Conservapedia

Bend342

Not a problem in the slightest! We must have zoomed by each other while I was reporting to AIV. Thanks for fixing my page, cheers! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

YourBot

I am not using your bot's data - you can keep that. Your comment at ANI is so out of line, I can no longer support your bot or the project for which it is (was?) intended. This is a job for editors not bots. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What comment would that be? I said that it wasn't FritzpollBot, alluded to a comment made earlier in the conversation that you seemed to be using the old data (I'm glad that you aren't). The "against consensus" is my interpretation (not binding) that geographical locations are not inherently notable, as was discussed previously. Quite why my comments on this matter would alter your objective opinion about the usefulness of a bot in this task is unclear to me? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Carlos's comment that "this is job for editors not bots". This is contrary to what we discussed previously. The idea was that we compile data using the most reliable sources, e.g government sources and start the articles at a standard as high as possible and as quickly as possible which potentially would be done for more efficiently than any human editor could start. Then at a later date it is for editors to try to expand what has been created. Anyway have a good day all. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot approvals

I don't object to using bots to create geographic articles, provided the following criteria are met:

• We have enough information available that the bot can create articles more substantial than substubs.
• We don't resort to speculation about anything we lack data on - for example referring to all places in a country as "villages" simply because we don't have information on what type of settlement each place actually is.
• We work with country or region specific WikiProjects beforehand to make sure that we are aware of unique geographic terminology, political issues (recent border changes or border-disputes with other countries for example), and what information sources are available.

Creating articles right the first time is a lot better than rushing to make lots of substubs and having to clean-up issues later, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely and these articles are of course in the process of being created anyway and could be done in more depth and more efficiently by the bot. Thats what I thought the consensus was initially when the bot was finally approved. We weren't to create empty articles but try to make them as resourceful as possible given the sources available and try to compile government sources as much a spossible. I think the Nepal articles are above the sub stubs and fit general guidelines for starting articles on places because a]it has government sources b]it is officially recognized as an adminstrative division of Nepal by the government c]it has international recognition on United Nations documents d] it has information not only on population but on demographics which in part relay some information about the livelihoods of people within that area e] The vast majority have a population over 2,500 people living in them. I believe this meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia and also would not be detrimental to the consensu agreed at Fritzpoll vilage pump discussion in the summmer. If anybody would like to gain a wider consensus at the village pump to be on the safe side let me know. Thanks for your input Kaldari. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fritzpoll, however, that there has never been clear consensus that geographic locations are inherently notable. It is possible, however, to work around this issue completely if you just use better sources for bot-generating a given set of articles. If you have 2 or 3 decent sources, or even just 1 very high-quality source that you can use for all the articles, inherent notability won't be an issue. People only get riled up on this issue when we're talking about making articles based solely on Falling Rain, GeoNames, or some other "list of place names", which are low-quality (but arguably reliable) sources. No one (that I know of) ever objected to Rambot creating thousands of articles on podunk towns in the US, even though he only used one source (census bureau). The reason is that his initial articles had lots of solid information, not just "This is a place located in another place." I guarantee that if your initial articles are half as good as Rambot's were, no one will raise a peep against your efforts. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we can all safely say there are some people who would be against it as with any proposal but there would be a far greater number of people willing to see these articles created than not, particularly as "sources" like fallingrain and some of the other dreadful computer generated sites have gone to hell, well in our GEOBOT project anyway as a primary reference although I will retrieve coordinates from one of them in the future if I require coordinates. Using government sources seems fine to me and they are above the sub stubs originally planned. And might I say I thought RamBot did an excellent task regsrdless of the attacks or "mistake" it was labelled as recently. I've lost count how many times I've clikced a blue link and come across a rambot created article which gives me valid information. Its not our fault if so many people are lazy and haven't expanded many of the articles it created. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for a new village pump discussion? The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody object to using the bot to add infoboxes to the articles we are going through withWikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status by copying them from French wikipedia and to save us months of work? The infoboxes can be copied directly from french wikipedia and inserte dinto here. All it needs is a slight wiki link alteration. Any likelihood that this can be done? If as you say you still intend using the bot which has the full seal of approval it mioght not be a bad way to start by gaining the communities trust of it by improving existing articles in such a way first. Having the ability to write and run a bot is a gift and it should be put to some use. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No mandate to improve existing articles, but if we can work out what it is I'm meant to do, I can ask the bot group for approval quickly. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. For example visit Yèvres-le-Petit, Now click the "francais" French wikipedia link. and click modifier at the top. Now copy and paste the infobox commune at the top. Now go back to the english article and copy and paste it in and save it. Thats basically all that needs doing as we have the infobox documentation sorted to read the french into english, except one or two of the wikidied links in the infobox need adjusting in the same way every time e.g removing a [[]] from the canton and the arrondisement parameter. Its extremely easy and we have a large backlog of articles to do manually. What we need is a bot to read the infobox on french wikipedia for each article and to place every one onto english wikipedia.

