On 9/6/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote: As you wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&t… .... Which is exactly why living persons is not supposted to have subcats.

On 9/6/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote: That feature is a non-insignificant part of why category:living persons actually exists.. It's documented on the category page, and I pointed it at least a dozen times while I was still bothering to argue with people who were opposed to it because it's not a good category for navigation.... :) If you could come up with a way to make people more aware of it, it would be greatly appreciated. Now.. If I could only talk a javascript jockey into writing some user JS that overrides the watch this page button so that clicking opens a dropdown and lets you select one of several user defined pages... after selecting a page the script adds a link directed at the current page to the selected page.... Thus, with the help of related changes, facilitating public multi-user collaboratively edited watchlists.

On 9/6/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote: [snip] [snip] Of course, the existing bots will also fix vandalism they detect on articles about living persons.... but I expect you mean bots that specifically target the sort of problems we're expecting to catch with living persons patrol. The real challenge in that is identifying things which are clear evidence of vandalism (or at least a good red flag) for the bots to look for. An example might be any edit which introduces "is a fag" is highly suspect. You don't have to be a coder to create lists of such red flags... It would be useful if everyone who sees a lot of vandalism would make note of such patterns that we could expect a computer to detect and ideally provide diff links. Once a good list is built they can be converted into [[regular expression]]s and tested against historical edits to determine their accuracy. Once we are confident that they are good things to watch for, adding them to a bot would take only minutes.

On 9/6/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote: Ah, thats a great idea. [snip] You've twisted my arm enough, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&t… enjoy.

On 07/09/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote: Yep, this is what we need :-) Note that when I say 'living bio patrol', I don't mean editors who want to purge all blogs or whatever. I mean just quickly checking for added rubbish or checking for someone putting a whack of material (negative *or* positive) in a living bio with no reference of any sort. Mistakes and bad edits will still happen - no-one is expected to be perfect, particularly not volunteers doing an important but tedious job - but it'll make them less likely. - d.

On 07/09/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote: On a related note... is it possible to give a vandalism-bot its own watchlist? My understanding (which may be flawed) is that the bots cannot follow all recent changes due to volume; it would be very handy to be able to specify an article or articles where we could be sure these bots caught every change. (Not a substitute for human watchlisting and cultivation of the article, of course, but a good way of alleviating headaches) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Well, I'm a developer of [[en:WP:MWT]] and I figure I could port MWT to fetch recent IP edits to living persons biographies. So, as long as vandals don't remove the category, it should work. I'll see if I can hack away at the code and build a prototype with the latest stable release. -- Draicone | Akash On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote:

Well, I know TehKewl / Simon managed to get it running on Linux, but the code is VB6 for absolute simplicity and functionality. And since I'm not familiar with Java, this may be a problem :) On 9/7/06, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com> wrote:

If we could develop a system, like VP2, that took the feed and allocated edits seperately to different users... On 9/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: