User talk:AnomieBOT

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

Citations in astronomical templates[edit]

Why is AnomieBOT moving citations out of astronomical templates? The information there (particular distance) is hard to determine and therefore it's important to know which source the information is coming from. -- Elphion (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide any links, I can only guess what is happening: AnomieBOT isn't removing any references, just moving the body of the named ref from an instance of the named ref inside a template parameter to a different instance of the named ref that is elsewhere in the article. Anomie 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right; the edit involved two refs and I didn't look carefully enough to realize that neither had been deleted. Sorry for the bother. -- Elphion (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Anomie, I'm wondering if this edit is the same situation. If so, you may want to exclude {{reflist}} from templates that the bot rescues citations from. That'd be a mess, otherwise. Huntster (t @ c) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

... Yeah, that's no good. Will do momentarily. Anomie 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned has too many transclusions - fixed[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 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No substitution, please. It is easier to read the page syntax if it isn't substituted. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: If it's not substituted, the timestamps that it encloses are ignored by archiving bots, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, then fix the bots instead of substituting the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't - I'm not the bot owner. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I note it has long been the case that that template has been recommended to be substituted. Anomie 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

TFDClerk: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25 is broken - Fixed[edit]

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{tfd top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. 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 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed with [1] Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delay before substituting[edit]

Anomiebot/Anomie, several editors at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends have stated their preferences that bots wait 7 days before substituting the unsigned templates. Is this a feasible thing for your bot to do? Please comment at the section linked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's even close to consensus for such a thing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Since when is 1 "several"? Anomie 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Technical 13 of course, and user:xensyria stated "temporary transclusion for a fixed time before this isn't a bad idea", so that's two. I didn't count when I originally posted. I only posted here to get a quick idea if that's technically feasible and worth the effort, I'm not telling you to do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot#2 stuck ?[edit]

I've noticed that FfD hasn't been updated for two days. AnomieBOT-2looks to be stuck on the BAGBot task. Peripitus (Talk) 10:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it does appear so. I'll restart it in a little bit, but first I'm going to try to see if I can figure out what it's hung up on. Anomie 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Been on a bit of an extended sabbatical, and forgot to date a whole bunch of maintenance tags. Thanks for the tidy up, AnomieBOT. xx --Haruth (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Startled by edits to old AFDs[edit]

I was startled to see edits by this bot to 4 old AFD discussions that I was involved in; in fact, I almost reported the incident as someone anonymously attacking me in old AFDs, until I noticed that the anonymous edits themselves were all old, only the AnomieBOT edits were new. Why is the bot adding tags to these ancient closed discussions? Brianyoumans (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Brianyoumans: Please give examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Best guess - Anomiebot recently started substituting {{unsigned}} templates after a consensus to do so at Village Pump Technical. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this too; lots edits to old AFDs and other discussions from 2006ish. The bot is going around substituting templates for some reason. Annoying to see the watchlist fill up with it, but not a big deal. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: That "for some reason" would be this edit. I suspect that the substitution of {{unsigned}} is what Brianyoumans (talk · contribs) refers to, but with the phrase "the bot adding tags", they give the impression that AnomieBOT is placing additional templates, and so I'd like to be sure, which is why I asked for examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not the most technically sophisticated editor, what I meant was just the substitutions. I apologize for the lack of clarity. I'm fine with the bot messing with old discussions now that I know what's going on. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Substing of old unsigned comments[edit]

I'm not sure why very old unsigned comments need to be substed, but that aside, my Watchlist is utterly cluttered with the Bot's edits today, and yes, I can click to hide bots, but actually, I often am looking for errors made by bots in my Watchlist.

If I can't persuade you that edits before a certain date aren't worth bothering with, perhaps I can ask you to find a way to slow the bot down? --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the reason why, see #Startled by edits to old AFDs just above.
As for slowing down, I wonder whether dragging out the watchlist disruption would really be better (for most people, anyway) than getting it over with faster. Anomie 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've now read the section above and am none the wiser as to why it's necessary. On the speed issue, there'd be no disruption if it were one or two entries per day, like a whole range of regular bot duties. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason is simple enough: consensus was for it. One or two entries per day would take about 20 years to complete, no. Anomie 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I find it strange that you complain about bot edits cluttering your watchlist, yet you don't want to use the very feature that was designed to solve this problem ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Lordy. OK. Point by point then:
I monitor bot edits on my Watchlist for when bots get things wrong, or because a bot edit may have followed human edit/s. None of which applies to substing of templates on pages that are several years old.
The reason for the substing is not the consensus; it would be more helpful to point me to where I can read the discussion - I was previously pointed to the section above and I replied that I didn't understand a rationale from the section above.
I meant a likely impact of one or two entries per day on an individual's Watchlist, not one or two edits per day by the bot.
Your bot is currently running at ~5 susbts per minute. I'm a good-faith editor telling you that it's having a detrimental effect on my ability to do my work. I'm just asking if it can please slow down. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The bot has no way of knowing how large an individual's watchlist is, nor whether a specific page is on any given individual's watchlist or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. That's why I'm asking for it to slow down. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the link to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends was in the section above. I should have actually checked that.
At the current rates of substing, the bot should be done in around 18 or 19 hours. Anomie 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Both aspects of that were very helpful. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Add {{Show by}} to ShowByDateSubster[edit]

