User talk:AnomieBOT

thank you

Thank you for this wonderful bot; it caught my carless mistake on The Concert and got it just right! — Robert Greer (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add a thank you. You are a very intelligent bot. It's high time we raise the standard for our human material as well. Dc76\^talk 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you're probably getting embarrassed by all this, but I just wanted to add that OrphanReferenceFixer is the best feature I've ever seen from a bot. It's spared my carelessness on at least three occasions so far, and has doubtless saved countless hundreds of positive contributions from being lost due to a small but significant mistake. Well done! WFCforLife (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I like having my work appreciated. Thanks, all of you, for the kind words! Anomie⚔ 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh bot, thank you for coming back from the unfortunate break you were given for a few months back. I missed you something terrible. I'm glad to see that you are not taking a vacation like your owner. You don't deserve it after your long rest this year. But I hope s/he is enjoyed one all the same. --Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Rescued a link reference at Marriage for a reference I (and I suspect some other editors) thought had, due to editing history, never actually been spelled out. Thank you, and Bravo! --Joe Decker (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen AnomieBOT on so many pages, mostly rescuing and repairing references. AnomieBOT just fixed my referencing mistake on MacBook Pro, and I just had to drop by and offer my many thanks to this wonderful bot. What would we do without AnomieBOT? Airplaneman ^talk 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix broken references errors

I'd like to draw your collective (User:Rich Farmbrough and User:AnomieBOT) attention to the last three edits on 2006 Iditarod. I think this type of mistake can be easily avoided by AWB aided tools, and bots can easily fix them. Thank you for your efforts. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another type of fix that a bot or other tools can easily fix is this trivial one. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet another easy type in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to think about the first two. For the third, how can the bot tell it's supposed to change "<ref name="foo"/>{{cite bar}}</ref>" to "<ref name="foo">{{cite bar}}</ref>" rather than "<ref name="foo"/><ref>{{cite bar}}</ref>"? Anomie⚔ 02:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the first is by far the most likely. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

References in templates

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason for removing references from templates? Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

When someone edits an infobox (or similar template) to delete an obsolete parameter, any existing uses of that parameter where that parameter contains the ref body will suddenly result in orphaned references. Anomie⚔ 02:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good reason. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox television film

Hello there Anomie...BOT. Sorry in advanced for my lack of knowledge with bots. Could set up a run to move external links linked in {{Infobox television film}} into the proper External links section of the article. It would be the same as this run. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect fix of reference error

This edit that broke a <ref>, was “fixed” by AnomieBOT in a way that only created another error. Svick (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the bug report. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Major bot error

This edit deleted paragraphs of content! Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This one also seems to have deleted content (although that article was pretty messed up already). Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed The vandalism was making it look like a ref tag had tons of bogus parameters. I've adjust the code to only strip real key=value bogus parameters, leaving any other bogus parameters in place (which will then probably result in the bot declaring the page "too broken to fix" and leaving it for a human). Thanks for the report! Anomie⚔ 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. BTW, I was looking through the Bot contributions and I really appreciate all the orphaned refs you save. That's a great service you're providing. Thanks! — sligocki (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding white space

In this edit, the bot is adding white space to closed references. For example, <ref name="whatever">...</ref> is being turned into <ref name="whatever" >...</ref> with additional space at the end of the opening element tag. This makes sense on constructs like <ref name="whatever"/> being turned into <ref name="whatever" />, but not with reference elements with actual closing tags. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And now the bot has reverted back to its fail, and pointlessly requested I notify it of the problem here. Of course, I had already done so. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Anomie⚔ 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't handle refs= inside the {{reflist}}?

The bot do not understand refs= as this edit suggests? It should have changed the location of the {{reflist}} ending }}<!-- end of reflist --> The two last ref. was placed after this ending code, see the diff [1].

