User talk:AnomieBOT

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)

Could, yes. But the consensus there seems to be mostly against the idea. Anomie⚔ 22:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

I'm not going to do it at this time. Anomie⚔ 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. I may =) fredgandt 18:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Cleanup template lacks reason parameter

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

@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)

@Solde9: It was Skim0001 (talk · contribs) with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

Based on this it appears to working correctly now. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

Same "issue" mentioned here. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the same issue. Replied there. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

In my mind, the normal English meaning of "2016-04-12" is "the time interval [2016-04-12T00:00:00, 2016-04-13T00:00:00)". Furthermore, with every time interval are associated three disjoint sets of instants in time: "before", "during" and "after". That the template used to use a different interpretation I consider a bug. That a given bug is how it has historically been doesn't constitute a reason not to fix it. If we took that view, no bugs would ever get fixed. — Smjg (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you also have to consider existing use before breaking backwards compatibility and whether fixing the bug would actually be more disruptive than just leaving it in place. You also have to consider whether people other than you even consider it a bug in the first place, i.e. whether your definition is too idiosyncratic to support declaring bugs on the basis of it. Anomie⚔ 13:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that my definition of "after" is the standard English one and not an idiosyncratic one. So what's the issue? Furthermore, {{update after}} (or its redirect, {{dated info}}) with no parameters means that the tagged information is already out of date or believed to be, not that it will become out of date at the next stroke of midnight. As such, it means it is to be updated on or after today, i.e. after yesterday. Why are you worrying about it, anyway? There's no backwards compatibility to break, as earlier uses of the template have already been date stamped. It will have no effect on these instances, as the dates on them have already passed.

Here's what happens at the moment. When {{dated info}} is added to a page, it correctly renders "" on the page. When the bot comes round and adds today's date, this tag vanishes from the page. This is the bug. Changing it to add yesterday's date is the straightforward fix. Moreover, this distinction would be of no consequence at all under the old way that the template was programmed, reinforcing my point that there's nothing to break. — Smjg (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

• (talk page stalker) @Georgeccampbell: The bot didn't delete the picture. The bot closed the deletion discussion since the image was deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Georgeccampbell: Assuming that you mean File:Ohio State Fair Picture 2.JPG, it was not deleted by AnomieBOT (which does not have the ability to delete), but by Explicit (talk · contribs) at 02:30, 9 January 2016, following discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 5#File:Ohio State Fair Picture 2.JPG, which I see you have already found: but as noted above your post, the discussion on that page is closed. If you want to appeal that decision, the initial place to do so is at User talk:Explicit; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrectly changing an asterisk into a bullet point

Hi there, I noticed that this edit turned an asterisk indicating a reconstructed reading into a bullet point, which is obviously wrong. Does the bot need tweaking for these cases? BabelStone (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the revision before the bot's edit, the rendered output is actually the same. Looks like that's phab:T14974 striking again. Anomie⚔ 13:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault for not looking more carefully! BabelStone (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Anomie

Re South Carolina in the American Civil War, thanks for rescuing the orphaned refs. I must remember about these when transferring text. (Oops! I've just noticed that you're not a person, but a BOT. But thanks anyway.) Valetude (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit to sandbox

Hi Anomiebot. This edit was made in an editor's sandbox. If sandboxes are there for editors to try ideas out, is it appropriate for bots to change things? In favour, editors need a heads-up that their idea is "wrong". Against that, a sandbox is a place to find out what everything does. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Northernhenge: AnomieBOT was carrying out the result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 3#About3 & About4. {{Two other uses}} was formerly a redirect to {{About3}}, a now deleted template. Please see the aforementioned discussion for more details. Also, if you do not want bots editing your pages in your user space, please place {{Nobots}} on the page where you do not want bots to edit. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll add nobots. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for an addition to how AnomieBOT creates WP:FFD subpages

@Anomie: I'm planning on making some changes to {{Ffd2}} that essentially requires that I ask you this following request before I can carry on with these changes. When the bot creates the daily subpage at WP:FFD, in the page, it creates a section header titled ===MONTH DAY===. Would it be able to start creating that header as ===[[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|MONTH DAY]]=== instead?

