User talk:AnomieBOT

Anomie is still around, mostly to maintain AnomieBOT. But after the WMF proved that office politics are more important to them than seemingly anything else, and otherwise generally seem more concerned with their own image than substance, Anomie is not engaging in technical work on MediaWiki.

Despite T360488 asking them not to, Toolforge admins have gone ahead and broken AnomieBOT's scripts. Keeping things running properly will likely require manual intervention until they fix that or give me a usable workaround.

Live status for all AnomieBOT tasks is available at Toolforge.

Regarding the OrphanReferenceFixer and TagDater, please note:

AnomieBOT is not an anti-vandal bot, so complaints about AnomieBOT "hiding" or not reverting vandalism are out of place here.
- AnomieBOT's current strategy is "wait 10 minutes to an hour or so to let ClueBot, VoABotII, other anti-vandal bots, or RC Patrollers fix the vandalism". I am open to specific suggestions on detecting vandalism, but keep in mind that the false positive rate of any method must be near zero to be useful.
AnomieBOT honors {{inuse}}; please use it if you have excessive edit conflicts.
If the reference errors or undated tags were caused by vandalism, just revert AnomieBOT's edits along with the vandal's. AnomieBOT will not be offended.
If AnomieBOT made a mistake in correcting a reference error or dating a tag, please correct the error by hand and report the URL of the problem diff below. Don't just revert the bot without fixing the error, or AnomieBOT is likely to "fix" it again in the same broken way before I get a chance to fix the bug.
If you have a problem with T11790, please take the issue up there. You will be having the problem with more than just AnomieBOT's edits.

Thank you.

	Regarding deletions, please note:
If you are here because you think AnomieBOT III deleted an article, please check again. AnomieBOT III deletes redirects when someone else deletes the article the redirect pointed to, and you almost certainly want to talk to that person instead.

	Regarding {{old AfD multi}}, please note:
If you are here because AnomieBOT added {{old AfD multi}} to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one.

Before requesting a WikiProjectTagger run, please read the following:

The bot can easily handle multiple projects at a time: Everything below can be specified on a per-project basis. If there is significant overlap (e.g. articles in Category:Physicists are likely in the scope of both WP:WikiProject Physics and WP:WikiProject Biography), please consider requesting tagging for all the projects at once.

The terms of the bot's approval require that each WikiProject involved approve the list of categories to be processed. In your request, please link to the discussion on each wikiproject's talk page showing this approval. If you do not do this, I will have to post at the talk pages myself and wait a week for replies. That discussion should address all of the following points:

Specify which categories to process. Including "all subcategories" is possible, but in general is no longer done.
Certain pages will be auto-assessed for class and importance. If any of the below is not acceptable, specify how it should be changed (e.g. "Do not set importance", "Just tag, do not assess", or "Ignore the page, don't even tag it"). In all cases, if it looks like the specified class is not supported by your project's banner I will use class=NA instead.
- Article redirects will be auto-assessed as class=redirect and importance=NA.
- Articles in Category:All disambiguation pages will be auto-assessed as class=disambig and importance=NA.
- Articles in any category ending in "stubs" will be auto-assessed as class=stub, unless they are already assessed as something else by your project.
- All other articles will be tagged with no assessment. This can be turned off, if for some reason you only want stubs, redirects, disambiguation pages, and/or non-article pages tagged.
- Non-article pages will be assessed with the appropriate class (e.g. "category", "template", "image") and importance=NA. Action (and class) may be specified per namespace. Note this is not necessary for {{WPBannerMeta}}-based banners, as the assessment is done automatically there.
The bot can canonicalize redirects to the project banner, for example replacing {{cvgproj}} with {{WikiProject Video games}}. This will only be done if the page is going to be edited anyway, it will not be the only reason for editing the page. If you want this done, say so.
The bot can add arbitrary extra parameters to the template, based on categories, page contents, talk page categories, or talk page contents. For example, it can add task force parameters, and it can do things like "Add living=yes if it is in Category:Living people, or living=no if it is in Category:XXXX deaths/executions, Category:XXXXs deaths/executions, Category:XXth century deaths/executions, Category:XXth millennium BC deaths, or Category:Date/Year of death missing/unknown". If you want any extra parameters set, specify what they are and under what conditions to add them. If you want the bot to remove existing parameters under certain conditions, that can be done too.
The bot can also skip individual articles, based on categories, page contents, talk page categories, or talk page contents. For example, if WikiProject Foo wanted all articles in Category:Foo tagged unless they were also in Category:Bar or tagged by WikiProject Baz, that can easily be done.

