Jump to content

User talk:AnomieBOT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.214.10.139 (talk) at 06:25, 19 October 2013 (→New protection level: Please remove citation tag on Sir Willaiam Bowes article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archiving old AfDs

Noticing that closed AfDs for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paganism weren't being archived, I have created an archive page. Is there anything else I need to do for the bot to start archiving the closed AfDs? (I don't see any mysterious summoning code on other such pages but may well be missing it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact for the bot to find it. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, did that, thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great edit!

Great edit! Thanks, --Technopat (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT says you're welcome. Anomie⚔ 10:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PERTable

Hi, regarding User:AnomieBOT/PERTable; the page that is listed in the first column is the mainpage for the talk page upon which the {{edit protected}} appears, and the row is coloured according to the protection level of that mainpage. But {{edit protected}} takes a positional parameter, being the name of the page that is actually to be edited. This happens in at least two situations: (i) when one talk page is shared by several main pages (often templates); (ii) where a talk page has a subpage but the mainpage does not (e.g. Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion). If that parameter is present, would it be possible to put that into the first column of PERTable and so give the row a more suitable colour? Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hard part there is that then the bot has to load the content for each talk page and parse out the template. Which is certainly doable, but a bit of a pain. I'll have to give it some thought. Anomie⚔ 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could I add my vote to this request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done What I wound up doing is having the template insert a "urn"-protocol link, so the bot just has to fetch the list of those. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AnomieBOT, MSGJ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Yes, Thank you - it's already showing the two requests on Template talk:Convert/Technical as different entries. I'll let you know if I see problems. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cushman

Thanks!!!! Mugginsx (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: WP:BRFA cannot be processed - Fixed

The BRFA list cannot be processed. Most likely, someone has screwed around with the section headers. Either fix it back to the old layout, or update me to handle the new version. Thanks. 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⚡ 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rollbacked an anon's edit, hoefully that's sufficient. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: WP:BRFA cannot be processed - Fixed

The BRFA list cannot be processed. Most likely, someone has screwed around with the section headers. Either fix it back to the old layout, or update me to handle the new version. Thanks. 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⚡ 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addshore rolled back the edit in question. I also filed a request for semi-protection at RFPP. Theopolisme (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly vandalism. ·addshore· talk to me! 08:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

It's quite annoying to see that all that's been done is a very minor edit. Alright, maybe a date= parameter is useful. So to stop bots from messing up the (current) tag, I started adding it.

Yet, that is not enough. I still get bitten. Like, july 2013 -> July 2013. Trivial crap like that is why I stopped even tagging articles. I think I'll stop again. Congratulations to you, and your valuable service to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.113.82 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "july 2013" is incorrect and doesn't work: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from july 2013 doesn't and shouldn't exist, while Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2013 does. If you enter "July 2013" with correct capitalization, it works fine and the bot won't edit it. Anomie⚔ 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging

What's up with this bot? Tagging Hogansville, Georgia lead paragraph and notable residents section. I despise templates, they make articles look ugly. My coworkers ask what this section in the box means and what this means here. I tell them just ignore these templates and read the rest of the article. This also must be why teachers are telling students not to use wiki articles as sources in papers because you never know what templates might be on articles. Disgusting drive-by tagging, disable this bot as soon as you can. Peace out! --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT didn't do a drive-by tag - it dated two tags that somebody else added. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better fix for this?

Is there any way the bot can fix things like this in a better way than it did? This change actually made the page worse, because the reference still showed an error after, and now it's not obvious a URL was ever added. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFDCloser: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{ffd 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⚡ 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the right tag

Hi Anomie. Your bot has just formatted my tag at Persian carpet, thanks. I see now that the tag is not quite what I wanted - my intention was to call attention to the fact that the information is outdated/ old. I can't find the correct tag template for that. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Rui Gabriel Correia: - You may want to try {{update after}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or {{Update inline}} --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Howdy bot people! The bot is doing something strange at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 29 - insisting on a duplicate daily header. I think it relates to the fact that someone tried to add one manually earlier today (in the same way that one manually adds a record to AFD). I tried to correct the error but was reverted by the bot. I think I've fixed it by removing the manually entered one, but I'm not certain. If you could have a look, that would be great. Obviously no need to stop it or whatever, just a minor glitch. Cheers! Stalwart111 07:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it. I've fixed the bug in the bot that was making it do that in this situation. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests to modules

Can edit requests to modules be colored green instead of white, like templates currently are? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea.  Done Anomie⚔ 22:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove CfD templates