Here's the the technical reasons "Why": Besides the facts that this will make it easier for editors to locate the subpages if they need to go to them directly as well as the link to the page being I clickable when actually on the subpage since that's how the software running this site seems to work, I'm planning on making {{Ffd2}} a bit smarter with recognizing what page it is on in regards to clicking its links. But, to do that, I have to make sure that some uses of {{{FULLPAGENAME}}} in the template do not get substituted when the template itself is substituted so that the template can always detect what page it is on in the event of a relist, as well as disabling those links when the subpage is transcluded on the main FFD page so that the {{{FULLPAGENAME}}} checks work correctly (I did this on {{Rfd2}} as well.)

So, can this be done? Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

1. When you're actually on the subpage, a link to the subpage won't be clickable (it'll be rendered in bold, like this "link" to this talk page). If people on FFD want the headers to link to the subpages, that's probably something to bring up at WT:FFD.
2. I have no idea what you're planning with {{Ffd2}}, but I can't see any way that the template could make use of a link in the section header. Are you planning some gadget or something?

Anomie⚔ 13:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Anomie: To respond:

Here are the details, but I changed my mind while writing this. See below.

Yes, that is intentional. The link would be clickable on Wikipedia:Files for discussion to direct readers to the subpage, but not clickable when viewing the subpage directly itself. See the next item for more details, and why I did not even see consensus at WT:FFD being necessary due to the technical reasoning behind these changes. What I'm planning to do with {{Ffd2}} is something that will force the "delete" link to be unclickable when viewing the template on Wikipedia:Files for discussion, but not when viewing it on the individual subpages themselves. When {{Ffd2}} is substituted, it currently also substitutes all instances of {{FULLPAGENAME}} inside of itself. These {{FULLPAGENAME}} instances are used to auto-generate text used in the deletion notice added when the nomimated page is deleted. This is problematic when a discussion is relisted since it then displays the incorrect date in the deletion notice: Rather than displaying the current nomination date in the notice, if {{FULLPAGENAME}} is substitute, it displays the original nomination date rather than the current one. If {{FULLPAGENAME}} is not substituted, when that "delete" link is clicked, it will display the most recent date instead of the original one. And that's why the link would then have to be disabled on Wikipedia:Files for discussion but not the subpages since if that link was clicked directly from Wikipedia:Files for discussion, the value/text generated by {{FULLPAGENAME}} would be wrong since it would pull the value of the page which it is displayed on, not the page where {{FULLPAGENAME}} actually is.

I actually changed my mind while writing this since the current procedure at WP:FFD isn't to blank a discussion wholesale when it is relisted, so the links don't completely break in group nominations. That happened over at WP:RFD during relists, but doesn't happen at WP:FFD. So, I'm no longer motivated to get this fix implemented for the time being, Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Changing {{Unicode}} into {{{1}}}

AnomieBot has been changing {{Unicode}} into {{{1}}}. Example. Checkwiki reports any {{{1}}}, so that's how I'm noticing them. I don't mind deleting the {{{1}}}. Just reporting in case something is off with the bot. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Since that's what {{Unicode}} without any parameter actually outputs, that is the correct substing of the template. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The removal of unicode has lead to some issues and questions at WT:FOOTBALL. It looks like it has been used to create empty spaces in some templates and now those spaces has been removed, causing issues. One being in {{fb gd}} which caused a sace between a +-sign and | result in |+ and that lead to standings tables breaking as goal differential suddenly was seen as headers in wikitables. Qed237 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is users problem, if people are not using template in correct way :) Of course, such cases could be handled in different way. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes in Template:Ffd2/sandbox

Hello again Anomie. Just wondering, in {{Ffd2/sandbox}}, I have created a draft where I have added a header (to customize the header name) and a multi parameter (to hide the section header, even if header is used) into the section header. Before consensus is made to possibly implement this change, I was just wondering if you knew if these changes would break AnomieBOT's ability to close discussions for deleted files listed by themselves if a custom header is not specified and if these changes would disrupt AnomieBOT's ability to determine if the discussion is opened or closed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To properly handle FFD, AnomieBOT requires level-4 ("====") section headers that consist of a link to a File. The link may be piped. If the section header is not a link to a File, then the bot will not be able to automatically close the section if the file is deleted or on Commons or the like. It will still be able to detect that a human has manually closed the section.

