User talk:AnomieBOT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Kenneth Kraus[edit]

Hi, you marked this with the delete request from 2007, yet that 2007 article was for a different individual with the same name. This man is a decorated military hero while the original AFD was for some actor with no references. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page and in the page's edit notice: "If you are here because AnomieBOT added {{old AfD multi}} to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one." Anomie 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - I was reading it on a mobile phone and didn't see the notation. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check BAGbot[edit]

Hi Anomie! Could you please check BAGbot? It seems to be in error, and the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval could do with some updating. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Restarted it. Looks like some database errors killed a few of the tasks. Anomie 13:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I forgot to add this as a thank. Gamera1123 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do this if there's already a date there![edit]

I correctly dated a ‘citation needed’ tag, and this bot came along and changed it. Please don't. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:15:05Z

@JamesHaigh: what page? might be an issue of how you dated it. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Odroid. I use the RFC 3339 date format. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:46:49Z
And thats why The citation needed template doesnt handle that date format. Werieth (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by handle it? It just shows up as the text “2014-04-25” like with the date accessed field of references. It's the bot that can't handle it. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:55:25Z
@JamesHaigh: Wrong, the citation needed template adds the page to a category for tracking. it added it to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from 2014-04-25 which doesnt exist, it should have been added to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2014. But because of the unknown format (at least for the template) it caused problems. The bot came through and just repaired it, and used the standardized formatting for maintenance templates. Werieth (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well surely it's better to fix the template rather than to make a bot scan the whole of Wikipedia for ‘wrong’ date formats. Also, both you and the bot have dropped the 25 meaning that it isn't even a full date format. Please fix the template so that the original date can be retained but so that it still categorises by month or whatever else it needs to do. Ideally, all templates should respect my date preference of RFC 3339 which I have set in my user preferences, regardless of how the information is stored. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T19:40:05Z
You might feel that way but its not, The work required would cause a lot of extra stress to the servers to handle all of that added overhead. The bot isnt scanning all of wikipedia, when an unknown date format is added it goes into a tracking category along with cases where no date is given and then the bot just checks that category. Given the fact that we dont need day granularity and the extra overhead (The citation templates already cause an extra 3-20 seconds of load to render on some pages due to the excessive parsing done by them) keeping Month Year format works better. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Those templates are quite ridiculous. I was going to try to suggest an edit, but I spent over an hour trying to navigate and understand the maze of nested/cascaded/transcluded templates pulled in by the Citation needed template, and I'm still not clear on how it would be done. :-( I think by now these templates are definitely big and mature enough to be required to respect the date preference. If the servers can't handle the few bytes of converting ‘2014-04-25’ to the user's preferred date format, then I think you have some very serious efficiency issues to address! —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T21:00:50Z
Note also that removing day granularity but changing to the less efficient date format actually didn't reduce the number of bytes, and in most cases would actually increase the number of bytes. Perhaps processing the months as words rather than numbers also contributes to the processing time, if for example strings are being used where ints could be in some internal code somewhere. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T21:16:39Z
All of the cleanup templates - whether they be inline like {{citation needed}} or banner like {{refimprove}} - share the common characteristic that the |date= parameter must be given a month and year. There is an established category structure based on that: see for example Category:Clean up categories from May 2014 or Category:Articles with unsourced statements. If you want to get the system changed, it is not a matter for a bot's talk page, but instead an WP:RFC should be raised at WP:VPR (at the very least). Bear in mind that a lot of templates will need to be altered, bots like AnomieBOT and well-used scripts like Twinkle will need to be changed, thousands of people will need to be re-educated, and a huge number of categories will need to be renamed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Werieth and Redrose64!
As for efficiency, right now the templates have to do zero processing of the date: they just plug the passed text into the category syntax and test if the specified category actually exists. Handling input in multiple date formats would require them actually parse and reformat the dates before plugging them into the category syntax. That's the efficiency issue being mentioned earlier, not bytes of storage. Anomie 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)+
Correct, each template that is added creates an additional thing that needs processed and complex templates (IE templates that parse and convert things) can add extra time to page rendering. Its not an issue of storage, or processing power, its a liner issue. The more work you give a system the longer it takes to complete the task. Right now we have a fairly basic system in place that works for ensuring templates are dated as needed. If we start adding say 0.1 seconds of processing time per maintenance template, just to appease a small number of users and their date preference, lets do some math. We have 4.5 Million articles. I would say 50% or so have at least 1 maintenance or date based category. Some of those pages may have as many as 50-100 different templates (dead links, fact, or whatever). So we are adding on average say 0.2 seconds onto every page render just to meet a small fraction of our users preference in regards to the date display preference. Given a standard cost/benefit analysis for implementing a new system for your visual preference on how dates should be formatted the benefit to the whole of Wikipedia just isnt there. It could be done but the cost cannot be justified for the small number of users it would benefit. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT counts[edit]

AnomieBOT output: Target user has 0 undeleted edits and 0 deleted edits. An SUL account (primary cswiki) exists for the target user, with 497 total edits on 25 wikis. The local account is NOT attached. Requesting user has 117 undeleted edits and 14 deleted edits, for a total of 131 edits. An SUL account (primary enwiki) exists for the requesting user, with 147 total edits on 17 wikis.

