User talk:Elinruby: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

2020/April 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Jublains archeological site]

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Jublains archeological site to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages needing translation into English, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you.

Bienvenu(e), et merci de votre contribution de la page Jublains archeological site à Wikipédia. Bien que vous ayez introduit cette page à la version anglaise de Wikipédia, elle n'est pas en anglais et elle a donc été ajoutée à la liste des pages en besoin de traduction. Nous vous invitons à la traduire vous-même, mais si elle n'est pas traduite d'ici deux semaines, on proposera sa suppression. Merci. MB 00:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have moved this French-language article to Draft space. Once it is written in English, it can be moved back to article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

and this will all go much faster if NPP stops editing in errors and creating edit conflicts. Run along now, I am still cleaning up after the last NPP newbie. Buh bye. Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S. you *do* speak English, right? I can't quite tell Elinruby (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've left some advice for you at MB's talk page, he's the lead coord of NPP and I was the shepherd of it for 12 years. You wouldn't want to compare your experience with that of Jonesey95 either. I don't doubt that you are near bilingual English-French and that you do some good work but your articles will all go much faster if you follow good advice and are not rude to people. You need to stop your sanctimoneous insults here and on other users' talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Sanctimonious insults? Please. When I insult you there won't be any sanctimony about it. Please explain to me, Mr Perfectly Bilingual, what exactly "an eu" means and in which of those two languages. I'll wait right here, all AGF. I do really want to know who at WMF to talk to about this btw. In the morning though. I don't have time for this right now. I answered you, and him, over there already Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: in case you haven't seen the reply. If you want to disregard your silly contention that the spell-checker was correct, I am happy to delete this and move on; it just seems like I should give you a chance to reply before I do, and I see I didn't ping or mention you Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. If you were truly bilingual you would know that in English 'an eu' is gobbeldygook, and a eu is not a typo in a French text. This is the English Wikipedia so If you wish to avoid English spell check robots don't be surprised if they make a mess of your French. As I suggested, the normal route for a translation is to keep it in user space or draft space unhtil you have completed and perfected it. I'll disengage now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung: That was precisely my point. NPP should not be running an English spell-checker on text that is actively being translated. I don't care about this personally, as I rarely translate full articles for precisely this reason. But this dysfunction is why we cannot keep translators, or any kind of new editor for that matter. As a constructive suggestion, I suggest that the bots check for recent activity to avoid edit conflicts. Since you seem committed to defending the NPP team against perceived slights, you are not the person to make this suggestion to, and since you say you are having meetings with WMF, I ask again with whom. You can continue to insult my language skills if it makes you feel good, but I and my barnstars know otherwise, and that is even sillier than claiming that the spellchecker correctly changed "a eu" to "an eu" as you claimed on MB (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Stop taking this so personally; you are arguing about an edge case. It isn't possible to create an article on en.wikipedia without being swarmed, so yes, I am well aware that NPP dislikes live editing. Meanwhile my own software appears so have memory management issues, and rather than lose everything I chose to incurr the wrath of the bots. This was done eyes open but the experience was much worse than I remembered and makes me consider how this could be addressed in a more constructive manner. Perhaps the Editor Retention Project, as this is the heart of my concern? The only reason I am persisting is that this exchange embodies so well the harm done by NPP. I don't claim that we shouldn't have it, as I realize that it combats a huge amount of spam, just that it needs to focus better on first doing no harm and address the disdain with which it addresses other editors. I will delete this exchange after you answer the above question. Thanks for your time. Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points. I was not running a spell-checker as part of any NPP activity. I did not even find this article because I was reviewing new pages at the time. I found it because it appeared in error categories that I monitor. I edited the article to fix these errors. Such article cleanup is not part of NPP. I ran the spell checker because I routinely do that on every article I edit because it corrects many styling errors, not just spelling, that are tedious to do manually. As I have already told you, best practice is to develop articles in Draft space or your own User space. Having done that would have entirely avoided this. MB 13:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