In comparison, for TFD AnomieBOT doesn't care what the section header is, because it can instead look into the body of the listing for {{tfd links}} to find the possibly-multiple templates being discussed. Anomie⚔ 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Water privatization in Morocco - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Water privatization in Morocco, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about cairn.info. 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:

• Water privatization in Morocco revision 716050605:
  • Rescued "Miras" from rev 692525092
    Removed in revision 716050605 by Haakonsson (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "fix ref errors" (removed 11/11957 bytes, 0%)

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⚡ 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Something in this messages is confused. I was editing to resolve a reference error. The one link was to the journal w/ full text the other was to a abstract linking to the journal. I wasn't trying to fuss w/ a blacklisted link at all. and I removed it not added it. Haakonsson (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Haakonsson: I have fixed the article by removing a stray slash character. With the extra slash in place, the references were in a strange state, and I'm not surprised that an automated fix misfired. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, was skimming over the tag. Silly human, its all important. Haakonsson (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra date

See this edit - |date=April 2016 was already present, the bot added another. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And did it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

and added three on Sydney underground railways for the same date, edit was warranted but added an extra |date rather than fixing the one already present Dave Rave (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It's added eight so far here. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Not normally one for pile on comments, but I think Political game theory has the record so far with ten date additions [1] SpinningSpark 14:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra dates added to Afd-merge

In fixing Afd-merge dates I'm seeing you add an additional 'month year' date daily following a 'day month year' date. For example:see this Thanks.Gab4gab (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)h

Switching dmy to mdy date formats for the closure date doesn't seem to stop the bot from adding more dates - see this history for example (up to 14 total date additions now!). Antepenultimate (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Same here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Young&action=history Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

See the previous thread. This may be a side-effect of a recent change to {{Afd-merge to}} by Aircorn (talk · contribs). -- John of Reading (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I was trying to find an easy way to make the Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion be sorted by date instead of alphabetically. I have reverted my change. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Date issue on Euroleague 2009–10 season attendance figures

It seems you have a bug. take a look at the recent edit history of Euroleague 2009–10 season attendance figures. it left it with this

{{Afd-merge to|2009–10 Euroleague|Euroleague 2009–10 season attendance figures|11 October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015|date=October 2015}}

My assumption is that the problem was caused by the error in the template (|11 October 2015) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be a side-effect of a recent change to {{Afd-merge to}} by Aircorn (talk · contribs). -- John of Reading (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolution

The bot was looking at the pages when it otherwise wouldn't have thanks to this edit making the pages be in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template (because categories such as Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion from December 2015 don't exist). That exposed an existing bug in the bot's processing where it would see the non-"Month Year" format date in parameter 3 of {{Afd-merge to|...|...|Day Month Year}} and add the corresponding |date=Month Year regardless of whether a |date= parameter already existed. This should be fixed now, it should only add |date= based on |3= if a date parameter does not already exist in the template invocation. Anomie⚔ 11:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

PERTableUpdater not respecting nowiki tags?

Resolved

Does the task PERTableUpdater respect nowiki tags when listing requested edits? I ask because this edit caused the bot to add that page to the table, despite the tags. Since the talk page discussion was later archived, I have edited the archive to replace the nowiki tags with a {{tl}}. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crh23: (talk page stalker) I believe the bot doesn't look for the {{Request edit}} template, but only looks to see if the page is in Category:Requested edits. After that edit, the page was in the category because it contained the text "then the page gets added to [[Category:Requested edits]]"; there should have been an extra colon before the "Category" keyword. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahhh, I thought it was a bit odd to look for the template, I need to get better at actually thinking about things! I've re-edited the archive to remove it from the cat. Cheers! —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Cite PMID templates?