Thank you.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Template:NoBracketBot

AnomieBOT not working

@Anomie: There are a number of tasks that AnomieBOT has stopped processing. Toolforge reports a status of "job missing" for:

TagDater
CategoryLister
NobotsHallOfShame
PERTableUpdater
SourceUploader
TaskRedirectChecker
WatchlistUpdater

Just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point?

This bot caused me to lose half an hour of work because of an edit conflict.
What is the point of fixing/adding that totally useless "date" parameter in the {{cn}} template? Could you please just stop doing that?
Or could you at least avoid editing any article that has been edited in the last 24 hours, to reduce the risk of edit conflicts?
Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorge Stolfi: (talk page stalker) the date is used so that Category:Articles with unsourced statements can be sorted by month, like most other backlog categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: And ... what is that good for?
How many "habitual" editors does Wikipedia have, and how many of them are looking at that list? (350,000 articles in backlog, growing 5000-10000 per month; each with one or more {{cn}} tags...)
What could such editors do about it? Why should a {{cn}} that was pasted into some article in 2007 deserve more or less attention than one posted in 2019?
Realistically, a {{cn}} tag will be replaced by a source ref only if some editor who has interest in that article feels bothered enough by that tag to fix it. So the best thing one can do to attack that backlog (which obviously will only keep growing, no matter what) is to attract more editors; and the best way to achieve that is to make articles easier to edit --- for example, by getting rid of all templates, like {{cite}} and {{sfrac}}, that affect only the looks of the article (often for the worse).
Grump. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to change the longstanding consensus that maintenance tags should be dated, you'd have to take it to WP:VPR or the like. Same for if you want to propose getting rid of all templates. <sarcasm>Good luck with that.</sarcasm> Anomie ⚔ 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt you actually lost any work. More likely you just had a situation where you were asked to merge your edit with the bot's, although since it was a bot you could probably have gotten away with just overwriting the bot's edit entirely and letting the bot redo it if it still applied. If whichever editor you were using really did lose your edit entirely, you should file a bug in the appropriate place. If you're routinely making series of edits and wish to try to avoid other editors (including AnomieBOT's tag dating) causing conflicts, you might try using {{In use}}. Anomie ⚔ 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did a mistake -- saved my text elsewhere, closed the tab to look at the history to see what was the conflict and how to try again. Then I found that I had saved the wrong text. But still, apart from my mistake, the edit conflict was a totally unjustified disturbance. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to believe whatever you want, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable. Continuing to assert that belief here, though, is not likely to accomplish anything useful. More useful would be using {{in use}} if your editing pattern is prone to conflicts. Anomie ⚔ 11:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot restoring malware-infected URL's

Heads up - the bot is restoring references that I removed due to the domain being hijacked / attempting to spread malware. See: [1] [2]. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop leaving orphaned references and it won't do that. Anomie ⚔ 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned refs

Thanks! --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, too. ◄ Sebastian 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garcinia indica

In rescuing an orphaned ref with this edit, an IUCN reference for a macaque was added! (The species is a fruit tree). I've updated the reference. Thanks Declangi (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix-up

I spent a few hours, gave up, and returned to find my citation fixed. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...And your bot fixed a missing sig by a new editor. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this didn't mess-up the bot. Sorry. -- 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) It worked, again. Thank you. I guess this is routine for you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error in CFD clerk

Just noticed this now, but in [3] the bot didn't remove the ==== NEW NOMINATIONS ==== at the top --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/895863033 removed the . The bot is normally ok at dealing with edits that screw up the header on the current day and on old days, but this particular screw-up occurred during the current→old transition with the result that the bot didn't find the heading+comment it was looking to remove and also didn't detect it as a screw-up because the header wasn't supposed to have that heading+comment anymore (it implicitly considered the heading as part of the page content instead). Anomie ⚔ 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: ahh, thanks for the explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfya song

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfya_Song help this page Pariwarking (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baby, I'm in Love article.