yes yes yes as previously noted, I faced a choice of doing it this way or starting over due to problems on my side with my software. Faced with the same choice again, I would start over, but I've already been convinced that article creation on en-wikipedia isn't worth fighting through the bots and now focus on undoing the damage line by line. I vehemently disagree that this is best practice, as I continually clean up after it, but I would welcome the opportunity to have a technical discussion with you on how the process works now, in the interests of improving it, but the above discussion is about Kudpung's attempt to advise me to listen to wiser folks, lol. We do seem to have established, finally, that changing "a eu" to "an eu" was not an article improvement, although he now seems to think that I am the one who needs to e instructed in this. I will give him a day or so to tell me who he is supposedly talking to at WMF before concluding that he is simply confused. I will open another section on this page for the techical discussion. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I told you I was disengaging, but what I'm seeing is a bad case of WP:IDHT. No one gives orders to me or anyone else to reply to you in 24 hours. You have been given good advice not to actively translate articles live in mainspace. I don't do it, you'll see that all my many translations are made either off-Wiki or in my userspace first and there's no reason why the community should give you a special dispensation to do it your way due to problems on your side with your software. The reviewers process up to 700 new articles every day. From WP:PNT: "If the article is a mere copy of (all or part of) an article in another language's Wikipedia, it can just be tagged with {{db-foreign}} to get added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion". You can always expect such article creations will be sent to draftspace if not outright slated for deletion by the people here, a user right and policy I created six years ago with full, site-wide consensus. You may have misunderstood the process and procedures here despite having been around for a long time - it can happen to anybody. No one has insulted you, not even nearly, but my further friendly advice is that you tone down the language of your messages, IMO they border on not one, but two policy infractions: this one and this one. That's the personal issue that concerns me, and on behalf of my colleagues @Jonesey95 and MB:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, please just use draft space for developing your articles. There, you can write them in French-accented Klingon, pass them through a universal translator, and spit it out in English, and nobody will say a peep about it, as long as it remains in draft space. I usually have several articles going in Draft in various stages of unreadiness, and I never had a problem with any of them. I even leave myself notes right in the article, of stuff I don't want to forget, and it all just stays nicely there, waiting for me to fix them up, and get it ready for Main space.

You remember the original version of 'Liberation of France', all full of fakey-Latin lorem ipsum text, and full of "missing section" boxes? It's never a problem in Draft space; take advantage of it, that's what it's there for.

Also, take it from a friend: you're getting a little testy there with the experienced regulars, and it's just not necessary. Be kind; it doesn't cost anything. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: at least I haven’t welcomed them to Wikipedia ;) Kudpung (talk · contribs) in particular seems determined to misunderstand anything other than an abject apology; and I don’t think the suggestion that the process seems overly automated and might warrant another look is all that unreasonable. I was actually trying to offer Kudpung an out, as he seems quite confused. But since he wishes to disengage I will take that to mean that he does not wish to answer the question, and go ahead delete this mess, in which he castigates me for precisely the error I am taking issue with. Meanwhile MB (talk · contribs) at least gave me a technical answer to a technical question, and that section seems to be a better place to seek constructive dialogue. I may also have some questions for you, separately. Apparently this is an overeager regex? Let me cc you on something Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

questions about NPP bot

@MB: Quck question. Is there a specific dedicated piece of software that is used for NPP? It sounds like you watch the feed. What I am trying to establish right now is whether NPPers use an attended interface like Twinkle, or whether it's more akin to a spider doing batch processing, in which case the check I have proposed will not work. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

NPPers watch the feed. Some reviewers look at the oldest unreviewed articles first, some look at newest, some start in the middle, some look as specific article types or subject area. Yes, there is a tool we use filter the feed and help with other reviewer actions. MB 14:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's at Special:NewPagesFeed and it's accompanied by a full set of excellent sophisticated tools that have been in use since 2012 and which I also helped to develop. You can see them here but you do not have the access right to use them. There are around 750 accredited New Page Reviewers, more if you count around 1,100 admins who automatically have access. None of them are expected to be polyglot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)