Note that this is directly related to the issue in the previous section (about whitespace). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not related at all. And the bot handles WP:LDR fine, it just doesn't fix the error you are complaining about. Anomie⚔ 02:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will the bot correct this example (here's my adding of the two references }} below end of reflist):

{{reflist|group="."|refs=
<ref name="refname1">This is reference 1.</ref>
}}<!--end of reflist-->
<ref name="refname2">This is reference 2.</ref>
<ref name="refname3">This is reference 3.</ref>

to

{{reflist|group="."|refs=
<ref name="refname1">This is reference 1.</ref>
<ref name="refname2">This is reference 2.</ref>
<ref name="refname3">This is reference 3.</ref>
}}<!--end of reflist-->

This was the case here. Thanks anyway! Nsaa (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite error

This edit caused a citation error. Sole Soul (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing, it was not the bot fault, but can you make it check if there is a parent after such edit. Sole Soul (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below information this in this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is an automated process, and cannot understand what you are asking much less carry it out. And I am not interested. You would have better luck asking on the talk page of the article in question (possibly by using the {{editsemiprotected}} template), or on the talk page of someone who cares about the article. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Wikiproject Physics from article "Sundowner (wind)"

AnomieBOT seems to have automatically included articles in Category:Winds (cf. relevant section in AnomieBOT's talk archive) but the article Sundowner (wind) clearly belongs in that category but really shouldn't fall under Wikiproject Physics. I'm removing the project from the article's talk page. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Wouldn't you agree that the "early career" section should be condensed? Seriously, you won't find more than a stub for the 1950s film that he made uncredited cameos in, yet there are over 20 paragraphs about them on his page. Discussing plots, production, etc. This belongs on the page for those movies, not on Eastwood's. The same thing goes for the Dollars trilogy - nearly 50 large paragraphs that cover a total of three films. There's not even that much written on the articles for those movies. There is too much written in those sections - it's uneven and doesn't fit with the rest of the article. This has been brought out before on the talk page but no one writes anything on there. Please help me improve the article.66.233.23.3 (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is an automated process, and lacks the capacity to agree or disagree with editing decisions such as that. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous? section removal a red flag

[2] the bot rescued dead links shortly after vandalism, making it harder for RC patrol to find it. I would recommend delaying orphan fixing for a day, and/or not allowing the bot to act if the previous edit removed an entire section. - RoyBoy 07:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RC patrol catches the majority of vandalism in less than 5 minutes and 75% in under an hour, and the bot now waits 1 hour if the removal was done by an "untrusted" editor (i.e. an IP or someone with less than 1000 edits) unless a "trusted" editor (i.e. someone with over 2000 edits) has edited since. If an edit slips by the RC patrol for that long, it's quite likely that it will not be caught by RC patrol at all. A day is far too long to wait to correct non-vandalism errors, and I have yet to hear a workable suggestion for telling the difference between vandalism and the type of legitimate major edit that specifically requires AnomieBOT's attention. For example, your "do not edit if a section was removed" heuristic would specifically kill the bot's ability to rescue references that were orphaned when someone legitimately trims excess trivia and cruft from an overly-long article, or when someone splits an article per WP:SUMMARY, or when someone removes large-scale WP:POV and WP:BLP violations. Which are all exactly why this bot exists.

As far as "hiding" things from RC patrol, I've seen people (and anti-vandal bots like ClueBot!) revert only the latest in a series of vandal edits, which "hides" things just as well. And I've seen people replace a section with "poop" and another well-meaning editor just remove the "poop" without restoring the section, which also "hides" things. At one point someone suggested an "AnomieBOT patrol" to watch AnomieBOT's fixes for missed vandalism, which is probably a much better idea and is even easier now since the bot logs every page it checks with convenient diff links and statistics for the edit that removed the reference. Anomie⚔ 14:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, though not correct "will never be caught". I specialize in exactly such patrolling (RC patrol lost its shine when BOTs and others do the obvious), my average reverts are 3-4 hours old... incrementally going down as I go through the backlog. I'm old school; that's why I noticed. - RoyBoy 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding unneeded wikiproject banners

Don't see a way of stopping this.