I didn't understand why you put in the talk page of the Baby, I'm in Love that it was deleted in 2012. I know it was, but that means that we have to vote again to keep the page? The article was deleted before because it doesn't have sources, now it has, and reliable sources actually.--88marcus (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All it means is that an article at that title was previously deleted. If it was deleted for no sources and now it has sources, you're probably good. Anomie ⚔ 20:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--88marcus (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITNTagger

Similar to OnThisDayTagger, can a ITNTagger also be made, check bolded links and tag, seems doable? --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems doable. Is there a consensus discussion I could point to establishing that people want a bot for this? And details as to exactly where the bot should look? Anomie ⚔ 21:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on it. And the bot should look at {{ITN}} for new additions every hour or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why change date from "date=December 2009" to "date=May 2019"

I wonder why did your bot do this[4]. Only change is: "date=December 2009" changed to "date=May 2019". Christian75 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian75, your link combines two edits. This was the bot's actual edit, which fixed the broken date in the template by replacing it with a known good date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, Sorry for wasting your time. I think I have done it before, but at least seen other people doing it. It should be more clear in the top imho. But my mistake... Christian75 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBot question and CSD G6s

Hello, Anomie,

I have a question that has, frankly, driven me crazy. And it is when I look at the Categories list for Candidates for speedy deletion (which appear in a number of places including Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and CSD category pages), and the number of pages listed doesn't always match the number of pages that the categories contain. I used to think that the category pages were not updating so I'd hit Purge and it didn't make any difference. For example, the counter for Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion is now listed at 14 but there are only 2 pages listed when you check that category.

Today, I was looking at Category:Manually maintained portal pages from March 2019 which was marked as CSD G6 but was not listed in any deletion category. But according the page, it was in the--AHA!--the Hidden categories of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Could CSD G6 categories (and other things like unneeded CSD G8 talk pages) be not marked by hidden categories? Then they are easier to see for deletion. I don't know how this is remedied, as the clean up categories are marked by a {{Monthly clean-up category}} but perhaps the template could be changed. No one but editors see these dated categories any way so I'm not sure why the categories are hidden as if readers would wander into this area. And I guess this could explain the other numerical discrepancies where admins see that there are more pages in the CSD categories but don't know how to get to them or what pages they are. Thank you.

And there are other, out-dated maintenance categories that the bot ignores like Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019 which should have been CSD G6 but was not tagged. It would be great if AnomieBot tagged all outdated categories for uncontroversial deletion. I can produce a semi-complete list for you if you'd like. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that certain categories are hidden categories has nothing to do with the counts being inaccurate. Unfortunately as more caching and background updating of things are added to improve frontend performance, that also seems to lead to more issues with cache invalidation and delayed or missed updates.

As for Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019, according to Template talk:Monthly clean-up category/core#Edit request it's intentional that empty monthly categories for the previous month aren't automatically CSDed. The automatic CSD logic for that April category would have activated in June. Anomie ⚔ 03:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSB link

A while back, I asked about adding {{csb link}} to the list of college sports links that are processed and you rightly pointed out that it wouldn't see much use at that point. Now, softball has more season pages (See Category:Excessive uses of csb link for current places it can help, and note many have already been fixed manually) and more are added each season, so it would be helpful to have it run as well. Would you add it to the list? Billcasey905 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie ⚔ 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch game list ref name

