AfD's last 7 days, unless they qualify for relisting, which this one didn't (in my opinion). ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check my AFD counter occasionally to help keep track of deletion discussions; however, I recently changed my username (from DCI2026 to "Theodore!") and now only a handful of my !votes, from mid-March, are listed. It's not that big of a deal, but it would be nice if I could keep track of all my !votes at this page. Any idea what's up? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put your old username in the "Alternate name" field. The tool looks for your signature. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Thank you very much for Editor Interaction Analyzer. Me and User:Yworo have interacted eight years apart on some articles: for example, the "Go Home Lake" article. The Editor Interaction Analyzer search I did failed to find those edits. Why is this? Also, may I ask you a big favor? When you reply, please do so by cutting the entire conversation from here and pasting it on my talk page. I can do the same if I respond. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That tool is designed to find pages where there is a high likelihood of interaction between one or more users. The theory is that the closer in time two editors edit the same page, the more likely they were actually interacting with one another with their edits (i.e. having a discussion with one another, edit warring, etc.). The likelihood of interaction between two users who edited a page 8 years apart is exceedingly low. Therefore, the tool ignores such pages and doesn't display them. I can't remember exactly how far apart in time the edits need to be before the tool will ignore them, but I think it's at least a year. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) May I suggest you add a link to the bottom of the Editor Interaction Analyzer homepage labeled "There are at least two competitors to this tool"? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Competitors" is a strange way of thinking about it. "Alternatives" or "variations" would be somewhat more accurate. To my knowledge, no other tool does exactly what this one does. However, the tool was certainly inspired by this tool. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 13:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Okay: how about a link labeled "There are at least two alternatives to this tool"? :) —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottywong, your edits to the headings seem wrong to me (but I'm a new to this) please explain what you were trying to achieve because some of the sub levels are incorrect and some of the headings now contain = characters, thanks Paul Clarence (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to use =Level 1 Headings=, so the bot was correct to convert them to ==Level 2== (see MOS:HEAD). However, it didn't deal with one of them correctly, because there was a reference in the heading (which is another thing you're not supposed to do). I've taken a look at it and fixed those issues, and a few others. However, I'm more concerned about the fact that much of the material you added to the article a week ago seems to have been copied and pasted from copyrighted sources. That's going to be a big problem. Can you explain why you did that? ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 13:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information is compiled from many sources and some of it has been provided to me via email but this is original information from these sources. There may be some minor copy/paste from the reference sources but most of this is one or two lines and some of the wording has been altered. Is this ok ? Paul Clarence (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw I did a major copy/paste from my sandbox page a week back so I think this is the problem Paul Clarence (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several sentences of the introduction are verbatim copies of this site, which has "© Commonwealth of Australia 2008" at the bottom of it. Those sentences will at least need to be rewritten in your own words. See WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO for more information. I haven't checked the rest of the article yet, but if anything else has been copied and pasted from a copyrighted source, it'll need to be looked at as well. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have made changes to the intro section. Some of this text came from Wiki Malabar,_New_South_Wales so http://www.finance.gov.au/property/property/malabarheadland.html may have been copied from wiki. Please remove the copyright notice when ok. Paul Clarence (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a useful tool but these pages are talking about the same subject and a common history, there will always be some matches even if I change every match. How many do you want me to change ? Paul Clarence (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottywong, I've made several edits, please run the comparator again and remove the copyright notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Clarence (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry! Didn't notice that you were already notified of this above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• edit filter
• new IP
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danrolo

Looks like Danrolo has found a new range not included in the filter. I've blocked the IP. Do you think the filter should be changed, or is it too little thus far to warrant it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it, let's see if there are any hits on that range. If there aren't any hits in a reasonable amount of time, then we can always remove it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 05:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scotty.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago I went to Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series and found it tremendously useful. Today, while reading the second book in the series, I went back and found that the page was gone.

After a very close vote, I see you deleted it.

Thanks a hell of a lot.

You deletionist wikipedia editors seem to take great joy in destroying information, information that is useful to people.

I've tried to wrap my head around your motivations, and I just can't do it.

PLEASE consider stopping this sort of vandalism (and I mean that in a normal-English sense, not in a Wikipedia-specific sense). You create a lot of damage for no good reason. TJIC (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you stated Xenophrenic had failed to notify Arthur Rubin of his comments at ANI. Did you check his contributions to see if he notified Arthur Rubin on his talkpage following the ANI posting? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scotty, as per your request on the admin page, please note the following error occurring with Snotbot's Task 5, that on occasion is putting cosmetic procedures before accessibility. Apologies for not going to you direct, but I'm relatively new to this and was following the instructions given in the centre of the Snotbot page regarding reporting problems, and followed that link. I'm learning every time I try something new! The incidence I have noted is highlighted in Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000), finally being correctly edited by GB Fan.