Hello, Category:Wikipedians by profession was nominated as CfD, and the results was keep. Can we loop through it's child categories and remove the CfD template? The discussion can be found here. Please note that the mentioned list in the discussion does not include all categories that were nominated for deletion, e.g. the template on Category:Wikipedian_guitarists-2 links to the same discussion but is not included in the list. I'm going to assume all of the Category:Wikipedians by profession child categories are safe to keep? Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 02:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TagDater: [BRFA55] Possible broken wrapper template Template:Outdated section - Fixed

The page Template:Outdated section is transcluded in other pages and appears to consist of nothing but an invocation of a template that should be dated but isn't. Please fix it (most likely by adding |date={{{date|}}} to the dated template invocation), or fix me. 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⚡ 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. Theopolisme (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome templates

Hi! I was wondering about the possibility of the welcome templates being added to your list of things to automatically subst. They're on the list of things that should be substituted. Also, could you use {{ping}} to notify me that you've replied? Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru.lass: Feel free, all you need to do is add each template to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, and for each one that currently has more than 100 unsubsted transclusions have an admin list it on User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. One easy way to add the category is to add |auto=yes to the invocation of {{Subst only}} that's probably already on the templates' documentation pages. Anomie⚔ 18:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thankfully, none of them have >100 transclusions. In fact, most of them currently have zero transclusions because I got bored last night and substed them all (this was before I discovered AnomieBOT). Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page names in edit requests are ignored

When an edit protected tag is placed on a page, and it contains the parameter that sets the page being requested to be edited (example here, the request is on Template talk:Ln but applies to Template:La, per the first parameter), the bot lists it as being an edit to the wrong page (here). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is the same as the q that I asked a few weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to decide if there is a good way to do it that wouldn't require loading the content of every talk page containing the template, or if that's an acceptable load. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change {{edit protected}} to put pages in an additional category when a parameter is passed to it, and then only load the pages in that category. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done What I wound up doing is having the template insert a "urn"-protocol link, so the bot just has to fetch the list of those. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving references out of templates

The bot recently moved a reference out of a template.[1] However, doing so added a citation where it did not belong. While it would make sense to note the error, the bot should not be attaching references to random locations within articles. This citation that that bot moved was put there to cite the range of the organism within the fossil record, a very specific citation that does not belong just anywhere in the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(talk page stalker) The bot didn't "add a citation where it did not belong" - the citation was already there, in the form of <ref name="Waren1996" /> --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the citation was not where the bot moved it to, it was where the bot moved it from. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Please see WP:NAMEDREFS also WP:3RR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Geeze, this editor has created incomprehensible, useless articles, and having this bot editing, causing me an edit conflict, while I am trying to read, edit, and correct this set of junk articles is very annoying. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This bot is not putting the reference in the right place. Although it may need fixed, it should not be fixed in a way that the bot creates a reference that does not belong. There are many useful bots doing useful tasks on Wikipedia; this is not a useful task, to assign a reference to a random sentence in an article, simply because it is in the wrong place. A broken reference is better than one that is wrong.

Please stop this bot from reverting my edit. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]


Bot/human edit war: bot wins, the articles are all his. Maybe the bot can now continue editing the rest of the junk out of this editor's articles, since it is interfering with my trying to make sense of them. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Passengers on the Anne and the Little James

Please do not work on my new page until I am finished - I have just lost about 40 minutes of work. I know you do great work, I just could not find the "work in progress" template. Mybad. Thankyou Mugginsx (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template is {{in use}}. Anomie⚔ 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have saved it in my Sandbox. Thanks again! Do not know what we would do without you Bots!!! Mugginsx (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not working on WP:DRV?

The bot failed to create today's page, and failed to add both today's and yesterday's pages to the list. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted the bot. It looks like a database error took it down. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests to pages that don't exist

