User talk:The last username left/2010/October

I like it
=). 05:21, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
Can't the bot change the links before it tags with Delete?-- 02:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Talk start
Your talk start thing extends to far to the right, it covers my name so I cannot click on it. Can you shorten it up please, thanks.-- 02:17, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prob have what most people would consider an odd setup to both play RS and browse the wiki at the same time. Here is the screenie, but if you do not feel like dealing with it thats fine. With the new skin these things supposedly won't happen anyhow.-- 06:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

RSC wiki
Can you get your bot do help out with the RSC wiki? its in pretty bad shape right now and there arent even any fully auto-save bots there. I requested a bot flag for it anyway after talking with riblet15, just incase. - 05:19, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Oh, and Tlulbot already has already made an edit to the RSC wiki on the request of Riblet15 http://runescapeclassic.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/TLULbot - 06:28, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Minor updates to AmauriceBot
FYI, in order to handle cases where the Wikia is under heavy load, the AmauriceBot has been changed to adapt more. The main changes are: 09:15, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * User:AmauriceBot/Source code/Utils
 * Changed connection.setReadTimeout from 30 seconds to 120 seconds (to allow longer for slow Wikia).
 * Increased delay between retries (in getInternetPage) to start at 6 seconds rather than 1 second.
 * Added extra call to connection.setRequestProperty to set the "User-Agent" (in case Wikia requires in future).
 * Added call to connection.getResponseCode and throw exception if not 200 (i.e. http failure status).
 * User:AmauriceBot/Source code/WikiSession
 * Changed doCmd to parse and log any WikiAPI errors to stderr.
 * Changed doCmd to retry if get maxlag error.
 * Added "&amp;maxlag=5" to editText (as per http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Maxlag_parameter).
 * Changed editText to delay if doing an edit within 6 seconds of last edit (to keep below 10 edits a minute).

Charm log Bots
Do you know when the Charm: namespace will be created? I assume the validated charm pages will have the same format as the current charm log pages, but what format will the submission pages have? Do people submitting new log information have to add to an existing set of numbers (which could be error prone), or they add a new line (or maybe even a new row in a table)? 12:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear the Charm: namespace has been created . In preparation for the charm log changes, I am in the process of creating a short lived bot to go through the existing charm log pages looking for vandalisms that have not been corrected. At the moment my bot just reports who adjusted the charms and by how much, and I have already seen some uncorrected vandalisms. I will update my bot code over the weekend to see if I can get it to distinguish between good edits, vandalisms, corrections to vandalisms, and old vandalisms that have not been corrected. This will give me a chance to test different methods of vandalism detection and allow me to correct missed vandalisms ready for the move to the new update system. 12:56, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I've started the scanning for charm log vandalism on the existing logs, and found quite a few. So far I've fixed up about 25% of them (the monsters that begin with A-C). One of the problems is that that some of the vandalisms are very old, so spotting them and not considering the later reverts to be vandalism is not straight forward, so I've had to manually each one. Once we get good logs, then keeping track of the vandalisms will get easier. I think it's going to take me most of the week to go through the remaining log pages.

So far for detection, I first check if the change is a revert, and if not, then I'm checking: The last two are not doing very strict tests at the moment because getting "good" updates to compare against with some logs that contain a lot of vandalism is not reliable enough. Once we start using the Charm: namespace, we can start doing stronger checks. 14:06, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No negative change in kill counts or individual charm drops
 * 2) No more than 10000 kills added in one update
 * 3) If no change in kills, then no change in charms drops (i.e. format changes allowed)
 * 4) The charms multiplier should be between 1 and 4 (or 13 for corporal beast), and should be the same as previous "good" entries
 * 5) The number of charms dropped cannot exceed the charms multiplier x number of kills
 * 6) The charm drop rate should be similar to "good" updates
 * 7) The skew towards low or high charms should be similar to "good" updates

Once a pages data is fully verified is it moved to the charm log namespace, or are we waiting until all are ready for the move together?--Degenret01 14:29, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

What a babe.
TITTIES 16:05, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * thats the page, if you can, go in the "me Xd" album 18:31, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Charm log header
I was looking at your new Template:Charm log header, and has some thoughts/comments:
 * 1) I think the "Charms per drop"  should just be in the Charm: namespace version of the drops, as it should not be changed.
 * 2) What is the "No Charm" column for? Maybe some intro text needs adding when editing to explain (like with the current charm logs).