The requesting user actually made edits on 2 wikis, on the 15 another is just registered with 0 edits on each. Shouldn't AnomieBOT count just the wikis, on which user made more than 0 (zero) edits? --Aleskva (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it report that the account exists on other wikis even if there are no edits? Anomie 00:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your ongoing work on fixing maintenance tags... I must be tired tonight because I know you've fixed several of mine tonight. Thanks for staying consistently on top of them! CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Little Wolf[edit]

I don't understand why File:LittleWolf 02.jpg was deleted. I understand that the file was moved, but deleting the redirect has caused a bot to go round deleting the image from articles. That is now going to be a pain to restore because it is hard to find the list of articles the page was originally in. SpinningSpark 12:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the bug. File-namespace redirects shouldn't count as broken if their target exists on Commons. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Local redirects to Commons images don't actually work. I tested this while writing the bot, and I tested it again just now to make sure it hadn't changed. Anomie 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Where is the issue in this sequence of events then?
  1. File:Foo.png gets moved to File:Bar.png (both local)
  2. File:Bar.png gets uploaded to Commons
  3. The local File:Bar.png gets deleted since it exists on Commons
  4. File:Foo.png gets deleted as a broken redirect
  5. All articles are stripped of uses of the nonexistent File:Foo.png
Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Besides the questionable need to rename the file @DragonflySixtyseven: in the first place to something so complex, I would say the first error occured at deletion of the Wikipedia file when the deleter @Magog the Ogre: could have looked for incoming links. A second error occured when the broken redirect got deleted. If the bot had checked for a Commons file, it could have repaired the link instead of deleting it. If the bot cannot be sure that the file on Commons is the same image, then it is not appropriate for the bot to delete anything. It should instead tag it for human attention.
People frequently winge at me for tagging all my uploads with {{KeepLocal}} but I do it because shit like this is always happening and stuff that happens on Commons is totally invisisble to my watchlist. I am particularly upset in this case because I spent a good deal of effort establishing that this file was truly in the public domain when it was slated for deletion along with a whole bunch of other files from a suspect user. Far from encouraging me to stop using KeepLocal, this incident has persuaded me that in the future I ought to tag all files I use in an article, not just ones I upload myself, and anything I do substantial work on. SpinningSpark 16:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, that really complicates my NowCommons deletions, because I have never looked for incoming links when it is available on Commons under the same name. Could the bot owner please have the bot create the redirect on Commons in such circumstances? Magog the Ogre (t c) 04:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: I'd say the main error is in step 3, where the deleter didn't check for incoming redirects. And also in step 2.5, where someone tagged it as F8 without checking for incoming redirects.
@Spinningspark: I do tag all my uploads with {{KeepLocal}}, for the reasons you state. I gave up on Commons years back when an admin there blindly tagged a file as "speedy delete, copy of a file from elsewhere" when the file in question had existed on Commons for years and all evidence pointed to the "elsewhere" copying from us, and then when I left a polite note for the user pointing out that such tagging was useless if not harmful I received only bad attitude in return. Although that was just the last in a line of other stupid Commons decisions.
@Magog the Ogre: Redirects should be checked for any other deletion, why not file deletions? Having the bot create the redirect on Commons would require bot approval on Commons, which I have no interest in doing. And I doubt Commons would want our badly-named-redirects-kept-for-BC anyway.
I think the best solution for the moment would be for the bot to just leave these broken redirects alone. So I've done that (they'll be logged at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects#Skipped). Perhaps someday I'll see if I can work out code to fix the links locally. Anomie 11:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
When Wikipedia uses a local redirect to a Commons file, it is necessary to replace all usage with the file name on Commons or create a redirect on Commons, as the local redirect does not work. Unless a bot can handle this automatically, it should be stated at WP:CSD#F8 so that admins remember to update file links. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I know you're a bot, but still, what would I do if my stupid mistakes like this weren't fixed? Jr8825Talk 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

When you get a chance...[edit]

See this edit by AnomieBOT. It would probably be better to change "names" to "name" instead of removing the reference. Probably not a mistake that is likely to come up often, so low priority fix. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rahil Gupta[edit]