The bot has added the Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport banner ({{WikiProject London Transport}}) to a number of article talk pages where this is not needed. While the WPLT banner is used on many of the project's articles, WPLT is an associated project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and article assessments for WPLT on railways related subjects can be set using code in the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner without the need for the WPLT's banner as well.

The effect of the bot's edits in adding the WPLT banner where the Trains Project banner already exists is to add a second, unnecessary, importance category. An example is Talk:London Necropolis railway station, where it can be seen that the article is categorised as both low importance and unknown importance. The former is set in the Trains Project banner and the latter in the WPLT banner.--DavidCane (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That was completed 6 months ago, you're far too late to do anything about it here. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding back unverifiable sources

Please do not continue to add back fan site sources to the Minor characters of Days of our Lives article. They are deemed unreliable per WP:V. Rm994 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Thank you! Rm994 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Lopez

I made an incorrect rollback using Twinkle identifying you as a vandal. I apologise: the vandalism took place immeadiately before your edit so I reverted myself and then correctly rolled back to the version prior to the vandalism. Hope that makes sense and that I haven't gotten you into trouble? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, AnomieBOT doesn't mind. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref fixer suggestion

I would suggest upping the wait time to 15 or even 30 minutes. I'm pretty sure the only times I've seen the bot's work on my watchlist was due to a ref being removed from vandalism, thus some extra work to revert the original vandalism as rollback won't work. A little more time and people have a better chance to fix the problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See previous discussion in the archives. Anomie⚔ 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? All of them where you basically say the same thing, and it comes across as rather arrogant to tell people "did you read the thingy at the top"? (as in not particularly inline with the bot policy: "bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise"). You complain that not every IP editor is a vandal, but apparently you seem to think that everyone who comes here to complain about the bot must not have read your note. And also, a change to new arbitrary number (90 minutes has been suggested previously) should not be a defense, as in you don't want to just go with some arbitrary number. Odd, since 5 minutes is rather arbitrary, unless you say it is based on the amount of time vandalism is dealt with by several bots. Well, did you look at how long the average time is for vandalism in general to be reverted? If you factor that in, then maybe 15 or 30 minutes isn't arbitrary. Or to sum up many of the complaints, this bot makes for more work, not less, in many instances. And you seem to refuse to accept that (just revert the bot!) and brush aside the complaints instead of trying to work out a solution or compromise. It's not as fast to revert the bot as it is to revert the vandalism. I.e., not "Harmless". It's a useful bot when implemented right, but apparently some people think there should be some tweeks to get it there. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5 minutes is a nice round number that gives RCP a decent chance to catch vandalism while not leaving broken references and in articles for too long. I did collect some statistics in the past, which you would have found had you actually read the previous discussions. It turns out that the majority of identifiable vandalism reverts in the sample period occured within 5 minutes of the vandalism, and beyond that you're well into diminishing returns. And since anecdotally much vandalism is by IP users or users with few edits (note the reverse is not true), I changed my position on that in February 2009 and adjusted the bot to wait a full hour after their edits unless someone with a relatively large edit count has edited the page since. If you have something new to contribute please do so, otherwise don't expect further reply from me on this topic. Anomie⚔ 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, how old is your data? 5 minutes may have used to work, but if RC patrol is like the rest of Wikipedia, we are bleeding editors (see the big RFC on BLPs advertised on the top of pages for some discussion on that), and your five minutes sort of doesn't work anymore. Anecdotally, a year ago and more I rarely had to revert vandalism as the vandal fighters and RC folks got to it before me, but now I find vandalism on high traffic articles like Liberia much more often that have been sitting there for hours, which is where the problem with your bot has reared its ugly head. It's a top 5000 articles by traffic, yet vandalism takes longer now to remove, and your bot isn't helping. So hopefully that is new for you. Otherwise we can take this to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to see if there is still consensus on your bot in its current state compared to the current state of Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