As for detecting vandalism, with the current logs, it's had to accurately detect and near impossible to automatically correct. Most of these problems will be addressed with the new Charm: namespace scheme and regular updates.

We also have some monsters where we have little or no charm drop information on. Maybe once this system is going I might go and do some killing to get some initial data. There aren't too many missing numbers. There are also some that look a bit suspicious, but without more drop samples from independent sources I cannot be sure whether they are good or bad. I got my Bot to create a table of the numbers in my secondary sandbox >here<. The additional "Skew" number is just and indicator of whether high charms (e.g. crimson and blue) or low charms (e.g. gold) are generally dropped. Weak monsters will generally have a negative number, where as high level monsters and bosses will tend to have more of a positive skew.

I'm going to use my primary sandbox >here< to collect ideas on what could be checked to help identify vandalism. You are welcome to add to the list if you want, or comment on my current ideas (consider this permission to edit my sandbox while collecting ideas). 12:48, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have finished going through the logs correcting the vandalisms my Bot has spotted. There may be some vandalisms missed. For example, Barbarian and Thug charm drops were too high, but not spotted by the Bot because it could not identify which ones were good and which were bad. I only noticed them when looking at the table I got my Bot to dump out in the end. I have also fixed up the Bat and Corporal Beast vandalisms that occurred since I previously checked them. I can periodically check them but I don't think I will spot many more vandalisms (except maybe new ones as they occur). There's not much more checking I can do now until the new system is in place. In the mean time I can start working on my code to do the merging of submissions into the main charm pages, along with some validation. 21:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Corrected a couple more vandalisms this evening. I've also been thinking about the vandalism detection again and I might take a slightly different approach (once we start using the charm namespace) that categorises the changes into four categories:
 * Good changes (these get merged)
 * Slightly suspicious changes (these get merged, but the Bot warns the operator so they can check)
 * Very suspicous (these do not get merged, operator gets warned so can check)
 * Definite vandalism (these do not get merged, warning operator is not necessary but might be useful)
 * Do you have a timeframe for when you plan to start using the charm namespace and the submission pages? 22:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have updated vandalism detection notes in my sandbox to the method I am considering using myself. 15:16, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Here ya go
STALKER. 07:07, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Code changes to AmauriceBot (including new "charms" task)
Added getEmbeddedUsages and getHistory to WikiSession class. Changed pattern match for numbers in GEChecker class to not stack overflow if excessive number of digits (from a vandal). Created CharmChecker class to process charm submission logs into charm drop pages. Updated Main class to add the charms option. 19:05, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Updating of charm drops
I've got my Bot set to update the charm drops about 4 times a week (after doing the GE ones). However, it has reported that the Charm:Mounted terrorbird gnome and Charm:Terror dog pages do not have a "log" attribute in them. It looks as if the migration to the Charm: namespace has not updated the content. Did you want to check it, or should I just fix the pages? 16:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

:D
IMMA FIRE MAH LASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 00:16, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Moving to charm namespace with the lul bot
Wai? Now we can't see changes to it in the widget of recent changes, which shows only mainspace edits... 14:36, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

User:TLUL
Is this you or someone else? 20:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC) I NEED A REPLY TO THIS NAO! 21:14, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

User:Matthew2602/Letter to wikia about TLUL
I thought you might like to read it. 06:32, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

/status
u want me or someone to change ur /status to "blocked"? 09:51, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

OMG YOUR BACK
Welcome back buddeh. 21:16, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate GIFs, update refs
Hi TLUL,

Can you update refs from GIF to PNG for the following images and then D the GIF?

Also, is it possible to validate to make sure what's in the image parameter on Infobox item matches what's in icon for the Exchange template? That seems to be where we have a lot of dupes. 09:48, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * }
 * }