User talk:Blue/archive6

Autosign bot

Well, at least it knows there's an unsigned comment somewhere... -- Nx / talk 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that was supposed to be the hard part... Blue (is useful) 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it recognize this line as an unsigned comment?

It would have to check the diff to determine if it is unsigned or not. -- Nx / talk 19:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It checks the diff first as a whole and scans it for a timestamp. That's one issue - if you accidentally put five tildes, it won't recognize it as unsigned. Blue (pester) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Then the difficult thing is finding the same edit on the current revision. What if I modify the text in a quick edit before the bot gets a chance to edit? Maybe leaving out intermediate revisions would be best, and if there's an edit conflict, start again from the last checked revision to the new current revision. -- Nx / talk 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My solution to that is shaky at best, right now if you subtract characters or add less than five it skips the edit. I honestly hadn't thought of people editing before the bot. Blue (is useful) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I suggest: maintain a list that contains the last checked revision of every page; when the bot sees a diff (from revision A to revision B), and it's not on this list, it checks the diff from revision A to the current revision; if there's an edit conflict, it checks again; finally, if there's no edit conflict, it adds the page to the list with the current revision; if the page is already on the list, instead of using revision A as a starting point, use the last checked diff, so that in case the bot missed a diff on a page that it had already checked in the past, it would still catch it later. Of course if revision A is lower than the last checked revision, it doesn't have to do anything, this means this was a diff that was included in the intermediate edits when checking. -- Nx / talk 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Before we talk about that, briefly, is there a pyb function for converting timestamps from numerical format? Blue (pester) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It uses time.strftime('%Y%m%d%H%M%S', time.gmtime()) to convert to MW format, so the reverse of that, which is probably time.strptime(timestamp, '%Y%m%d%H%M%S'). -- Nx / talk 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, WE MIGHT HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH... WAIT FOR IT... ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 20101101202252}

Damnit, I was tired and went to bed, then started thinking about my idea above and basically figured out how to implement this bot, and I had to get up. I hate it when that happens. It's a bit difficult to explain though. -- Nx / talk 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect all the newly added lines in the full diff into a list, then go backwards diff by diff to figure out the user and timestamp for each line. When a line is modified, remember that so you can find the original addition of the line. If you see an added line in your diff, but can't find it in the list, ignore it, it was removed later on. Now that you have a list of lines and corresponding users + timestamps, figure out if they are signed/dated or not (matching time, link to user/user talk page of that user, take into account imagelinks too), and autosign them. If there's an edit conflict, don't throw away the list, reuse it to avoid doing stuff twice. -- Nx / talk 21:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how mine works... ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 2:5, 0 1 201(UTC)}

Again, let me demonstrate...

Again, let me demonstrate... whoops. now it should work. ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 1:5, 1 1 010 (UTC)}

Something's wrong with my timestamps ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 1:0, 1 1 010 (UTC)}

Hopefully this will have fixed it ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 16:47, 01 November 2010 (UTC)}

Update: apparently not. Again, again. Once more, with feeling ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs 41:24, 01 November 2010 (UTC)}

Now we've just lost all semblance of timestampery. In a bizarre twist, I think the bot was right. ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs at: 1 (UTC)}

Highly erratic bot behavior we've seeen ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs at20:04 11 April 2010 (UTC)}

Does the timestamp work? How about now ^{— Unsigned, by: Blue / talk / contribs attime.struct_time(tm_year=2010, tm_mon=11, tm_mday=4, tm_hour=4, tm_min=29, tm_sec=55, tm_wday=3, tm_yday=308, tm_isdst=-1)}

Question

How are you getting the diffs? There seems to be no api function to return a diff -- Nx / talk 09:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I appropriated various things from difflib. Blue (is useful) 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a showDiff in wikipedia.py that uses difflib, so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. I was just wondering if you were using something more efficient than getting the two revisions and comparing. E.g. getting a normal diff page and stripping out the html. -- Nx / talk 09:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. showDiff is its own little process that adds colors. It's based off of one ndiff function, I believe.

2. I did try getting the html, but I learned that the the actual diff part of the page is generated by javascript. I almost got there, though :) Blue (is useful) 09:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. You're right. My problem with showDiff is that unlike wiki diffs, it shows modified lines as a removal and addition, so that's a problem.