I would like to let you know why I deleted this reference tag, because there isn't any other reference tag with that name, or there is not a reference with other Japanese games that are listed under one tag. Now if there were multiple games that were announced with that game included, then we would include a reference tag just with a different name. I would just like you to know of this situation in the future. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharyalejandro, first off, this is a bot page, so it cannot respond. Second off, clearly the reference was being used in more than one place, since the bot rescued the reference name from the previous revision. If one reference can be used in multiple places, it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skirrid Inn

Why did your bot edit my stay at Skirrid inn Rcase666 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did no such thing; a human removed your unsourced WP:COI edits. See the article's history page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Meerut district - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Meerut district, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about census2011.co.in. 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:

Meerut district revision 899690640:
- Rescued "cen11a" from rev 899680452
  Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
- Rescued "cen11c" from rev 899680452
  Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
- Rescued "c11" from rev 899680452
  Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
- Rescued "cen11b" from rev 899680452
  Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)

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 ⚡ 22:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. It was a test of the recent blacklisting, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, so is this issue resolved, and can we add "- Fixed" to the header so the bot knows it's good to go? Primefac (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever is necessary here. The issue is resolved at the article. I've never seen a message like this one before, although I am aware of the bot doing its stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity with Gloria Pasqua-Casny

The article Gloria Pasqua-Casny has a notability tag that still hasn't been dated for almost 4 months. Four months already, and the bot still hasn't dated that tag yet! The bot should try to also date maintenance tags that haven't been dated for a while. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot skips articles where the latest edit is tagged "possible libel or vandalism". In this case it would probably be simplest to just date it yourself, although any other edit (that doesn't result in the same situation) should allow the bot to handle it. Anomie ⚔ 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Marina Kuwar

The "NewArticleAFDTagger" created a talk page for a currently deleted page (i.e. page moved into draftspace without a redirect) at Talk:Marina Kuwar. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked it for deletion, as it is dependent on a deleted page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the bot shouldn't have done that. Apparently I forgot to check that the page wasn't deleted again before the bot saw the creation.

Done Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shonen

Dude stop bringing back that stupid link made by Deb Aoki! It’s not a credible source anymore. Plus Deb Aoki hasn’t been correct in a while now. LMFAO SG1994! (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SG1994!: The user you are trying to mention is a robot and not a human. Please do not write your messages in a tone intended for a human.

The bot was not readding a removed reference; rather, this was part of its OrphanReferenceFixer task, which repairs broken references. Your edit here removed the contents for the reference name "about.com"; however, that reference was still being used elsewhere in the article. You can see this in the first entry of the References section of the article, where a cite error message is being displayed because the contents of the named reference no longer exist (see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text). The bot was simply readding the named reference in order to fix the error. It does not do this based on prejudice or because it is biased towards you and your edit; it was simply fixing a technical issue on the page.

Looking at your edits in the page history, you should consider starting a discussion on the talk page of the article in order to obtain a consensus rather than edit warring. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-A has too many transclusions

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. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-16T13:18:24Z. 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 ⚡ 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-B has too many transclusions

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. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-17T01:47:41Z. 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 ⚡ 02:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in 1999 Teen Choice Awards

When trying to fix orphaned refs in 1999 Teen Choice Awards, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about awardsandwinners.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:

1999 Teen Choice Awards revision 902176621:
- Rescued "AnW" from rev 902123633
  Removed in revision 902123759 by 23.30.252.114 (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* References */" (removed 578/5619 bytes, 10%)

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 ⚡ 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ~ Maintenance tags ~

Thanks Bot, for waiting until after I took of the {GOCEinuse} tag on Dana White before doing your maintenance ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False positives for AnomieBOT III

There are a few false positives that keep appearing on the user space broken redirects list that are not broken. They are:

User:Meisam.fa
User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki which links to another wiki
User:JackLantern
User:Mvvnlightbabe

These are all actual redirects and it would be nice if they were kept off the broken redirect list. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are broken, for at least some definition of "broken", as illustrated by the fact that clicking those links takes you to the redirect page instead of the nominal target.