You have done an amazing job of deleting orphaned Cite doi templates. It looks like there are a few thousand orphaned {{Cite pmid}} templates left, like {{Cite pmid/11979978}}. If you could make a pass through those, that would help us find the few remaining unorphaned, untranscluded templates to substitute. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see someone relisted Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 16#Orphaned Template:Cite pmid and related subpages due to confusion over whether {{Cite pmid}} itself should be deleted or only the subpages, which is unfortunate. Anomie⚔ 11:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, we can wait for that closure. In the meantime, Dexbot has passed through the 90+ remaining Cite doi templates and was able to subst all of the remaining templates with transclusions in article and template space. At least 90% of those templates have no remaining transclusions and can be deleted now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT III has been checking hourly for new {{Cite doi}} subpages to be orphaned. Now, though, since the TfD has been closed I've stopped the processing of {{Cite doi}} so it can start on {{Cite pmid}} subtemplates. Anomie⚔ 15:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Looks like {{Cite pmid}} are entirely done except for the redirect at Template:Cite pmid/22005019 that's still in use by someone's sandbox. I've switched the bot back to {{Cite doi}} since there are still a few of them left, someone should delete Template:Cite pmid/22005019 manually when it gets orphaned. Anomie⚔ 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I went through and substed a few more. I think we might be done with one more bot pass. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hello, Anomie. I edit a lot of pages, trying to improve references. One of the things I do is mark dead links. After saving that edit, I go on to make more changes, adding titles or finding replacement refs or archived versions of the dead links. Your excellent bot follows up, adding dates the the 404 templates. Sometimes, though, it's so efficient that it causes an edit conflict when I try to save my next edit. Would it be possible (and if so, would it be desirable) to have the bot check to see how recently the tag was added and come back later if it's less than an hour (for example)? Just a thought; it's not a serious problem.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Paper Planes

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Paper Planes, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about archive.is. 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:

• Paper Planes revision 716958167:
  • Rescued "chartstats1" from rev 715039453
    Removed in revision 716957804 by Puertagustavo99 (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Chart performance */ Removed unnecesary link that triggered a blacklist banner" (removed 233/89174 bytes, 0%)

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⚡ 01:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Pinging Puertagustavo99 to notify of the problem that was caused. Please preview your edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 8 is broken

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 8 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{puf 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⚡ 00:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: This error is due to Special:Diff/717130481/717140578. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

When adding a |date= parameter to {{cn}}, perhaps at the same time replace "cn" by "Citation needed". I came here after seeing this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, why not? It makes sense. Actually, I think the bot once used to do precisely this, no? Debresser (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(i) WP:NOTBROKEN; (ii) that's one of the things that got Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs) banned for life. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to argue that a name like "cn" is so unclear, that that in itself is a kind of broken. Many edits replace redirects by their targets, and there is definitely a good rationale for that. But the main answer to both points is that there is a difference between making an edit only to avoid a redirect, or doing that alongside another edit, like in this case the addition of the |date= parameter. Helpful Pixie Bot was banned for the first, not the second. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

PUICloser: Template:Puf top is broken - Fixed

Help! The template {{puf top}} is missing the "is_closed" regex, or this regex is not at the beginning of the template's output. 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⚡ 17:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

PUICloser: Template:Puf top is broken - Fixed

Help! The template {{puf top}} is missing the "is_closed" regex, or this regex is not at the beginning of the template's output. 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⚡ 18:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is caused by Steel1943 reverting my own fix to the template. AnomieBOT should stop adding this notice once the template gets deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Since it looks like WP:PUF is completely closed now, I'm going to turn off the task. Anomie⚔ 03:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Anomie! Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Royal Goat

	GOOD JOB
	Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place Hmemberguy (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Doing conversions in addition to adding dates

I wonder if AnomieBot could do this. Even better fix things like this, this or this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably could, if I would put it through a BRFA, but it's nice to keep things simple. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Malicious reference names

