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 Georgeccampbell (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 14 April 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:NoBracketBot

Dmy, mdy, and English variants

@Fram: The bot should be updated to account for your changes to the dmy, mdy, and English variants categories. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I dropped a note at User talk:Anomie a few days ago already. 08:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

Diamond

On Diamond, two users (KH-1 (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)) have made edits removing material that AnomieBOT has twice reverted.

The 5 edits in question: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

I noticed that the third time the material was removed (the most recent edit, as of this writing), AnomieBOT did not revert it.

Was wondering if this was intended behavior of AnomieBOT? —danhash (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended, but not for the obvious reason.
This is refspam. However there were two cites to it. As this then left an orphaned cite [6], AnomieBot then restored it (AnomieBot makes no judgement on spam). When the cites were all removed too, AnomieBot left it alone.
Incidentally, the spammed site was across several articles and this same problem arose elsewhere too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent design flaw with AnomieBOT

AnomieBOT fixed a syntax error with a ref tag and in the process removed the ref name parameter completely. See this edit. I have fixed the tag but thought I should alert you to the problem.

Can the BOT be programmed to recognize and correct a malformed name parameter like this by inserting the missing equals sign instead of outright deleting the parameter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koala Tea Of Mercy (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT corrects name=”foo” and a few other varieties of curly quotes, and name "foo" and a few other variations of screwing up the equals sign. But when you start combining different kinds of errors, there's a point when you're likely to get false positives because the pattern-matching is too generic. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rescuing those citations in OS X from the Mac App Store article (even though you did say about Apple Inc. which seems correct). I greatly appreciate it!

Sorry I cannot give your bot any because your bot is a robot. :3 Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

[7] is correct that the file is tagged non-free. But it recommends listing at WP:Non-free content review, a board that was closed a month or two ago. That closure-result was to merge to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. DMacks (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anomie⚔ 12:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with {{unsigned}}?

See yonder diff.  pablo 14:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pablo X: (talk page stalker) The fault was in the edit before the bot's, which added {{unsigned}} without any parameters. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well if it's not a problem, it's not a problem.  pablo 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot

The bot for dating maintenance tags was formerly done by SmackBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you're posting this here because? Anomie⚔ 00:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: Your bot also dates maintenance tags, which indeed was formerly done by SmackBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't tell me why you're bothering to post about it here. Why do you care that another bot did the task years ago? And why do you think it's something anyone else should care about that you felt the need to post it here? Anomie⚔ 16:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PUICloser: Template:Puf top is broken - Fixed for now

Help! The template {{puf top}} contains unknown parameters. To avoid confusion, I'm not going to process any PUFs until it's fixed or I'm fixed. 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⚡ 16:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Stefan2: I assume this is because the bot doesn't like your edit to the template. Any ideas? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the edit for now as it is more useful to have a working bot than to have a template which displays correctly when transcluded instead of substituted. Also note that the template appears in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, so if someone transcludes the template (thereby making it display incorrectly), then User:AnomieBOT automatically substitutes the template shortly after the template was added to the page, so the page won't display a broken template syntax for a very long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked this section "Fixed" as suggested by the bot's message, but it would be helpful for Anomie to have a look at the edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the bot so it shouldn't complain anymore if that edit is redone. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IFDCloser: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 7 is broken - fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 7 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⚡ 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: One nomination was closed in two pieces, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 7#Additional. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this. I just went ahead and edited the header level. — ξxplicit 02:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

This Bot had done an edit in article Gajpanth, I don't know what it had done please see over it!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @BOTFIGHTER: What it had done was this - it added |date=December 2015 to each of two templates ({{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use Indian English}}) where a date is mandatory. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BOTFIGHTER: You should read WP:OWN and not randomly revert edits like that just because you don't know what they do. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer removes ref without name

