Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:MglovesfunBot. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:MglovesfunBot, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:MglovesfunBot in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:MglovesfunBot you have here. The definition of the word User talk:MglovesfunBot will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:MglovesfunBot, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
We can always have both of us running identical bots. At the moment I'm creating thousands of form-ofs whose infinitive forms don't exist on en.wikt yet. But it'll take all my life to do that. --Rising Suntalk?contributions12:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, since I have zero bot experience, I don't want to "rush in" and create a load of nonsense. But hopefully, it will happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
removing clothing
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think I near to be clearer on what the bot is. With a couple of exceptions it's semi-automated rather than fully, but yeah, I could do this. I don't promise to do them today, but I will. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just noticed some bot edits you made, like this one. Many of these are incorrectly done, since Latin does not have a "past", but rather has a perfect and an imperfect tense. Latin also has an active and a passive, and these are important to distinguish. Most instances of "pp." in an etymology section referring to Latin should actually read "perfect passive participle", not "past participle". The phrase "past participle" is not really meaningful when discussing Latin. --EncycloPetey16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh I totally agree, hence why abbreviations like p.p. should be used at all. I can probably find them in the bot's history and change them by hand, but if you have a list to hand, I will tackle them directly. MglovesfunBot18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
TheFreeDictionary
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
These are all so randomly formatted that they need doing by hand. In some cases the reference isn't a true reference, and needs removing. So I'll either do it by hand (as a 'human editor') or not at all. Sorry. MglovesfunBot11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
sv-noun
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you're going to introduce sv-noun, you have lots of work ahead of you, for no apparent value. I have avoided this template because it seems unnecessary and quite primitive. --LA214:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
conversion from es-noun-mf -> es-noun
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Kinda. {{es-noun}} isn't designed to handle more than just a singular and a plural; this can be easily fixed without sacrificing any information, and should be even if the other three template pass RFD as there's no reason not to improve other existing templates. See template talk:pt-noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
But the usual practice (as discusses recently in the BP IIRC) is that usage notes only get a bullet point of there's more than one of them under the same header.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I meant that it's not weird to have unbulleted stuff under headers. Yes, we reference templates and IPA are bulleted, but OTOH usage notes are not. AFAIK seeCites isn't generally either (until you started); perhaps I'm wrong?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I personally add bullet points to usage notes, but not (as you rightly point out) to etymologies, though some etymologies do use bullet points. In WT:BOT, I was thinking of "I will make sure that the task is so innocuous that no one could possibly object." In any event, ideally it should be all or nothing - all bullet points, or none at all, except when used directly under a definition where I used #* (that is, the hide quote mechanism)
Unrelatedly, whenever anyone leaves a message on this talk page (including me) it stops the bot which is quite annoying - though of course, not a reason not to post valid material. But it's also why I prefer messages on User talk:Mglovesfun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Problem diff
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Already mentioned it User:MglovesfunBot/errata. Thing was, I thought I'd found and fixed them all. My problem is, AWB is so small that I often can't read my own typing! And AFAICT with all the 'options' there are, there isn't one to make the text bigger. --MglovesfunBot11:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well they shouldn't be wikilinked at all, of course. What we actually need is to find all the broken ones, this would require looking at a 'dump' not a bot log. Alternatively, it is possible to find which entries using double square brackets using {{isValidPageName}}. --MglovesfunBot09:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Duplicate Tagalog entries
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The bot added {{rfc-auto}} so that KassadBot would sort them alphabetically and tag any problems. 97 is quite a lot to do by hand; still it's really a manual job rather than automated to merge such translations. Best solution is for me to do it using AWB to speed it up. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm used to manually cleaning up that category, but almost always the members are manually created so there are typically fewer than a half dozen in a day. I also believe that what is caused by a bot needs to addressed by the bot designer so that any improvement opportunities are not lost. As I am basically monolingual, I am also reluctant to get involved in anything involving multiple entries in languages other than English. DCDuringTALK23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I see that you are replacing {{infl|fi|adjective}} templates with {{head|fi|adjective}}. The last time there was a discussion about which template to use, it ended up with a consensus of using {{fi-adj}}. Have I missed something? --Hekaheka17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Bot's just replacing the string {{infl| with {{head|. It's not doing anything else, apart from 'minor spacing'. fi-adj is fine, but it's a separate replacement. If that's a request, then the answer's yes - is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
It would be nice if a bot could do that. One must note that {{fi-adj}} produces comparatives and superlatives differently and there are several ways to do it. Using (deprecated template usage)punainen as example (nominative comes from PAGENAME):
{{fi-adj|punais|empi|in}}
{{fi-adj||punaisempi|punaisin}}
{{fi-adj||comp=punaisempi|sup=punaisin}}
{{fi-adj|punais|comp=empi|sup=in}}