Hi ,

This is the first work of mine . And i did it for Rahil Gupta because He has done something substantial in militant hit state and provided job opportunities to so many people. I don not know much about editing but what you people feel good like you can edit accordingly . Thanks,

Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talkcontribs) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

USS Gold Star (AK-12)[edit]

Hello, The bot did something weird on USS Gold Star (AK-12). Can you please check it? Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jrcrin001: The bot was trying to clean up after this edit of yours which altered a lot of punctuation to # signs, and the word "name" to "na#e"; notice the big red error messages like Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). I've reverted both edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually thought the bot did it! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey buddy[edit]

Good job on the edits. URDNEXT (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks as always! Gamera1123 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving bot requests[edit]

Hi Anomie! It appears your bot hasn't archived Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval in quite a while. Is that something your bot still does? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I see it did this only a few hours before your inquiry here, for example. Note that the sections at the bottom of the page are "7 days or 30 entries, whichever is more", meaning they're basically always at 30 entries. Anomie 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't see the phrase "30 entries" on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. What am I missing? GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's not on there, but it's in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 54. I had remembered wrong, too: it's 15 entries for Denied and Expired, 30 for Approved. Just doing 7 days would leave the lists empty a lot of the time. Anomie 13:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Welcome has too many transclusions[edit]

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently someone is spamming the template to every new user they can find. They should really use subst (as in {{subst:Welcome}}) when doing so (if they have to do so at all), as the documentation for the template clearly states. Anomie 13:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gender unclear[edit]

Please be aware of {{Gender unclear}} and include it in your bot's routine task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you set up the categories correctly as described in Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, the bot will automatically handle it. Anomie 11:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sofixit[edit]

Hi, when did {{sofixit}} get added to the subst list? It doesn't subst cleanly, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here. It's supposed to be on the subst list; I've just fixed it so it substs properly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot error dating maintenance tag {{Cns}}[edit]

In this edit the bot replaced the parameter when it should have added another parameter. See the next edit to see how I fixed it. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Final Fantasy Artniks[edit]

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Final Fantasy Artniks, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about sgcafe.com. This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 20:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed it. This is exactly why I don't like that odd citation style used in that article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken redirect[edit]

Last night I created a couple of templates (OED1 and OED2) and their doc subpages and also set up the doc subpage for another template (OED). I read about setting up redirects from the doc talk page to the main talk page, but as it was late did nothing. This morning ‎AnomieBOT came along and set up the redirect from the OED doc talk to OED talk, a sensible move. Prompted, I set up the redirects for OED1 and OED2 doc talks but AnomieBOT III has now deleted them, because the main template's talk page doesn't exist! I can't do right for doing wrong it appears. Is it possible for AnomieBOT III to either create the template talk pages in a case like this or else back off until such a time as someone feels the need to discuss the templates? I'll go back and create empty pages and recreate the redirects, but it does seem like an awfull lot of faff just to keep a robot quiet. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Redlinked redirects are speedy deletable under WP:CSD#G8. We don't normally create talk pages just for the sake of their existence; but if a talk page exists for the main template page, one of the AnomieBOTs will go through all the template subpages and create a redir for each missing talk subpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Heller[edit]

Catz people is dead link[1] Can you fix? Qexigator (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I added an archive.org link. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Most Dangerous Game[edit]

Probably inevitable, but your edit here made it difficult to fix some vandalism in the preceding edit - the subsequent edits are built on your version of the page, which had a chunk vandalised out of it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

BAGBot[edit]

@Anomie:, can you check on your bot, many tasks are in error on your status screen. — xaosflux Talk 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

CHUUclerk seems to be on holiday too. –xenotalk 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Memory error from the database backend. Restarted. Anomie 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dye sublimation printer- Anomie bot[edit]

Just changed slightly + section on relevant talk page. Hope that deals with your concerns. Gravuritas (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBot closing file deletion discussion but didn't remove deletion template[edit]

Anomie: Looks like AnomieBot closed the discussion for Suva F.C. logo but it did not remove the file for deletion template on the file's page. See this edit and File:Suva-FC-Logo.jpg. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT never closes discussions as "keep", so it never has need to remove a deletion template. In the diff you linked, AnomieBOT closed several other discussions on the page but not the one for Suva F.C. logo; that was closed in the previous edit by TLSuda (talk · contribs). Anomie 11:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I totally forgot to change the template. It is done now. Thanks & cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Anomie, thanks for helping to clear this up! - tucoxn\talk 23:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Error report[edit]

In this version, the location of the "request" link was incorrect. (It was actually on Template talk:Userspace draft.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot appears to have been listing the request at Wikipedia talk:Article_wizard#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014, not the identical request at Template talk:Userspace draft#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014. Anomie 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active[edit]