For instance see here, Basically the infobox is copied directly from French wikipedia but the canton and arrondisement is delinked and the intercommunality is also delinked and shortened. Compare it to the one now on french wikipedia for that commune and see how virtually the same the box is except those slight alterations. It is basically exactly the same process every time. Could this be coded? The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepal replace

Could you please run replace.py for articles such as Kalika, Baglung to replace town with VDC (village development committee) or village? Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea how to do that :) And unfortunately, my bot isn't authorised for that, and I wouldn't have the first idea what I' be doing. Might I suggest the bot requests page? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See the diffs. I'll work on fixing these today. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with ScienceApologist

Could you have a look at User talk:ScienceApologist and see if you can help with incivility problems that the user may be having? Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Its leapt to a page from the 30th April. Will talk to you about this Fritzpoll (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU clerk

Please add your name to clerk team OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No results

Sorry Fritz, but I'm pretty disappointed with the result of the much awaited GEOBOT project. Surely you can remember how enthusiastic many were back in the summer about the potential massive development of working with the GEOBOT and yourself to create good quality new articles with government sources. What happened?? You have wonderful abilities which this project could advance massively if you could use them and it is a shame you are not willing to give evne a glimmer of what you are clearly capable of because you are afraid of what one or two may think of you. I've spent a lot of time with you and I have much enjoyed your friendship on here independently of the bot, but I have also done my best to work with you and helped you out during difficult times. I've made a major effort to try to get the project up and running and have equally spent a lot of time suggesting where we can start (three valid proposals in three days) but it seems my attempts and those of others have all been wasted. It can't work if one editor, is not willing to do a single thing to help. When it becomes evident that there is no major problem with running the bot for a task you either make up a reason that implies you think everybody who uses wikipedia would somehow hate you for helping in a task which had a great deal of support and start to stress out, or you become pretty unresponsive like you have the last few days or go on a wikibreak. You've mislead us since May that you intended fulfilling your promises and while I always believed you because of difficulties you have been experiencing I've been as patient as I possibly can in the hope that someday we could do something and save a number of us weeks od manual work on here. Even if we completely put starting articles on the backburner there shouldn't be any problem whatsoever why the bot couldn't be used to cleanup and improve existing articles. A lot of expectancy would have been saved by being straight with me and the stranded GEOBOT project after that village pump discussion. Naturally there is no obligation that you have to edit a thing on here, but you did state on many occasions that you intended taking your words into action and I believed you. I feel you have let me down, particularly when many of us have spent a great deal of time in discussing the proposals in good faith (and 30 people signed up for the project to help you) that at least a few countries would be worked through on here, evne if it was far more low key than the original proposal and only one or two countries rather than the world as planned. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I told you that I would happily create the lists that we discussed before the chaos that occurred over the summer. I am still happy to do that provided I am told where to begin - those lists could be uploaded tomorrow with ease if I'm told what to do. Instead, every time I say "let's get going", I'm asked to do something different, like cleanup articles, or create new stubs on places where the notability is unclear. If you ask me to do things outside of policy (running bot tasks not specifically approved is a violation of policy) then we're going to have disagreements. If you let me create the lists in that beautiful table format that we fiddled with all that time ago, then we will cover the world: maybe not by individual articles, but by lists which can be manually and lovingly checked and confirmed. There was talk of starting with American Samoa as a small place, but this came to nothing. And as I say, all my efforts since then have resulted in my being asked to do something different!

Quite aside from potentially violating policy and consensus, these suggestions are not easy. The reason being that to perform a different task, I have to sit down and write, essentially, a new bot from scratch. Computers are stupid - they cannot change task willy-nilly without considerable effort. Some of the proposals (replacements) are actually tricky to do well, and would require extensive testing, which is why I suggested offloading them to a separate bot, or using AWB.