I'm not aware of any preference order between them. Probably the second and third are the easiest from the point of view of writing the bot. When typing, I prefer #1 because it's the shortest. --Hekaheka20:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Bot can't really add comparatives and superlatives, though it is possible, but not always, to get the comparatives and superlatives from {{infl}} templates. Replacing {{infl|fi|adjective}} with {{fi-adj}} is as easy as it gets, it's just a straight swap, it's when you have {{infl|fi|adjective|something here|something here}} that it gets complicated, as the parameters inside infl are not in any particular order. MglovesfunBot22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah it converts {{idiom}} to {{idiomatic}} but by extension {{head|en|idiom}} becomes {{head|en|idiomatic}}. The real solution is to not use {{head|en|idiom}} as it's not usually considered valid anyway. However in bot terms, it's easily reversible. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why do you consider Idiom as "nonstandard" and why do you remove pages from categories "Idioms"? Idiom IS a standard POS header. Now, a user who will be looking for idioms, e.g. in Category:Finnish idioms, won't find them because you deleted them. Maro19:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, idiom isn't a part of speach, but is a valid header, as I mentioned above. I meant that you change the header, but you didn't add {{idiomatic}} or a category, so consequently, you removed a pages from category:Idioms. The header phrase is ok, but the category:xx:Idioms is correct as well. Maro19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
At the risk of thinking out loud even more, why do we have Idiom, Phrase and Proverb headers, shouldn't they all be phrase? Are idioms and proverbs not phrases? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
They are. And what about "nouns" which are actually a phrase? For example: operační systém and vzdušné zámky. The first one is a noun and the second is a noun + idiom. But these two are phrases and I think there should be one header "Phrase" for such groups of words. Maro19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It would seem reasonable to bring this up on the Beer Parlour, just there's so much going on there right now, I'd prefer to wait for a quieter moment. Some might argue that there's no harm in using Idiom and Phrase as separate headers with no real justification other than personal preference. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
The idea is to get it all done in one go. While that might also generate 200 entries needing attention, that actually isn't that much, in many cases individual entries can be fixed in a few seconds so 200 entries might only be one day's work for one person. MglovesfunBot (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I cleaned a bunch up, but wish I hadn't because I forgot about the split between Latin and Cyrillic for some of those that had both. DCDuringTALK22:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
A lot of our translations tables are way less than perfect, but in terms of usability, I'd imagine most users don't care about the difference between ] and {{t|fr|chose}}. Anyway, closer to 500 to format rather than 200, still not that bad, most of the time you just have to remove the first translation as it's the same as the one below. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
It may be expected behavior, but it is impossible to use the category for any cleanup other than this matter as long as nearly 1200 items occupy it. If AWB created this mess, can't it clean up after itself? DCDuringTALK12:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Not really no. Not by me anyway, if someone else wants to do it, fine. And as far as I understand you, you're saying the category cannot be used for anything other than its intended purpose. Curiously, that doesn't bother me a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Bugger, yes, the bot was supposed to stop when it found a match, but I forgot to uncheck the 'Auto save' button. The actual edit is to convert ** Mandarin to *: Mandarin in translation sections, as currently, we use a mix of ** and *: (KassadBot already changes :* to *: so that one's sorted). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Converting zh to cmn in translations.
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Agreed, User:MglovesfunBot/errata, I forgot to uncheck the regex box. Whatever {{trreq|zh}} to {{trreq|cmn}} using regex, not plain text replacement gives, this is it. Am looking for something I can search for to find all such entries, any ideas? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
As of the last database-dump, all occurrences of {{trreq|cmn}} on the entire project were on lines taking one of the following forms:
*: {{trreq|cmn}}
* {{trreq|cmn}}:
* {{trreq|cmn}}
so you should be able to just AutoWikiBrowse through Category:Translation requests (Mandarin) and fix any instances of {{trreq|cmn}} that aren't on lines taking one of those forms. (O.K., so it's a bit more complicated than that, in that there are some cases where it needs to become {{trreq and some where it needs to become zh}}, but I'm sure you can manage it.) —RuakhTALK01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Because of AutoWikiBrowser, the bot stops entirely after a message on this talk page, and to restart it, I have to read the page as MglovesfunBot. More than that, I've found I often need to edit the page for it to allow me to continue to edit. Seriously, could someone contact me if any other bad syntax is found. MglovesfunBot (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Replacing bold headword with Template:head
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I used AWB to compare the list of pages that used {{Q}} as of the 2016-01-11 database dump to the list of pages that use it now, and found only three entries which had been changed: in, tres, and passer. It's known that due to how the dumps are created, they aren't exactly up to date, which is presumably why εἰσαγωγή (created only a few days before the dump) wasn't in the dump. However, this suggests that the number of entries affected, unless the bot is making further changes, is small. - -sche(discuss)05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
It depends ... if the bot iterates through references to a given template, the order might appear to be more or less random, depending probably on when the entries were created. However, I don't know how AWB does things; it might in fact sort things before running through them. I did notice this bot's changes to Russian entries appeared to be in alphabetical order. Benwing2 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I apologize although I had no way of knowing about {{Q}}'s existence. With transcliusions by the way, the AWB seems to go through them based on date of creation, not alphabetical, although it is possible to alphabetize if you want to. MglovesfunBot (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
PUC told me a while ago he was active there. There is a load of other Mglovesfun paraphernalia, which I suppose he can still edit. I guess that can be left. DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
You would have to ask Romanophile. What RM was doing with the bot got him into trouble, which is why he closed his account. So yes, it was a rogue bot. DonnanZ (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
He was using his bot to change {{q}} to {{qualifier}} without authorisation. I am still repairing the damage. This couldn't be rectified while the bot was operating as it was a waste of time, it would merely change them to {{qualifier}} again. DonnanZ (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let me note that Mglovesfun, who later had account Renard Migrant, did a lot of excellent work with his own account and with his bot account. I had some disagreements with him myself, but that does not diminish his contribution in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keep. I don't think we should delete userspace stuff just because we deem it irrelevant etc. It doesn't save space to do so (rather it creates extra deletion logs) and it is annoying for anybody looking through the history trying to work out what the page was about. Equinox◑13:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