Anomie; While it may be beyond the scope of your bot to address, I thought you should be aware of this edit.[2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page edits not marked as bot edits

Why is the adding of the Old AfD multi template on talk pages of articles or redirects having former AfDs such as Talk:Shawn King (singer) not marked as a bot edit in Special:RecentChanges? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page edits are usually intended to be seen by normal editors, and so often don't use the bot flag. This might be a special case though: on one hand it's adding a header template and that often is bot-flagged, while on the other it's pointing out that the article was previously deleted at AfD which needs human examination to see if WP:CSD#G4 applies. Anomie⚔ 12:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Template substitution

Has the bot stopped substituting templates? It looks as if the bot hasn't substituted templates for about two days. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It also hasn't been archiving the old AfDs from the deletion sorting pages since May 11. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

...and just woke up again to do this. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The bot runner task responsible for those jobs had run out of memory and exited. Unfortunately that happened just before a weekend when I wasn't watching it as closely (and when I wasn't watching my watchlist); I restarted it as soon as I noticed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Velázquez - Bufón don Sebastián de Morra (Museo del Prado, c. 1645).jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:Velázquez - Bufón don Sebastián de Morra (Museo del Prado, c. 1645).jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:Velázquez - Bufón don Sebastián de Morra (Museo del Prado, c. 1645).jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll update the bot not to create redirects that shadow Commons. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing reference name

Hi Anomie,

this edit [[3]] caused a broken reference error as there were lots of calls for that reference name. Can this type of case, i.e. a missing quotation mark on a reference that also has a group name be corrected to avoid this problem in the future? BrandonJackTar (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does correct some references of that type, but not (yet) when the name contains a dash. I think they changed the parsing rules recently, I should look up what the new rules are and match them again. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Category redirects

Per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Does G8 apply to category redirects?, AnomieBOT III should also delete category redirects to redlink categories. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It already does so for actual redirects. But in the category namespace we mostly use soft redirects, which will need different code. I see Category:Wikipedia category-redirect box parameter needs fixing exists that the bot can use to find them easily enough, but I also see the category is currently empty which makes me wonder if there's actually a need for a bot to do it. Anomie⚔ 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Date tagging in eo.wikipedia

Hi, would it be possible to implement this feature in eo.wiki? What would it take? NMaia (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't do it, since I don't speak Esperanto. If someone wants to take the code and run it themself, I have no objection but I can't commit to providing a lot of support for the effort. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

EnDashRedirectCreator in userspace

I don't think this should be running in userspace, considering that the pages aren't even meant for wide use.  czar 21:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The bot stopped processing userspace on April 28, unless there's a bug of some sort. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

DRVClerk: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 7 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 7 seems to contain a level-4 header. 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). 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⚡ 17:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see the issue with that page, but I have removed the headings for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this edit removed the |- from the substitution of {{DRV bottom}}, leading to the "so I'm not finding the end of the discussion and running it together with the next one" situation. The bot can't detect that directly (it just thinks the section isn't closed), but once a following section does get closed it runs them together into one big close-box, sees a "====Something====" in the middle of it, and posts this error message. Anomie⚔ 01:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

1974-75 in German football listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1974-75 in German football. Since you had some involvement with the 1974-75 in German football redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

1996-97 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1996-97 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings. Since you had some involvement with the 1996-97 Mid-American Conference men's basketball standings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2010-11 in Egyptian football listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2010-11 in Egyptian football. Since you had some involvement with the 2010-11 in Egyptian football redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group B table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group B table. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group B table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group A table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group A table. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Manila Group A table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group A table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group A table. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group A table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group B table listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group B table. Since you had some involvement with the 2016 FIBA World Olympic Qualifying Tournament - OQT Turin Group B table redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

April 27-30, 2014 tornado outbreak/Map listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect April 27-30, 2014 tornado outbreak/Map. Since you had some involvement with the April 27-30, 2014 tornado outbreak/Map redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)