User:Meisam.fa, User:JackLantern, and User:Mvvnlightbabe each redirect to a target page that doesn't exist. The GlobalUserPage extension apparently doesn't make it "exist" enough for the redirect to function.
User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki, as you note, is an attempt at a cross-wiki redirect. Cross-wiki redirects don't work. In non-userspace the bot would convert it to use {{soft redirect}}.

HTH. Anomie ⚔ 12:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that I follow. User:Meisam.fa redirects to User:Meisam, User:JackLantern and User:Mvvnlightbabe both redirect to User:Mvvnlightbae. None of those target pages were deleted which is usually the problem with broken redirects. The redirects on the original pages seem to be formed properly (#REDIRECT [[Target page]]). I understand about the cross-wiki redirect and why the bot might not register that as valid.

But, you know, I don't need to know exactly why the bot has identified these as broken redirects, I'll just to continue to ignore them when I see them on the broken redirect user pages list. They also appear on the Special:BrokenRedirects (except for User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki for some reason). I just thought there might be some quick solution. Thank you for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meisam and User:Mvvnlightbae don't exist here on the English Wikipedia. The content you see on those pages is taken from meta:User:Meisam and meta:User:Mvvnlightbae, courtesy of Extension:GlobalUserPage (see also WP:Global user page). That extension also makes the links blue, but doesn't manage to make the pages "exist" for redirects to be considered not broken. Anomie ⚔ 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D-400

Hi, Anomiebot is busy in fixing the road codes. Thanks.However with D.400 something goes wrong (as seen here). Can you please check it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by "fixing road codes" you're referring to substing of {{TUR-D}}? What is wrong there, that wasn't wrong with the original {{TUR-D}}? Anomie ⚔ 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedim Ardoğa: substituting {{TUR-D}} unified a couple of styles that were in use. D-100 and

, which are common on articles that have been imported from other-language projects have been replaced with

D.100.{{Jct}} simply displays the image graphic and plain text and is used on thousands of articles. –Fredddie ™ 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by AnomieBOT

AnomieBot made these edits to the Comparison of instant messaging clients article. I can't quite figure out what it was trying to do, but the result was creating about eight duplicate reference definitions for the notes in that table. I've rolled back the edit. If we can understand what it was trying to do, maybe we can find a fix that isn't so disruptive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist wrapper templates confused the bot, fixed now. I'd appreciate it if you avoid hyperbole like "disruptive". Anomie ⚔ 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! The edits have no visible effect on the article, other than to add errors and obscure previously working references. After my reversion, by the way, the bot left an explanation of its actions on my talk page which appears to be incorrect. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhoh! Looks like the bot just re-did the erroneous edit, and the errors it created in the notes section of the article have reappeared. Why does the bot repeatedly make the same mistake, and how can it be stopped? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should check your timing. The "re-did" happened at 16:34 UTC, while the fix was at 17:15 and your comment here was at 17:36. Anomie ⚔ 13:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9ff

Dear user @Anomie:, Thanks for your bot, it is really helpful! However, I have to tell you about it's edits on the 9ff article, an article I have just expanded. About the tags it placed: 1)( [self-published source?]) : I agree this is the former website of the company archived, but I used it just as information, the content on the article is modified by me When other sources were avelaible, I used them also, they were also claming the same things. 2) ([dubious – discuss]) : To the specific facts that these two were the fastest cars of their time there is no doubt: It is not comfirmed only by the company's former website (if it was only by this it would be bias), but from major automotive websites all around the world (not only these I have cited.) Please leave me a message with guidance what to do. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Enivak: The bot did not add these tags; it only added "July 2019" to them all. If you check the article history, you'll see that the tags were placed by Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs). I suggest you discuss them at Talk:9ff. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is like this, sorry then. Enivak (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:9ff#Self-serving and extraordinary claims citing company website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an error and stupidly reverted without reading your message :(

In my defence I'm new and have a HUGE cold... Anyway, linky here, hopefully it won't re-revert, but if it does I'll come back.

Or I'll be sat in a corner hallucinating off cold meds, one or the other...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marasmus&type=revision&diff=904803057&oldid=904676246