The initial error on this page was that headings started at Level 1. However, subsequent headings followed the correct hierarchy (level 2, then 3). Snotbot is correctly identifying this as an error and changing all Level 1s into Level 2s. However, Snotbot is not then altering all subsequent Levels (2 and 3) to conform to this new hierarchy. This results in a mass of Level 2 headings, the majority of which should be sub-headings, thus greatly reducing accessibility. In this instance, Snotbot was doing exactly what Andy Mabbett raised as a possible concern in the Task 5 Authorisation Page, and replacing a cosmetic/procedural error with an accessibility/readability error.

Could you please review Snotbot's instructions, as this error has made at least one Wikipedia page difficult to access. Thanks for your help Gareth544 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I've looked at the code for that task. I know that the bot does try to preserve the hierarchy of the section headings in most cases. For instance, one of the tasks it performs is to fix gaps in section headings (i.e. a level 2 heading followed immediately by a level 4 heading). So, if there is an article that has section headings of 2-4-4-5-4, it will correct the problem by changing it to 2-3-3-4-3. However, there is a chance that the bot doesn't preserve the hierarchy when correcting level 1 headings (I'll have to examine the code to confirm), however, that behavior might be intentional. I'm not convinced that we should make the assumption that an article with headings of 1-2-2 should really be 2-3-3 (as opposed to 2-2-2). One very common issue that I come across is when new editors put a level 1 heading at the very top of the article, with the title of the article. Then, they start the article below that, and the next heading is level 2. If Snotbot fixed that article in the way you'd prefer, we'd end up with an article that consists of all level 3 headings.

The fact that level 1 headings should never exist in an article changes the situation a bit, and I'm not sure if there is a solution that will please everyone in every case. I have a feeling that the bot's default behavior with respect to level 1 headings is simply to bump them all up to level 2, and not change anything else (unless other problems exist). This works for most articles, but, admittedly, not for the space marines article you referenced above. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong, you have created a very useful set of tools. Thanks! One extra piece of information I would love to see in User Contribution Search is the size of the diff. That could be very revealing! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I noticed the same thing a few days ago while using the tool myself. Thanks for the reminder, I'll try to find some time to get that added in there. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a few patches on the script. The multiple edits and edit conflicts problems should be resolved. After the transition to labs and the Peachy rewrite, I intend to overhaul all of the existing scripts. I'm going to restart the task and monitor the output.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's running cleanly. And I just implemented a crude but effective error handling function straight into Peachy to handle API call failures, like the ones it failed when the site failed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, made some changes to {{RFPP}} and figured I'd let you know. Forgive the massive number of revisions - I'm apparently blind today. Regards, m.o.p 21:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but as far as I can tell, you didn't add any new parameters to the template so the bot should be fine. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't "edits to admin areas" include WP:UAA since, well, it's an admin area? ^King Jakob _C2 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. However, I am hesitant to add it for three reasons. Firstly, because it may change the score of many users. Secondly, because every additional page that needs to be checked will make the tool work slower (and it's already quite slow). And thirdly, because I don't have time to look at the code at the moment. I'll keep it in mind though, and might add it later. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In this post, I discuss your change to the spam blacklist back in December. What had been happening in the article is that the official link to the subject of the article was being replaced by malicious phishing links that pretended to be the official site in an attempt to steal users' credentials on the official site. Because of the nature of .onion addresses, it is hard for a reader to tell which one is correct. Some of the discussion that took place at the time did not distinguish properly between the official link and the malicious phishing links, and several editors apparently came to believe that the official site was also phishing.

From the fact that your blacklist entry blocked both the official site and the phishing impostors, and from your edit summary of "+silkroad*.onion phishing site with changing url", I wondered whether you might also have been confused on this point. I believe that the discussion of whether the official site should be included in the article would benefit from a clarification of that aspect of the blacklisting history, and anything else you felt you could contribute to the discussion. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, that addition to the blacklist was triggered by a complaint that people were adding phishing links of the form "silkroad*.onion" where the asterisk is a wildcard. There was no discussion (that I recall) of the fact that silkroad.onion is a legitimate site that needs to stay off the blacklist. Therefore, I added the necessary regex to the blacklist to prevent URL's containing "silkroad", followed by anything (or nothing), followed by ".onion".

So, you would probably be technically correct to say that my entry to the blacklist went further than necessary by blocking the silkroad.onion site in addition to the phishing sites. However, I have browsed through the RfC on the article talk page, and it seems clear that a lot has happened between December and now, including the addition of all .onion sites to the blacklist, as well as multiple discussions about linking to silkroad.onion specifically, as well as discussions regarding the legality of WMF hosting external links to silk road. Therefore, even if my addition to the blacklist was partially incorrect, so much has transpired since then that the question of whether my initial action was correct or incorrect seems rather irrelevant now. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]