More detailed edit summary

I am looking to find and review more the this sort of wrong forum closure for a discussion . Would it be possible for AnomieBot to leave a clearer edit summary ? Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, not needed Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, your discussion there seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Anomie⚔ 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aye but no one can tell me what to do with commons images we no longer want on Wiki apart from remove all link to the image which isn't a solution. Gnevin (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is, and it's what we do now. You want some sort of general-purpose blacklist for blocking any random image someone complains loudly enough about rather than the relatively strict criteria used by MediaWiki:Bad image list, but you haven't really shown that there is a problem that existing mechanisms can't handle. But whatever, I'm trying not to care about wikipolitics anymore so I'll leave it to people who do still care to discuss it elsewhere. Anomie⚔ 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for this bot, Anomie. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Inserting references in the running text instead of in the refs section?

What happends here? All the refs should go down to the reference section per Wikipedia:LDR#List-defined_references in the refs= list (per , not in the text. See also User_talk:AnomieBOT#Can.27t_handle_refs.3D_inside_the_.7B.7Breflist.7D.7D.3FNsaa (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here I've done what I'm outlining above for the first of a lot of references in the article. Nsaa (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

List-defined references are optional. I may at some point in the future try to detect if list-defined references are in use in an article, but there are a few tricky corner cases that prevents it from being trivial to implement. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.. thanks! Nsaa (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Literary Sources on Origin of ROmanians

hello, i am in process of restructuring Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians Criztu (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Miami

I find it a bit disruptive for this bot to change the location of the main citation as placed by the editor. There is nothing inherently wrong with putting the materials in the first occurrance of a reference, even if it is in a template. We are trying to keep thing moving and don't need a bot shifting things around requiring us to search for them. Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue with references in templates is that it causes hard-to-find breakage if the relevant template field is renamed or removed; for example, a while back they removed a "genre" parameter from some music-related infobox which broke the refs people had been using to "source" the listed genre. But if you want to override the bot in this instance, add <!-- AnomieBOT: Don't move --> anywhere inside the relevant <ref> tag. Anomie⚔ 22:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

		The Citation Barnstar
		As I was busy with some very cumbersome (read: 200kB) merges and forks, these two orphaned reference fixes came after my edits, and I was quite impressed. This is an incredibly useful and robust bot. —Akrabbimtalk 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it could also close IFDs that were "kept" ? ...

...by reproducing the closing admin's edit summary or something? –xeno^talk 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix that didn't quite work

In this edit AnomieBOT corrected a ref that had the formatting error "<ref nane="bridges1"..." in both the body and the references area by removing the reference altogether. Perhaps a list of obvious typos such as this ("nane"->"name") could be developed? Or perhaps something better could be done with a ref with an invalid parameter than simply removing entirely? I grant that the ref as it stood was broken, and the bot edit drew attention to it so a human could fix it. But had there been several other edits before the bot edit was noticed (as could easily occur on a busy page), then the ref might well have been lost. Not sure what the best way to handle this would be, and it isn't strictly speaking an error by the bot. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A list of "obvious" typos could certainly be included, but what determines an "obvious" typo? The reason "<ref nane="bridges1"/>" was removed was because after removing the invalid parameters all that was left was "<ref/>", which is itself invalid. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the problem. Perhaps if removing parameters creates an invalid ref construct, then the original ref, with invalid parameters intact, could be left in place but inside an HTML comment, so that it will be easier for a human editor to find and fix? Or perhaps if a change to a single character gives a valid parameter, it might be considered a typo? But that might mean too many checks for reasonable performance. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAG/Status‎