This edit doesn't look correct. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 7 still had an open discussion, but also syntax errors, see Special:PermanentLink/615904226. Do you think that something could be done better here? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the syntax error was that there was no section header, which is how AnomieBOT segments the page into discussions. It's hard to see how to handle that while also allowing flexibility for notices on the page (e.g. {{Not a ballot}}). Anomie 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could assume that a page which exceeds a certain size has at least one discussion. ---Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT III[edit]

Has this bot stopped? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT's code for making page edits is good about automatically logging back in if it gets logged out. But the code for doing deletions wasn't. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know it wasn't working! Anomie 13:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition in middle of table 6 months late[edit]

As this dif shows, at 9.25 this morning an ESP request for Michael Vick appeared in 9th place in the table, rather than at the bottom. However looking at Talk:Michael Vick that request was added on 3 January, and the page hasn't been edited since 28 May, so why does it suddenly appear in the top 1/3 of the table over 6 months after it was added? - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This happened because there are references on the Talk page, but no Reflist template. A recent Wikimedia core code change made it so that references display in a list, even if there is no reflist template. That has resulted in various strangeness, including the duplicated sections in that talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Arjayay, Jonesey95: Not quite the whole story. This edit of a few minutes ago added a </ref> which had been missing for some time, and in so doing has exposed the rest of the page which had previously been hidden, which is why AnomieBOT hadn't spotted it. As regards its mid-table placement, that's because User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable‎ is arranged chronologically and it was inserted at the position that it should have occupied had that </ref> not been missing at the time that the {{edit semi-protected}} was added. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot warring[edit]

see [2] [3] [4] [5] Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've shut off the task until the bot's "good" version of the template can be updated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Those edits are showing T13bot operating outside of its approval, as it is editing wikitext besides substituted versions of {{afd top}}. I don't mind changing AnomieBOT's header for TFD (and for FFD and PUF) if it is actually needed, but first I'd like to be sure that the navigation headers in question actually are not considered "metadata". I've pinged Technical 13 (talk · contribs) about this issue.
If the decision is that T13bot needs to be fixed, or if someone would rather stop the malfunctioning T13bot so AnomieBOT can resume work, AnomieBOT's task may be restarted by blanking User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TFDClerk. Anomie 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already concluded task 1 for T13bot until I get a ping saying all the templates are properly fixed and then I'll run through one more time. My understanding of what was needed was to remove all "metadata" classes from all pages that showed up on the Special:PrefixIndex for the pages listed by SpinningSpark that were applied inside headers with the .boilerplate and .xfd .xfd-close classes. Either way, feel free to restart AnomieBOT as T13bot is not running until the templates are all fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

page deleted[edit]

The bot has deleted my page the wee fellas for some reason. Can you put it back please

Dave Robertson 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talkcontribs)

@Davyrobertson: AnomieBOT does not delete pages. The Wee Fellas was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs); the deletion log is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And I deleted it because, in all honesty, you did not assert any notability for that novel whatsoever. For a start, it's entirely self-published, which right at the start puts it deep in the negative. There's one bit of media coverage... from the author's hometown, so that doesn't count either. Plus there's something about how the author won some journalism awards several years back. Not relevant to an article about his book. So... no statements about notability. None. Notability not asserted. Delete. DS (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Naivas Redirect[edit]

Hi User:AnomieBOT, I added a redirect page to Naivas Limited. The actual page was still loading. The Page has been created again. Kindly have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotezangu (talkcontribs) 09:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't create redirects until the target page exists. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Namespace check[edit]

Hi, is it possible to configure AnomieBOT so that it doesn't subst: {{hi}} when not used in User talk: space? Otherwise, this happens. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not possible at this time. I'll try to think of a decent way to make it possible though. Anomie 10:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

/EDITREQTable is great but has date issue[edit]

I requested a move that was undone and now the edit request on that page is showing a recent date (but not either move date) instead of the actual request date. Apparently y'all are relying on something relating to move log rather than the actual date the edit request was added to the page. Please see if this is a bug or other coding issue. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot estimates the date of application by using the page-touched timestamp when it first sees the page having an active request. Anomie 01:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Any chance this reliance can be changed in the case of moves, or perhaps overriden on a case basis when mistaken? Priority has a lot of importance to the requesters. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Please take this glorious purple barnstar as an apology and thank you for cleaning up after my forgetting to add the date to a couple of my [citation needed] tags. You are an amazing little AI and wikipedia thanks you. Kazinsal (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Rescuing (wrong) orphaned ref from another article[edit]

[6]: It appears that there hadn't actually been a ref with that name in the version history (rather, the author of the preceding edit appears to have misunderstood the ref syntax). In that case, AnomieBOT should not try to rescue anything, as ref names are not unique across articles ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)