If an edit semi-protected template is placed on a talk page when the corresponding content page doesn't exist, can it be colored yellow instead of red? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Alex Rodriguez - fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Alex Rodriguez, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about nowpublic.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⚡ 11:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it had more than one usage in the article. I'm on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRVClerk: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 16 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 16 seems to contain a level-4 header. Probably someone screwed up {{DRV top}}, and I'm thinking an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}. Anyway, I can't remove the headers from 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⚡ 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fixed. This message is really unclear, worse than most of this kind of messages. It seems to do this itself usually ([2]); I don't get why it couldn't this time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry, I missed seeing this until now. It got confused because in this edit someone screwed up the wikitext inserted by {{subst:DRV bottom}}, so when AnomieBOT was trying to find the end of the first section it ran it together with the next one. And then it realized something was screwed up, so it asked for help. Anomie⚔ 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the whitespace. Why'd the bot say "an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}", instead of putting something sensible in parameters 1 or 2, though? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{DRV top}} takes two parameters, it was referring to those. For example, instead of the discussion result being "Discussion endorsed" the bot might be thinking it was "Discussion endorsed – [[User:Example]] ([[User talk:Example|talk]]) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <!-- * --> and more wikitext and the whole of the actual discussion all the way until the middle of {{DRV top}}'s output for the next section".
BTW, I changed the message to "Probably someone screwed up the wikitext created by {{subst:DRV top}} (which could make me think an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}) or {{subst:DRV bottom}} (so I'm not finding the end of the discussion and running it together with the next one)" now, which hopefully is slightly more clear. Anomie⚔ 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot used incorrect syntax for improve tag.

Please look at the edit it made to Fraggle Rock on October 10, 2013.

24.18.35.153 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with it (and it was 4 October, not 10 October, which is this coming Thursday). The problem was that in this edit on 3 October, |reason= was not filled in by 91.63.243.112 (talk). The bot cannot know the reason, but it can determine the date. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 5#File:Subhasree Ganguly.jpg

Something is wrong with the bot: it closed the same discussion four times. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this also happened at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot appears to add additional {{subst:ffd top}}, {{subst:puf top}} and similar once per hour. I have stopped the PUF task by inserting text at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser, and I see that User:Magog the Ogre has stopped the FFD task by inserting text at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/IFDCloser. I hope that this can be fixed soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely my fault. I had to change those templates slightly to fix them in mobile view, and AnomieBOT apparently looks for the exact contents of them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, same thing at tfd. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's your fault ;) AnomieBOT looks for <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" to detect a closed discussion. I'll have that adjusted in a few minutes. Anomie⚔ 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. I also added a check to try to prevent this sort of thing from happening again: it will post here and refuse to continue if the appropriate "top" template doesn't contain the wikitext it looks for to detect closed discussions. Anomie⚔ 23:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in Irish music

Why did you do this? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_in_Irish_music&diff=451894118&oldid=451660240 It caused a lot of errors. --Frze > talk 12:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That happened two years ago. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the error messages were there already. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the names properties were entered incorrectly, as name=="foo" with an extra equals sign. This meant MediaWiki would not recognize the name, and AnomieBOT eventually removed the entirely bogus text. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your editing

Hi, AnomieBOT. I really thank you for your help.
Here is a tea for you. Have some rest. And next time, please help me to update my article. :) Have a nice day. IloveU4ever (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about NewArticleAFDTagger

Hi Anomie. Thank you very much for writing AnomieBOT, and especially the NewArticleAFDTagger. I know you're busy, so I don't expect that you'll write such a task. Instead, it would be good if you could let Bot Requests readers know whether or not you would accept a patch which adds this functionality to AnomieBOT, and to also let readers know whether or not you or any other bot did NewArticleAFDTagging of all pre-existing articles before you launched your bot. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply there. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Username (Usurpations request) Request Still In Progress : Mb-m → Mmitra

Hi, I have requested for Change of Username using Usurpations from Mb-m → Mmitra. It's almost 8 days from the date of request but still it shows In progress, i would like to know how much time does it takes to complete the request and how long would it take to complete. Please reply as soon as possible. Thank You !

Link: Mb-m → Mmitra

--Mb-m (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes until a bureaucrat reviews the request and decides to approve or deny it. AnomieBOT is just a bot that helps out by checking various factors so the 'crats don't have to look things up themselves. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PERTableUpdater ended?

Hi, User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable has become out-of-date, and http://tools.wmflabs.org/anomiebot/ marks PERTableUpdater as "ended"? Does this mean it won't run any more? That would be a shame, because by watchlisting the SPERTable one can get very quick notice of new edit requests. (I know about Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, but one can't watchlist that, and the category actually transcludes the SPERTable.) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have no idea why that is "ended". I'll take a look at the code and restart it shortly. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, figured it out and fixed it. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New protection level

Hi, re this edit - there is now a fourth protection level, intermediate between semi-prot and full-prot: it is called template editor, and such templates may be identified by testing {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}} for "templateeditor". As an example, {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|Template:Infobox bilateral relations}} → templateeditor --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to find time to update the code. Anomie⚔ 11:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


SIR WILLIAM BOWES article Please remove the need for citation tag - the references are all in order. Cheers Mike

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT&oldid=577810120"