I noticed AnomieBOT sometimes enforces the "Remove <ref …/> without name" rule, removing a reference tag previously broken by another editor, such as in this edit, where the bot removed <ref namphreys2005p51" /> after it had been malformed by a drive-by vandal. Unless somebody later reviews the history of the page, this loss of an inline citation may go unnoticed. Whereas if the malformed reference had remained, it would have showed up at Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting for a potential editor to revert. I'm not sure what the best remedy is here, or anybody regularly reviews the edits, but would it be possible to make the bot "smarter" in cases like these?—Laoris (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw the notice at the top of this talk page regarding the bot hiding vandalism. However, vandalism or not, it still seems like removing non-empty self-closed ref tags could be a problem. Do we just have to rely on other editors catching removal of ref tags that are legitimate, but malformed?—Laoris (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed this edit which removed a {{broken link}} - that template was left undated for over two and a half years. Is it because Help:Cascading Style Sheets is not in mainspace, or is there a table of redirects that needs updating? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT only processes mainspace pages, and pages transcluded in mainspace pages. Anomie⚔ 03:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix list

AnomieBOT, your operator Anomie decided to help us start User:Anomie/Neelix list and we need some more. Could the bot go through User:Anomie/Neelix list/1, etc. and per User talk:Anomie/Neelix list, (A) remove all red links; (B) remove any talk page listed there if the page itself is listed above or below it (basically check if Talk:X is before or after X and delete the talk page line) and (C) rename any header named "Section" (without a number) or "Break" into something to distinguish them (the name of the first item below or section number X, it doesn't matter). It's difficult when so many sections have the same name. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Further/sandbox listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template talk:Further/sandbox. Since you had some involvement with the Template talk:Further/sandbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT misdated merge tags

The merge tag has been added and removed at times, and the bot appears not to detect that. The bot should not probably not overwrite manually-curated date tags. See diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiastic_structure&type=revision&diff=693208801&oldid=693206409

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiasmus&type=revision&diff=693208806&oldid=693206380

—siroχo 06:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a correct date (month and year) in the |date= parameter, the bot won't touch it. If you put an invalid value in there, the bot will fix it as best it can, as you've seen. Anomie⚔ 13:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selected works

Why on earth would the bot put a banner to cite a source for a list of works? Citations of a list of published citations is somewhat redundant, wouldn't you say? I could remove the banner from Ruth Guimarães, but I assume it would just put it back. How does one stop this? Please ping me with the reply. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: that wasn't bot, but The Rambling Man, who added that template. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 22:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edgars2007 Thank you. I shall remove it as redundant then. SusunW (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference renaming

The Special:Diff/705031939 edit by AnomieBOT (a) fixed a missing closing quotation mark (a good thing). However, it also (b) renamed some reference |name= parameters, and (c) inserted white-space. Please could the bot be fixed to avoid doing the latter two operations. Many appreciations, —Sladen (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(b) is specifically cleaning up after this edit changed the name of the instance of the reference that had the content without renaming the other instances of the reference in the page. (c) comes from the fact that it constructs the new ref tag for (b) from scratch instead of screwing around trying to preserve every other nit of the existing broken ref tags. Anomie⚔ 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:PUF shutdown

@Anomie: Just wanted to give you a heads up about the ongoing discussion to merge PUF into FFD. I'm letting you know just to "be ready" since this merge affects AnomieBOT. Steel1943 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-state

Your bot moved {{translated page}} to the discussion page of my article proto-state. Is that ok? Rousseau Diderot (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rousseau Diderot: Yes. It should be used on the talk page, not the article. See Template:Translated page#Usage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned Category:Cite doi templates

Could one of the bots handle Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Update_to_request? It's a request to delete approximately 31k orphaned templates at Category:Cite doi templates and Category:Cite pmid templates. There's a separate google docs spreadsheet containing each page that is to be deleted so I don't imagine it would be terribly difficult to implement. I also asked User:Cydebot about the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible task

Hi. Per discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 144#What to do about tens of thousands of unnecessary parser functions on user talk pages?, do you think you might be able to subst the offenders?