Thanks for keeping this up to date. I'd like to request a non-trivial change: if a BAG member created a BRFA, could they, for the purposes of that BRFA, be considered not a BAG member for the purposes of the "Last BAG edit" column? When I have BRFAs running, naturally I keep commenting on them - but now that I'm also a BAG member, that it appears that the BAG is providing my BRFAs with plenty of attention! Thanks again, Josh Parris 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I had to poke the bot in the database to get it to update the rows for the existing BRFAs without waiting for a new edit to each. Anomie⚔ 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, for some on a wikibreak you sure turned that around quick! Josh Parris 22:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd sort of wikibreak, I mostly only have a few minutes a day to check my watchlist for edits I care about. Fortunately your request came on a weekend ;) Anomie⚔ 02:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this: I'm not sure if AnomieBOT ought to be considered an editor for the Last edit column, but at the same time can see a reason to note that the bot has notified the operator - I'll leave the call to your discretion. Josh Parris 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. As a third option, maybe any minor edit shouldn't be counted? Maybe someone should bring it up on WT:BRFA or WP:BON to get more opinions. Anomie⚔ 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AnomieBOT, you are the first bot I have ever conversed with. Thanks.

I know you aren't sentient, but I still enjoyed our conversation. Someday, when you or your grandkids are sentient, we'll all look back and have a good laugh. Excellent work rescuing orphaned refs. Cheers, — ¾-10 17:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking LDR

AnomieBOT broke Lichen in this edit. It apparently tried to move refs out of templates and so it moved them out of {{Reflist|2}} which broke the refs. Svick (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem stems from the unclosed {{cite web}} in the Casselman1999 ref. Because of that, the bot didn't see the {{reflist}} as an actual template, because it thought the reflist's }} belonged to the Casselman1999 ref's cite web instead. It doesn't cause such a problem for Mediawiki's parser, because Mediawiki strips out the <ref>...</ref> before processing templates. Anomie⚔ 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done The bot will now deem a page "too broken to fix" if it looks like there is an unclosed "{{reflist". Anomie⚔ 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia ref

Restoring lost refs from previous diffs is an awesomely useful task, but in this diff, the bot restored a WP:CIRCULAR ref. --Geniac (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot has no idea if a reference is good or bad, and really no way to tell. The appropriate response in this situation is to remove the second use of the reference that the bot identified, and any others as well. Anomie⚔ 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans; I will do so in future. --Geniac (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Complaint by Dirk P Broer

Moved from in the middle of a discussion above, and <nowiki> added

• Completely missing the point! you replace <ref name="Halley1988"/><ref name="Jefford 2001, p. 102"/><ref>Moyes 1976, p. 285.</ref>

with <ref name="Halley1988">Halley 1988, p. 436.</ref><ref name="Jefford 2001, p. 102">Jefford 2001, p. 102.</ref><ref>Moyes 1976, p. 285.</ref> But the whole poit of using ,<ref name="placeholder">Someone year, p xx.</ref> is that you can use ,<ref name="placeholder"/> for the same reference/page in the rest of the text so it will be combined into 1 a,b Someone year, p xxDirk P Broer And next time wait till I am finished editing as well, please(talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this AnomieBOT edit, although I really have no idea what exactly you're complaining about. You removed the "Halley1988" and "Jefford 2001, p. 102" references in this edit, apparently intending to rename them to "Halley1988p436" and "Jefford2001p102", but you did not rename all instances. AnomieBOT helpfully rescued the removed references, and in this edit you (correctly) undid AnomieBOT's edit and completed your rename.

As for waiting until you are finished editing, the bot can't read minds to determine whether or not you're done. If you're making a series of edits to a page in a short period of time, stick {{inuse}} on the page to tell both AnomieBOT and human editors that they should hold off on editing while you finish. Anomie⚔ 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed

I was just trying to rescue some references, when I realized the bot had done just that much faster than I did. Thank you! — Sebastian 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you want to look at the ones AnomieBOT couldn't figure out, User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log is the place to check. Anomie⚔ 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed too -- what a great bot! --Melty girl 05:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)