Give me a country to process, open the new subpage per the procedures described at WP:GEOBOT (including the template subst), give me a source or two that seem viable, and I will process it into our subpages tomorrow in the table format ready for dabbing, checking and formatting. I can't work outside that remit without going back to bot approvals and recoding a new bit of code. It isn't as simple as some people seem to thing it is Fritzpoll (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept your feelings that some people may object and you don't want a repeat of before, I understand this. If however we were to scrap the idea of bot generating individual articles on places (at least until the bot gains trust), however notable they may seem, and concentrate either on drawing up those lists, or cleaning up existing articles such as French communes by copying infoboxes straight from French wikipedia into the empty articles such as Yèvres-le-Petit I am certain we wouldn't get anybody who would be against it providing it runs smoothly as it is advacning the information quality of the articles rather than starting them. We can make another bot request (with BAG) if you feel that this in anyway violates the original approval. I'm sorry to seem like one of those stressful people we encounter on here the last few days, but I just want to see it fulfill some of its potential, however different to the original proposal. I hope you understand this and appreciate my honesty The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The individual article idea is also fine, but it requires the notability factor. Our discussions last week on this point have not amounted to a great deal of progress, since there is no guidance. The lists would allow a two-fold solution:

• • They would allow us to gather the information into a checking format, where dabbing and manual fact-checking could take place. This could then provide a framework around which notable entries are discovered (I could append a web link to google searches)
  • These lists could, after fact-checking, be converted into articles ("List of villages in X district of Y") meaning full representation of all geographic locations in the world. The bot could then generate redirects from the dabbed links into the "List of..." article, which would allow people to eventually expand the articles as and when information arises.

How would that be? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The lists were always the best option in reality as groundwork about places and would avoid any of the concerns about individual article notability. Dabbing work would need to be done for the redirects, until we later scout for sources to start the more resoureful ones individually. As for the reason why I think it might be straightforward to programme the frenchc ommune bot is that all that needs doing is copying the infobox directly from the French wikipedia equivalent. Please see Yèvres-le-Petit. All that needs doing for each article is cutting and pasting the infobox from French wiki into every article which must be bot compatible. So for Yèvres-le-Petit all it requires is pasting the infobox into it from here. Please can you look into it? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dabbing would be useful as it would let me build the redirects with the bot. If all you want is copying from one wiki into another, I can code that up and put in a request for a second bot, but that won't be until next week. The lists, however, can start around tomorrow lunchtime (UK time) if you can pick a country and some sources of coordinate data for me... Fritzpoll (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If we were to address the drawing up of the lists, we could also gain consensus over the possibility of removing some of our existing "perma-stubs" by redirecting to lists (e,g like Afghanistan). If people thought it would make wikipedia more concise by housing existing info in table format even those wiki cynics would see the benefit. If you feel under pressure because of the "FritzpollBot" naming, I would have no problems if you wer eto rename it BlofeldBot or rather GEOBOT and allow me to take primary responsibility to avoid your name being associated with it or for it to become a project tool rather than purely assigned to yourself. This way it would ease any potential comments directed to yourself. Would you feel more comfortable if we renamed it User:GEOBOT to become a shared project responsibility? The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If we were to pick Afghanistan we could even redirect some of those stubs which were created before into tabled lists by province. Afghanistan has been dabbed already, it just needs representing by redirecting to lists rather than individual articles. The Bald One ^{White cat} 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems with the name of the bot - conforms to guidelines anyway. If you want us to go with this one, I can convert the existing AFghan data over tomorrow for checking? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I decided against the altitude column given that there are rarely reliable sources for the figures at present. Wheb done it would basically be a move from the directory into a table format with the coordinates showing on the maps. Content can be built gradually in filling in the "description" and forms a regulator for when to start a seperate article, once it becomes to full. Native name column too, is for Arabic or native language types. It may not be needed for anglosphere areas which don't have "funny" writing systems but that can be sorted easily as we go along I'd imagine. The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Diz u on line? The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and damn, damn, damn, damn, damn! I left the bot code on a USB key in my PC at home, about 20 miles away!!! I'll have to do the run when I get home (going to skive out of work a bit early to get back). Bugger!! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of cities, towns and villages in Badakhhan Province

Place name	Official name	Native name	District	Description	Map/coordinates
Ab Gach	Āb Gach		Bald District	It is on the left bank of the Ab-i-Wakhan about a mile upstream of the meeting of that river and the Amu Darya.	Ab Gach class=notpageimage| 36°59′N 72°42′E
Amurn	Āmūrn			Located on the M41 motoway which connects it with Tajikistan near the border	Amurn class=notpageimage| 38°11′51″N 71°21′10″E
Andowj	Andowj				Andowj class=notpageimage| 37°1′N 71°26′E
Anjoman	Anjoman			It is located on the scenic Anjoman Pass which is situated in a 100 mile Panjshir Valley. Each year cattle is herded through Anjoman from the high plains of Badakhshan Province down to the south	Anjoman class=notpageimage| 35°53′N 70°24′E
Arakht	Arakht
Arghandakan	Arghandakān
Artin Jelow	Ārtīn Jelow
Arun	Ārūn
Ashkasham	Ashkāsham
Ashnam	Āshnām
Baharak	Bahārak