Currently the ShowByDateSubster works with the {{Show by date}} template, substituting the template with just the text after parameter as the given dates elapse. I have created a similar template, {{Show by}}, which takes a date/time string as input instead of separate parameters for the year, month, and day. Is it possible to have ShowByDateSubster work with this template as well? Would it be useful to add pages to a category such as Category:Pages with expired Show by templates when the date elapses? --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The hard part would be that the bot would have to understand all the craziness that PHP's strtotime() supports. I'd rather not. Anomie 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Anomie, I changed the template so that it now substs in {{Show by/iso}}, with the time represented as an ISO 8601 formatted date (e.g. 2015-02-26T14:58:52+00:00). This way the #time parser function takes care of the strtotime() craziness. --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Using #section-h to transclude pending discussions at TfD index[edit]

Now that the #section-h parser function is available (see mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion#Transcluding sections by headings), would it be possible to transclude individual TfD entries, rather that the whole day's listing, under Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions? For example:

==== [[Template:InChI]] ====
{{#section-h:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 10|[[Template:InChI]]}}


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:InChI (edit · talk · history · links · logs · subpages · delete)

Originally intended to format InChI identifier for a chemical substance. Not maintained since 2009, no activity in its parent Wikipedia:InChI long time either. Formatting control taken over by {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (together 15000 transc's, see also WT:Chemical infobox sections). These are developed, maintained and bot-verification is in place. No articles use it, also because recently I checked & moved any significant the data into {{Chembox}} on the page. DePiep (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I could envisage that this could be used to format etc. an in-prose InChI, but then, I do not see any reason to put that in the text for discussion or evaluation (other than in examples on the InChI-wikipage, but to have a template for that is superfluous). Delete. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alakzi (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible, probably. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to have so many section transclusions on the page though. Anomie 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop editing my user page[edit]

You subst'd a template I have on my user page that I keep unsubst'd for reference purposes. When I changed it back, with an explanation, the bot ignored that, and reverted it. Per WP:SUBST, {{unsigned2}} is "under debate", and with the particular reason I'm using it, subst'ing there breaks what I'm trying to do. Argyriou (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bots aren't smart enough to read what you put in edit summaries. The documentation page linked in the bot's edit summary tells you how to prevent it substing the demo usages.
As for "under debate", recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends concluded that these templates should be substituted. Anomie 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

About Ecuatoriana de Aviación[edit]

Ecuatoriana de Aviación never flew to Israel, Spain, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Brazil. Someone should change that false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Misplaced comment with no header)[edit]

Hi I am jatinpb11. Will you please help me out how I edit the pages in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatinpb11 (talkcontribs) 10:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvaging refs[edit]

Hi Anomie. I hate deleting refs, as they are valuable and people go to a lot of trouble to find sources for old content that was inserted in the time when we were not that strict on adding sources immediately. However, how do I proceed when the sources do not say what the text says, and therefore should be removed? How can these be saved for future use wehen the article expands? Right now, sources [7] and [8] say nothing about juice, nor do they confirm the name tabaldi in Sudan or the alternative tabladi that was cited in the intro, which said it was Arabic (I have since removed foreign names from the intro [as per edit summary]). I don't want to just delete the refs, but don't know how/ where to salvage them. Your input would be much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your best bet in that case would probably be to copy them onto the talk page, possibly using {{Refideas}}. Anomie 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to know there is a solution. I knew you would be able to help. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


