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement", "their vengeful, spiteful and downright vindictive behaviour", are not helpful, and can make matters worse. Whatever disagreements we have about process, we can raise our concerns without resorting to insults. We are all volunteers on this project, and we all share a common aim. Let us attempt to resolve disagreements in a civil and respectful manner. SilkTork 10:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

SilkTork I give up. WCM and CH have gotten what they wanted, me being ejected from the AFC wikiproject. All tasks that are even remotely related to AFC (including inquiries to me about AFC) are being trashed as it's even possible that I'm up for being topic banned. No more G13 nominations by my bot, no more helpful tasks. If 2 editors can opine and disrupt ArbCom proceedings so forcefully that they can get any sort of sanction to stick is a prime case for future ArbCom proceedings past the evidence phase to be conducted 100% off wiki and closed only to participants. Nowhere did the arbitrators indicate that I did not need to respond to each false and potentially libelous accusation by those two agents of malfeasance. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

--Mdann52talk to me! 11:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And again. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

HasteurBot

Where does it log the pages that it has tagged? 88.104.27.18 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)