Basics
A load of pointless parsers in the user talk space could be substed, and there's limited support and some opposition to go ahead and do it. fredgandt 09:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could, yes. But the consensus there seems to be mostly against the idea. Anomie⚔ 22:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Anomie, I didn't see your reply in my watchlist. Fortunately I popped by to check. I wouldn't say mostly, but I'm not going to be pedantic and tally up the !votes. There is also support for the work to be done, and no technical reason against, so really it's up to you. I'd appreciate if you could let me know either way for certain; if you're not going to release the cracken BOT, I'll want to figure something else out. Cheers for now. fredgandt 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do it at this time. Anomie⚔ 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I may =) fredgandt 18:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sources

Hi, I am the one who left the sources for sunny being billed as the first wwe divs. These are good sources, what was your reason for removing them?

Davidgoodheart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.32.160 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Lynn Sytch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(talk page stalker) Please check the recent history of the article to see who edited your text and added a {{CN}} tag. AnomieBOT is merely a robot that added a date to the tag. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly pointless edit?

Anomie, what's the point of this edit? Lots of infoboxes across countless articles include the code for named references, and I can't imagine any situation in which the location of the citation code matters one bit. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That type of edit was added specifically because some infoboxes were having a problem with references being defined inside undisplayed parameters. If the infobox doesn't display a parameter for some reason, then the reference inside it doesn't get defined and results in an error message being displayed. Anomie⚔ 12:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot caused ref error

The bot "fixed" an article reference that was not a problem, which caused a error. This was in March so it may have been fixed already. (Diff) --Auric talk 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: a broken <ref> inside <references> doesn't show up any sort of error, so the previous edit didn't seem to be broken. Anomie⚔ 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New protected edit request table

@Anomie: Can you update AnomieBOT to start generating User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable for use at Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code is done, but I'm going to wait for the trial of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 2 that's currently running to finish before uploading it. Anomie⚔ 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edits

This edit to an article is very odd. Can we get someone to look an see if the substing template {{hello}} has been place on other articles? -- Moxy (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: The bot didn't add it to the article. A vandal replaced another template with {{hello}}. Currently, there are no transclusions or substututions of it in articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup template lacks reason parameter

See IdenTrust diff. -- Solde9 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Solde9: it's not the bot, who added the template itself, so this isn't a bot issue. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Solde9: It was Skim0001 (talk · contribs) with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for WP:PUF to be shut down has been established

@Anomie: As seen here, consensus to close WP:PUF has been established. At this point, until all discussions there are closed, I have one primary request: Could AnomieBOT stop creating daily subpages for WP:PUF? Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done. Anomie⚔ 17:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PERTableUpdater bug?

Hi Anomie. This version of User:AnomieBOT/EPERTable incorrectly shows Jat people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as not protected. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yes, that is because the page is WP:30/500 protected, which is a new prot level (it began a few days ago), and I suspect that Anomie (talk · contribs) hasn't yet completed amendments to the bot code. See #New protected edit request table above. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I updated everything except for actually detecting that the page was protected, d'oh. Anomie⚔ 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this it appears to working correctly now. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirects

Your bot is putting a lot of effort into pointless talk page redirects. Nobody gets to talk pages by typing Talk: and the name of an article, so these are really not going to do any good. Of course, if there are articles with dashes in their titles then redirects with hyphen are advised. But I've seen no advice to do this for talk pages. Does your bot just not distinguish, or did someone decide to do this on purpose? Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dated info/update after template

Hi, just letting you know that {{update after}} has recently been amended to do what it says: signal that the information is to be updated after the specified date, not on or after that date. As such, adding today's date to this template implies that the information is OK today, but will probably be out of date tomorrow, as opposed to what the person who added the template actually meant (that it is already out of date or suspected to be). So if you're going to automatically add the date to this template or any of its redirects, it wants to be yesterday's date. (I believe that date templates on Wikipedia work in UTC.) — Smjg (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you consider "update after 2016-04-12" as meaning "update after 2016-04-12T00:00:00Z" or "update after 2016-04-12T23:59:59Z", doesn't it? Since it has historically been the first interpretation, and that matches what it does if month or day are omitted, IMO it would be better to just stick with that. Anomie⚔ 18:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this robot delete my picture

I posted a picture of the Ohio State Fair that I took myself and this robot deleted it. This is just automated vandalism. What is the problem?

george (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT&oldid=715283409"