The bot INSISTS on using the wrong colour for a title blacklisted page, which according to Template:Edit protected/color legend should be yellow, but any attempt to correct make it come back and attack you. Please fix this. Here is the diff. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Amending a bot-updated page is pointless because when the bot next arrives to update the page, it ignores what is already there and replaces the whole of the content with what it believes to be correct. The effect of this is that any changes by humans are put back to how they were - this is an effective anti-vandalism measure. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The miscoloring is now fixed, the bot should update the table in a few minutes. Anomie 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Please can AnomieBOT use a longer delay before adding dates to {{fact}} templates? Every time I add one to an article I'm editing, I end up edit conflicting with this bot. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mike Peel: Do what I do - add a |date= with the same edit. That way, the bot won't need to clean up after you. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
True, I do that when I remember to do so. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In addition, most dated maintenance templates have been converted to use Module:Unsubst in such a way that substing them will result in a dated transclusion: {{subst:fact}}{{Citation needed|date=March 2015}} Anomie 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition to User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable without an edit[edit]

User talk:Carriearchdale/anti-vandal (an unprotected talk page of a blocked user) was added to the User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable at 2015-03-31 04:29 however the page has not been edited since 22:33, 15 June 2014‎. I can momentarily glimpse the semi-protected edit request header box as the page loads. I assume this is transcluded from somewhere else - but cannot work out where or, more importantly, how to remove it. - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Arjayay: User talk:Carriearchdale/anti-vandal transcludes a lot of pages, most of which are either frequently updated or are fully dynamic. I would go with your theory that the SPER was transcluded from somewhere else. I've WP:NULLEDITed the user talk page, let's see if it falls out of the SPERtable. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 I'm afraid that didn't work, the table has updated several times in the hour + since your nul-edit.
I'm a bit confused (nothing new there) - if it is being transcluded, then shouldn't wherever it is transcluded from, also appear on the list?
As the editor was indeffed on 10 July 2014, a simple solution is to delete the talk page, but I don't know if that is "acceptable", or if anyone is still using that page as a "dashboard" ? - Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the transclusion of {{Admin dashboard|newadmin=yes}} which transcludes {{Admin dashboard/rfarfp|1=}} which transcludes {{Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed|dash=yes}} --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Fixed with this edit. I should have looked in Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page first. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 - Thanks - that did work - I didn't know the Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page page even existed - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello! Today I created some new articles and I added templates that refers to the Greek Wikpedia because, those articles are translation from there. This bot keeps removing those templates so I' m asking for help. Am I doing something wrong or it's bot's fault? Thanks!Postscriptum123 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Translated page}} goes on the article's talk page, not the article itself. You'll probably find that AnomieBOT added the template to the articles' talk pages at the same time it removed it from the article. Anomie 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok!Thanks!Postscriptum123 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run #3 for women writers[edit]

Hi Anomie. We're ready for the next WikiProjectTagger run at WikiProject Women writers. The discussion approving the categories can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3) for the next project banner bot run. The categories we'd like to run are in the collapsed box New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3). As before, please copy class from other projects' banners. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot started. Anomie 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks to be done already. 131 edits made. Anomie 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WLAC citation needed tag[edit]

Thanks for dating the tag which I added todayRudy2alan 16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
AnomieBOT is wonderful — Saeed (Talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


As of this message, AnomieBOT has not made any edits in 9 hours. Stickee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing after noticing ITN did not have a new section added last night. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this thread at the time, but I did notice the bot was stuck yesterday and killed/restarted its jobs at about 2015-04-20T00:10Z. Anomie 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot edit[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the bot made this edit, which left the second instance of this reference hanging. I doubt this is that common an occurrence, but perhaps it could be fixed anyway? Thanks, Neøn (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC).

Well, the second instance was already hanging. "name==foo" isn't valid so it was already being ignored. If it's reasonably common that people make that mistake I could add a rule to fix it, but if it's a one-off error it's probably not worth it. Anomie 13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Error by Bot[edit]

Please take a look at the following edit by your bot:

Your bot appears to have misspelled the name of an editor in doing what may have been a template substitution. (I didn't think that that bot signed unsigned posts.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sign unsigned posts. In this case, it merely substituted an instance of {{unsigned}} placed by someone else. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Yes, the bot replaced {{unsigned|}} with {{subst:unsigned|}}. The bot doesn't check the validity of the template parameters, so the error was on the part of the person who originally added {{unsigned|}} - which according to these edits, was Medeis (talk · contribs). I'm puzzled why they did that, since the "unsigned" post had actually been signed correctly. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

SPERTable - no update in 36hrs[edit]

The SPERTable has not been updated in 36 hours, while it is usually updates every 5 minutes. Stickee (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)