2. No, they're not. wikiEd has a javascript diff, but the vanilla diff of mediawiki is generated server-side. -- Nx / talk 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out, difflib does detect modified lines. -- Nx / talk 10:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if this works.^{— Unsigned, by: Nx / talk / contribs} 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's alive, IT'S ALIVE!!!!^{— Unsigned, by: Nx / talk / contribs} 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Is it operational now? Any chance you could post (or send me) the code, for educational purposes, like you did for capturebot? Blue (is useful) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not running now, since I'm still working on it, there is still some polishing left to do, and of course bugs to fix. I will post the code soon, didn't want to upload it in a half-finished state. -- Nx / talk 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dpl and ref tags (Template:Internet)

Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated than I thought, and would need an overhaul of the internals of DPL, so yeah, don't think I'll be fixing that. Just wanted you to know that I didn't forget about it. [1] -- Nx / talk 08:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, are we going to be keeping dpl then? Blue (pester) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we depend on it too much. -- Nx / talk 08:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Stubs

Um, I did like 60 or so and Armondikov did more so, err. Sorry. *whistles* Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No worries, I can have a bot go through and make any adjustments. We need to discuss style, though, on the SB. Blue (is useful) 19:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So am I going back to mass minor editing or is the bot doing all of them? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot isn't doing anything right now but fixing grammar. Blue (pester) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to Nx for rendering that unnecessary. ;) Blue (pester) 20:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I'm on U. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your sig

Has become very unfriendly to the noobs you profess to care so much about. Also to us old hands. Why not amp it up a few more "big"s? ħuman 03:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet Nutty likes it... what to do, what to do? Blue (pester) 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has three thumbs can't be trusted. Have you even considered her taste in music, fergoatssake? ħuman 04:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just knock it back to regular size font, is all I'm asking. The magical appearing links are cool. ħuman 06:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only have I made it visible, I've gone for something completely different.

This is kind of like trying on outfits... Blue (is useful) 06:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for normalizing the size. Lol. ħuman 14:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Howard Berkowitz

Blue, if you have contributed as many articles to CZ as I have, wonderful! A long time back, I became comfortable in what I wrote, although it probably took three books before I realized it. I hope we can collaborate because the whole may be greater than the sum of the parts. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I do hope you mean RW? I don't edit Citizendium. Blue (pester) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then your statement makes more sense, since I didn't see you at CZ. I must have been reading your RW count. Sorry about that. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That graph I posted to your talk page combines editors from CZ, RW and CP. Blue (pester) 07:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

If you want any help at all with your category-assigning, let me know. Just give me a few stub-categories, for example, and I'll go for it. ^EXTERMINATE 23:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could help with replacing the stub cats with {{stubcat|(name)}}... or continue specializing stubs in category:articles needing expansion. Blue (is useful) 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pat on the back

The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Multas gratias! Blue (is useful) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Autosign bot source

I don't want to post the code publicly yet, but I can email it to you. Since I'll be busy with the upgrade this weekend (I'm still waiting for the database transfer to the new server, that's why I had time to work on the bot), if you want to test it/fix bugs/improve it, I'd appreciate that. Email me so I can send it to you (can't attach files through the wiki send email function). -- Nx / talk 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you being so secretive? What are you trying to hide from the public? Why must all this development be done by shadowy figures in dark rooms behind closed doors? When will RationalWiki be run in an open, transparent manner, as wikis are supposed to be? The people have a right to know. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the code is a mess, and because I haven't tested it thoroughly yet. And my room is not dark. -- Nx / talk 21:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I always pictured it dark. Something to do with the masochistic nature of improving this wiki, I suppose. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to take a look at it, but you don't have email enabled... Blue (is useful) 22:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, enabled now. -- Nx / talk 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page

It's not a joke, I've moved the styling out into common.css. You might've gotten a cached copy of common.css, hence the weirdness. -- Nx / talk 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized.. Blue (is useful) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop "working" for a moment?

We want Trent to back up the website so we can wreck it. ħuman 04:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Blue (pester) 04:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. I emailed him begging to back up now and let us loose. ħuman 04:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You think an intercom should be sent advising unsuspecting users of the impending apocalypse? Blue (pester) 04:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)